Paper detail

On Online Control of False Discovery Rate

Multiple hypotheses testing is a core problem in statistical inference and arises in almost every scientific field. Given a sequence of null hypotheses $\mathcal{H}(n) = (H_1,..., H_n)$, Benjamini and Hochberg \cite{benjamini1995controlling} introduced the false discovery rate (FDR) criterion, which is the expected proportion of false positives among rejected null hypotheses, and proposed a testing procedure that controls FDR below a pre-assigned significance level. They also proposed a different criterion, called mFDR, which does not control a property of the realized set of tests; rather it controls the ratio of expected number of false discoveries to the expected number of discoveries. In this paper, we propose two procedures for multiple hypotheses testing that we will call "LOND" and "LORD". These procedures control FDR and mFDR in an \emph{online manner}. Concretely, we consider an ordered --possibly infinite-- sequence of null hypotheses $\mathcal{H} = (H_1,H_2,H_3,...)$ where, at each step $i$, the statistician must decide whether to reject hypothesis $H_i$ having access only to the previous decisions. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first that controls FDR in this setting. This model was introduced by Foster and Stine \cite{alpha-investing} whose alpha-investing rule only controls mFDR in online manner. In order to compare different procedures, we develop lower bounds on the total discovery rate under the mixture model and prove that both LOND and LORD have nearly linear number of discoveries. We further propose adjustment to LOND to address arbitrary correlation among the $p$-values. Finally, we evaluate the performance of our procedures on both synthetic and real data comparing them with alpha-investing rule, Benjamin-Hochberg method and a Bonferroni procedure.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.