On weighted Hochberg procedures
加权 Hochberg 多重检验程序AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要属于通用多重检验理论,没有所列经济计量细分方向的明确应用或模型依据。
反馈分类问题加权 Hochberg 多重检验程序AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
We consider different ways of constructing weighted Hochberg-type step-up multiple test procedures including closed procedures based on weighted Simes tests and their conservative step-up short-cuts, and step-up counterparts of two weighted Holm procedures. It is shown that the step-up counterparts have some serious pitfalls such as lack of familywise error rate control and lack of monotonicity in rejection decisions in terms of p-values. Therefore an exact closed procedure appears to be the best alternative, its only drawback being lack of simple stepwise structure. A conservative step-up short-cut to the closed procedure may be used instead, but with accompanying loss of power. Simulations are used to study the familywise error rate and power properties of the competing procedures for independent and correlated p-values. Although many of the results of this paper are negative, they are useful in highlighting the need for caution when procedures with similar pitfalls may be used.