2016
DOI: 10.1214/16-aoas956
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multiple testing under dependence via graphical models

Abstract: It has been shown that graphical models can be used to leverage the dependence in large-scale multiple testing problems with significantly improved performance (Sun & Cai, 2009; Liu et al., 2012). These graphical models are fully parametric and require that we know the parameterization of f1 — the density function of the test statistic under the alternative hypothesis. However in practice, f1 is often heterogeneous, and cannot be estimated with a simple parametric distribution. We propose a novel semiparametri… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
19
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
(62 reference statements)
1
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the typical MLE procedures require that we first specify the log likelihood function, and then find the MLE of the parameters, it does not mean that we cannot find the MLE for MRFs. Indeed, a few recent algorithms [7,37,9,31,32, 1] make use of the concavity of the MRF's log likelihood function and find the MLE via gradient ascent with both satisfactory empirical performance [12,11,10,13,14,15] and convergence properties [35,36,3,27,30]. With the availability of MLE of the parameters, we further demonstrate that we are able to recover the intractable likelihood function to some precision from the MLE of the parameters.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although the typical MLE procedures require that we first specify the log likelihood function, and then find the MLE of the parameters, it does not mean that we cannot find the MLE for MRFs. Indeed, a few recent algorithms [7,37,9,31,32, 1] make use of the concavity of the MRF's log likelihood function and find the MLE via gradient ascent with both satisfactory empirical performance [12,11,10,13,14,15] and convergence properties [35,36,3,27,30]. With the availability of MLE of the parameters, we further demonstrate that we are able to recover the intractable likelihood function to some precision from the MLE of the parameters.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the standard single-variable exchange algorithm, s samples need to be generated from P (X; θ * ) in each MH step when we propose θ * , and the MH ratio is calculated as (14). The motivation of the persistent Markov chains algorithm [5] is that although the proposed θ * is different from θ, θ * is usually not far away from θ because MH algorithms usually require proposing small changes so as to maintain a high acceptance rate.…”
Section: Exchange Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To tackle statistical dependence in multiple testing, some studies have taken a probabilistic approach by modeling the data as stochastic processes with nontrivial dependence structure. They use specific models such as hidden Markov models [55,56], Markov random fields [35,38], or Gaussian random fields [9,48]. The main strength of these models is their tractability.…”
Section: Hypothesis Accept Reject Totalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While FDR control under dependence is known to be a challenging issue, as the most classical results use independence or positive dependence of the test statistics Benjamini and Hochberg (1995); Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001), these models circumvent this difficulty by assuming that the test statistics are independent conditionally on the structure. Former studies include group structure Sun and Cai (2009) and Markov structures Cai and Sun (2009); Liu et al (2016). These methods have the strong advantage to both control the FDR under dependencies while allowing more detections than procedures ignoring the structure, as the BH procedure do.…”
Section: False Discovery Ratementioning
confidence: 99%