Paper detail

On methods for correcting for the look-elsewhere effect in searches for new physics

The search for new significant peaks over a energy spectrum often involves a statistical multiple hypothesis testing problem. Separate tests of hypothesis are conducted at different locations producing an ensemble of local p-values, the smallest of which is reported as evidence for the new resonance. Unfortunately, controlling the false detection rate (type I error rate) of such procedures may lead to excessively stringent acceptance criteria. In the recent physics literature, two promising statistical tools have been proposed to overcome these limitations. In 2005, a method to "find needles in haystacks" was introduced by Pilla et al. [1], and a second method was later proposed by Gross and Vitells [2] in the context of the "look elsewhere effect" and trial factors. We show that, for relatively small sample sizes, the former leads to an artificial inflation of statistical power that stems from an increase in the false detection rate, whereas the two methods exhibit similar performance for large sample sizes. We apply the methods to realistic simulations of the Fermi Large Area Telescope data, in particular the search for dark matter annihilation lines. Further, we discuss the counter-intutive scenario where the look-elsewhere corrections are more conservative than much more computationally efficient corrections for multiple hypothesis testing. Finally, we provide general guidelines for navigating the tradeoffs between statistical and computational efficiency when selecting a statistical procedure for signal detection.

preprint2016arXivOpen 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.