Search for: All records

The problem of combiningP-values is an old and fundamental one, and the classic assumption of independence is often violated or unverifiable in many applications. There are many well-known rules that can combine a set of arbitrarily dependentP-values (for the same hypothesis) into a singleP-value. We show that essentially all these existing rules can be strictly improved when theP-values are exchangeable, or when external randomization is allowed (or both). For example, we derive randomized and/or exchangeable improvements of well-known rules like “twice the median” and “twice the average,” as well as geometric and harmonic means. ExchangeableP-values are often produced one at a time (for example, under repeated tests involving data splitting), and our rules can combine them sequentially as they are produced, stopping when the combinedP-values stabilize. Our work also improves rules for combining arbitrarily dependentP-values, since the latter becomes exchangeable if they are presented to the analyst in a random order. The main technical advance is to show that all existing combination rules can be obtained by calibrating theP-values to e-values (using an $\alpha$-dependent calibrator), averaging those e-values, converting to a level- $\alpha$test using Markov’s inequality, and finally obtainingP-values by combining this family of tests; the improvements are delivered via recent randomized and exchangeable variants of Markov’s inequality. 

Abstract E-values have gained attention as potential alternatives to p-values as measures of uncertainty, significance and evidence. In brief, e-values are realized by random variables with expectation at most one under the null; examples include betting scores, (point null) Bayes factors, likelihood ratios and stopped supermartingales. We design a natural analogue of the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) procedure for false discovery rate (FDR) control that utilizes e-values, called the e-BH procedure, and compare it with the standard procedure for p-values. One of our central results is that, unlike the usual BH procedure, the e-BH procedure controls the FDR at the desired level—with no correction—for any dependence structure between the e-values. We illustrate that the new procedure is convenient in various settings of complicated dependence, structured and post-selection hypotheses, and multi-armed bandit problems. Moreover, the BH procedure is a special case of the e-BH procedure through calibration between p-values and e-values. Overall, the e-BH procedure is a novel, powerful and general tool for multiple testing under dependence, that is complementary to the BH procedure, each being an appropriate choice in different applications. 

In bandit multiple hypothesis testing, each arm corresponds to a different null hypothesis that we wish to test, and the goal is to design adaptive algorithms that correctly identify large set of interesting arms (true discoveries), while only mistakenly identifying a few uninteresting ones (false discoveries). One common metric in non-bandit multiple testing is the false discovery rate (FDR). We propose a unified, modular framework for bandit FDR control that emphasizes the decoupling of exploration and summarization of evidence. We utilize the powerful martingale-based concept of “e-processes” to ensure FDR control for arbitrary composite nulls, exploration rules and stopping times in generic problem settings. In particular, valid FDR control holds even if the reward distributions of the arms could be dependent, multiple arms may be queried simultaneously, and multiple (cooperating or competing) agents may be querying arms, covering combinatorial semi-bandit type settings as well. Prior work has considered in great detail the setting where each arm’s reward distribution is independent and sub-Gaussian, and a single arm is queried at each step. Our framework recovers matching sample complexity guarantees in this special case, and performs comparably or better in practice. For other settings, sample complexities will depend on the finer details of the problem (composite nulls being tested, exploration algorithm, data dependence structure, stopping rule) and we do not explore these; our contribution is to show that the FDR guarantee is clean and entirely agnostic to these details.