Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2201.01239

The Most Difference in Means: A Statistic for the Strength of Null and Near-Zero Results

Bruce A. Corliss·Taylor R. Brown·Tingting Zhang·Kevin A. Janes·Heman Shakeri·Philip E. Bourne
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Statistical insignificance does not suggest the absence of effect, yet scientists must often use null results as evidence of negligible (near-zero) effect size to falsify scientific hypotheses. Doing so must assess a result's null strength, defined as the evidence for a negligible effect size. Such an assessment would differentiate strong null results that suggest a negligible effect size from weak null results that suggest a broad range of potential effect sizes. We propose the most difference in means ($δ_M$) as a two-sample statistic that can both quantify null strength and perform a hypothesis test for negligible effect size. To facilitate consensus when interpreting results, our statistic allows scientists to conclude that a result has negligible effect size using different thresholds with no recalculation required. To assist with selecting a threshold, $δ_M$ can also compare null strength between related results. Both $δ_M$ and the relative form of $δ_M$ outperform other candidate statistics in comparing null strength. We compile broadly related results and use the relative $δ_M$ to compare null strength across different treatments, measurement methods, and experiment models. Reporting the relative $δ_M$ may provide a technical solution to the file drawer problem by encouraging the publication of null and near-zero results.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEq-bio.QM

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bruce A. Corliss, Taylor R. Brown, Tingting Zhang, Kevin A. Janes, Heman Shakeri, Philip E. Bourne. 2022-05-24. The Most Difference in Means: A Statistic for the Strength of Null and Near-Zero Results. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.01239

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bias-Correction for Privacy-Protected Spatial Autoregressive Models with Application to Restaurant Network Analysis

Spatial autoregressive (SAR) models and their extensions are important tools for studying network effects. However, with an increasing emphasis on data privacy, data providers often implement protection measures that render standard SAR models inapplicable. In this study, we introduce a privacy-protected SAR model that incorporates noise into both the response and covariates to meet privacy requirements. With noise present in both components, the traditional quasi-maximum likelihood estimator becomes difficult to compute because the likelihood function cannot be directly formulated. To bypass this hurdle, we begin with a pseudo-likelihood approach, initially omitting the noise in the covariates. A Newton-Raphson algorithm is then applied to compute the estimator; however, the estimator is biased. To address this, we propose a bias-corrected Newton-Raphson-type algorithm that simultaneously accounts for noise in both the response and covariates. We further show, under appropriate regularity conditions, that the resulting estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal. To further enhance computational efficiency, we also develop a bias-corrected least squares estimator. Several extensions are discussed, and the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods is evaluated through extensive simulations. We apply the proposed methodology to restaurant transaction data from a third-party payment platform. Our method identifies a statistically significant competitive network effect among restaurants and further reveals meaningful restaurant-customer interaction patterns.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

A variational framework for modal estimation

Multivariate mode estimation arises in many statistical problems such as inverse problems, multimodal sampling, and density-based clustering, but becomes challenging in moderate to high dimensions, especially when the underlying density is not directly evaluable. We introduce GERVE (Gibbs-measure Entropy-Regularized Variational Estimation), a sample-based method for estimating multivariate modes by approximating Gibbs distributions directly from samples, without estimating or evaluating the density. GERVE uses Gaussian-mixture variational annealing and natural-gradient optimization, producing a mixture concentrated in high-density regions whose component responsibilities also provide a clustering of the observations. We prove theoretical guarantees in two regimes: as the Gibbs temperature goes to zero, the optimal variational mixture concentrates around the global modes of the population density; at fixed positive temperature, we prove existence, consistency, and asymptotic normality of empirical maximizers and propose a bootstrap procedure for uncertainty quantification. Simulations and a real-data experiment show that GERVE accurately recovers modes and produces meaningful clusters.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Objective Model Prior Probabilities in Variable Selection

For many years it was routine to use equal model prior probabilities in Bayesian model uncertainty analysis. At least twenty years ago it became clear that this was problematic, leading to support of much too large models in the increasingly huge model spaces being considered in genomics and other fields. A popular replacement was to adopt a suggestion of Harold Jeffreys for the variable selection problem in which a total of $k$ possible variables are being considered for inclusion in the model: give the collection of all models containing $d$ variables ($d = 0, . . . , k$) prior probability $1/(k + 1)$ and then divide this prior probability equally among the models in the collection. Many other choices of model prior probabilities that impose severe parsimony have also been introduced. We begin by reviewing the problems with using equal model prior probabilities and then discuss some serious problems with the Jeffreys choice. Finally, we introduce and study a number of objective alternative choices of model prior probabilities, from both numerical and theoretical perspectives.

stat.ME↗