Paper detail

Equitability, interval estimation, and statistical power

For analysis of a high-dimensional dataset, a common approach is to test a null hypothesis of statistical independence on all variable pairs using a non-parametric measure of dependence. However, because this approach attempts to identify any non-trivial relationship no matter how weak, it often identifies too many relationships to be useful. What is needed is a way of identifying a smaller set of relationships that merit detailed further analysis. Here we formally present and characterize equitability, a property of measures of dependence that aims to overcome this challenge. Notionally, an equitable statistic is a statistic that, given some measure of noise, assigns similar scores to equally noisy relationships of different types [Reshef et al. 2011]. We begin by formalizing this idea via a new object called the interpretable interval, which functions as an interval estimate of the amount of noise in a relationship of unknown type. We define an equitable statistic as one with small interpretable intervals. We then draw on the equivalence of interval estimation and hypothesis testing to show that under moderate assumptions an equitable statistic is one that yields well powered tests for distinguishing not only between trivial and non-trivial relationships of all kinds but also between non-trivial relationships of different strengths. This means that equitability allows us to specify a threshold relationship strength $x_0$ and to search for relationships of all kinds with strength greater than $x_0$. Thus, equitability can be thought of as a strengthening of power against independence that enables fruitful analysis of data sets with a small number of strong, interesting relationships and a large number of weaker ones. We conclude with a demonstration of how our two equivalent characterizations of equitability can be used to evaluate the equitability of a statistic in practice.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors5 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.