Estimating the proportion of true null hypotheses using the pattern of observed<i>p</i>-values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating the proportion of true null hypotheses, π0, has attracted much attention in the recent statistical literature. Besides its apparent relevance for a set of specific scientific hypotheses, an accurate estimate of this parameter is key for many multiple testing procedures. Most existing methods for estimating π0 in the literature are motivated from the independence assumption of test statistics, which is often not true in reality. Simulations indicate that most existing estimators in the presence of the dependence among test statistics can be poor, mainly due to the increase of variation in these estimators. In this paper, we propose several data-driven methods for estimating π0 by incorporating the distribution pattern of the observed p-values as a practical approach to address potential dependence among test statistics. Specifically, we use a linear fit to give a data-driven estimate for the proportion of true-null p-values in (λ, 1] over the whole range [0, 1] instead of using the expected proportion at 1−λ. We find that the proposed estimators may substantially decrease the variance of the estimated true null proportion and thus improve the overall performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.084 | 0.370 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".