MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408442450 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2410849122

Combining exchangeable <i>P</i> -values

2025· article· en· W4408442450 on OpenAlexafffund
Matteo Gasparin, Ruodu Wang, Aaditya Ramdas

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsAlfred P. Sloan FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsIndependence (probability theory)AlgorithmSet (abstract data type)Value (mathematics)Conditional independenceComputer scienceStatisticsDiscrete mathematicsApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of combining P -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 dependent P -values (for the same hypothesis) into a single P -value. We show that essentially all these existing rules can be strictly improved when the P -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. Exchangeable P -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 combined P -values stabilize. Our work also improves rules for combining arbitrarily dependent P -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 the P -values to e-values (using an <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mi>α</mml:mi> </mml:math> -dependent calibrator), averaging those e-values, converting to a level- <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mi>α</mml:mi> </mml:math> test using Markov’s inequality, and finally obtaining P -values by combining this family of tests; the improvements are delivered via recent randomized and exchangeable variants of Markov’s inequality.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.493
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.057 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207