We consider the problem of asynchronous online testing, aimed at providing control of the false discovery rate (FDR) during a continual stream of data collection and testing, where each test may be a sequential test that can start and stop at arbitrary times. This setting increasingly characterizes real-world applications in science and industry, where teams of researchers across large organizations may conduct tests of hypotheses in a decentralized manner. The overlap in time and space also tends to induce dependencies among test statistics, a challenge for classical methodology, which either assumes (overly optimistically) independence or (overly pessimistically) arbitrary dependence between test statistics. We present a general framework that addresses both of these issues via a unified computational abstraction that we refer to as "conflict sets." We show how this framework yields algorithms with formal FDR guarantees under a more intermediate, local notion of dependence. We illustrate these algorithms in simulation experiments, comparing to existing algorithms for online FDR control.
@cite_8: Summary There is increasing concern that most current published research fi ndings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientifi c fi eld. In this framework, a research fi nding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a fi eld are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater fl exibility in designs, defi nitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater fi nancial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientifi c fi eld in chase of statistical signifi cance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientifi c fi elds, claimed research fi ndings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research. It can be proven that most claimed research fi ndings are false.
There is a large and growing literature on false discoveries in multiple testing, aimed at solving a range of problems, often addressing issues of scientific reproducibility in research @cite_8 . Here we focus on work whose methods or objectives have the most overlap with ours. In particular, we focus on literature on online'' methods in multiple testing, and compare and contrast those solutions to the ones we propose. The most salient difference is that we address the general problem of asynchrony; when there is no asynchrony, our approach recovers a slew of existing methods, including work by , , , .