Minimax regret and monotone optimality in multiple testing

Confirmatory trials may seek efficacy claims in a prespecified subgroup and the full popu- lation, although benefit outside the subgroup is uncertain. We measure power loss relative to the marginal level-α test available if the population to protect were known, using the same experiment. In a bivariate Gaussian model with known covariance, we minimise the largest power loss, or regret, over prespecified ranges of target and non-target effects, subject to strong familywise error control and coordinatewise monotonicity. We optimise over monotone closed- testing procedures with fixed marginal tests, allowing randomisation in the shared intersection test. Monotonicity places the worst non-target mean at its lower planning bound for each target effect. On the resulting reduced planning set, every least-favourable distribution is supported on exactly two efficacy scenarios, one for each target population. Under a condition on the effect ranges and covariance, the minimax procedure is nonrandomised and unique up to null sets. An integral criterion characterises exactly when a calibrated step-up procedure attains the minimax value within this class. Bounds for the continuous problem quantify possible improve- ments over simple procedures. An asthma planning example illustrates power allocation and the compatibility of target assignments with treatment benefits and burdens.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
arXiv (Cornell University)
Published
2026-11-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2611.03155
Primary Topic
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Minimax regret and monotone optimality in multiple testing

Yuexiao Dong, Lei Li
arXiv (Cornell University)
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
preprint

Minimax regret and monotone optimality in multiple testing

Yuexiao Dong, Lei Li
preprint en

Abstract

Confirmatory trials may seek efficacy claims in a prespecified subgroup and the full popu- lation, although benefit outside the subgroup is uncertain. We measure power loss relative to the marginal level-α test available if the population to protect were known, using the same experiment. In a bivariate Gaussian model with known covariance, we minimise the largest power loss, or regret, over prespecified ranges of target and non-target effects, subject to strong familywise error control and coordinatewise monotonicity. We optimise over monotone closed- testing procedures with fixed marginal tests, allowing randomisation in the shared intersection test. Monotonicity places the worst non-target mean at its lower planning bound for each target effect. On the resulting reduced planning set, every least-favourable distribution is supported on exactly two efficacy scenarios, one for each target population. Under a condition on the effect ranges and covariance, the minimax procedure is nonrandomised and unique up to null sets. An integral criterion characterises exactly when a calibrated step-up procedure attains the minimax value within this class. Bounds for the continuous problem quantify possible improve- ments over simple procedures. An asthma planning example illustrates power allocation and the compatibility of target assignments with treatment benefits and burdens.

arXiv (Cornell University)
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon