# Proof/derivation for false discovery rate in Benjamini-Hochberg procedure

The Benjamini-Hochberg procedure is a method that corrects for multiple comparisons and has a false discovery rate (FDR) equal to $$\alpha$$.

Or is it the family wise error rate, FWER? I am a bit confused about this. According to my below computations it seems to be the FWER that equals $$\alpha$$ and not the FDR.

Can we prove that this is true?

Let's assume that the multiple p-values for the different hypotheses are independent and the distribution of the p-value's (conditional on the null hypotheses being true) is uniform between $$0,1$$.

I can use a simulation to show that it get's close. With the below numbers $$\alpha = 0.1$$, and the number of times that I reject a hypothesis in this simulation is

$$\begin{array}{rcl} \alpha& =& 0.1\\ \text{observed FDR} &=& 0.100002 \pm 0.00030 \end{array}$$

with error based on $$\pm 2\sigma$$ where $$\sigma = \sqrt{\frac{0.1 \cdot 0.9}{ n}}$$

set.seed(1)
m <- 10^6
n <- 10
a <- 0.1
k <- 1:n

sample <- function( plotting = F) {
p <- runif(n)
p <- p[order(p)]
counts <- max(0,which(p<k/n*a))
if (plotting) {
plot(k,p, ylim = c(0,1) )
lines(k,k/n*a)
}
counts
}

x <- replicate(m, sample())
s <- sum(x>0)/m
err_s <- sqrt(s*(1-s)/m)
c(s-2*err_s,s,s+2*err_s)

• I understand now that the FWER is not just the case of type I error when all the hypotheses are correct, but also when one or more of them are correct and we do not want a type I error for the non-correct hypotheses. Nov 5, 2020 at 17:30

## Intro

Let us start with some notation: We have $$m$$ simple hypotheses we test, with each null numbered $$H_{0,i}$$. The global null hypothesis can be written as an intersection of all the local nulls: $$H_0=\bigcap_{i=1}^{m}{H_{0,i}}$$. Next, we assume that each hypothesis $$H_{0,i}$$ has a test statistic $$t_i$$ for which we can compute the p-value $$p_i$$. More specifically, we assume that for each $$i$$ the distribution of $$p_i$$ under $$H_{0,i}$$ is $$U[0,1]$$.

For example (Chapter 3 of Efron), consider a comparison of 6033 genes in two groups: For each gene in $$1\le i\le 6033$$, we have $$H_{0,i}:$$ "no difference in the $$i^{th}$$ gene" and $$H_{1,i}:$$ "there is a difference in the $$i^{th}$$ gene". In this problem, $$m=6033$$. Our $$m$$ hypotheses can be divided into 4 groups:

$$H_{0,i}$$ Accepted Rejected Sum
Correct $$U$$ $$V$$ $$m_0$$
Incorrect $$T$$ $$S$$ $$m-m_0$$
Sum $$m-R$$ $$R$$ $$m$$

We do not observe $$S,T,U,V$$ but we do observe $$R$$.

## FWER

A classic criterion is the familywise error, denoted $$FWE=I\{V\ge1\}$$. The familywise error rate is then $$FWER=E[I\{V\ge1\}]=P(V\ge1)$$. A comparison method controls the level-$$\alpha$$ $$FWER$$ in the strong sense if $$FWER\le\alpha$$ for any combination $$\tilde{H}\in\left\{H_{0,i},H_{1,i}\right\}_{i=1,...,m}$$; It controls the level-$$\alpha$$ $$FWER$$ in the weak sense if $$FWER\le\alpha$$ under the global null.

Example - Holm's method:

1. Order the p-values $$p_{(1)},...,p_{(m)}$$ and then respectively the hypotheses $$H_{0,(1)},...,H_{0,(m)}$$.
2. One after the other, we check the hypotheses:
1. If $$p_{(1)}\le\frac{\alpha}{m}$$ we reject $$H_{0,(1)}$$ and continue, otherwise we stop.
2. If $$p_{(2)}\le\frac{\alpha}{m-1}$$ we reject $$H_{0,(2)}$$ and continue, otherwise we stop.
3. We keep rejecting $$H_{0,(i)}$$ if $$p_{(i)}\le\frac{\alpha}{m-i+1}$$
3. We stop the first time we get $$p_{(i)}>\frac{\alpha}{m-i+1}$$ and then reject $$H_{0,(1)},...,H_{0,(i-1)}$$.

Holm's method example: we've simulated $$m=20$$ p-values, then ordered them. Red circles indicate rejected hypotheses, green circles were not rejected, the blue line is the criterion $$\frac{\alpha}{m-i+1}$$:

The hypotheses rejected were $$H_{0,(1)},H_{0,(2)},H_{0,(3)}$$. You can see that $$p_{(4)}$$ is the smallest p-value larger than the criterion, so we reject all hypotheses with smaller p-values.

It is quite easy to prove that this method controls level-$$\alpha$$ $$FWER$$ in the strong sense. A counterexample would be the Simes method, which only controls the level-$$\alpha$$ $$FWER$$ in the weak sense.

## FDR

The false discovery proportion ($$FDP$$) is a softer criterion than the $$FWE$$, and is defined as $$FDP=\frac{V}{\max\{1,R\}}=\left\{\begin{matrix} \frac{V}{R} & R\ge1\\ 0 & o.w\end{matrix}\right.$$. The false discovery rate is $$FDR=E[FDP]$$. Controlling level-$$\alpha$$ $$FDR$$ means that The false if we repeat the experiment and rejection criteria many times, $$FDR=E[FDP]\le\alpha$$.

It is very easy to prove that $$FWER\ge FDR$$: We start by claiming $$I\{V\ge1\}\ge\left\{\begin{matrix} \frac{V}{R} & R\ge1\\ 0 & o.w\end{matrix}\right.$$.

If $$V=0$$ then $$I\{V\ge1\}=0=\left\{\begin{matrix} \frac{V}{R} & R\ge1\\ 0 & o.w\end{matrix}\right.$$. In the above table, $$R\ge V$$ so for $$V>0$$ we get $$\frac{V}{\max\{1,R\}}\le1$$ and $$I\{V\ge1\}\ge\frac{V}{\max\{1,R\}}$$. This also means $$E\left[I\{V\ge1\}\right]\ge E\left[\frac{V}{\max\{1,R\}}\right]$$, which is exactly $$FWER\ge FDR$$.

Another very easy claim if that controlling level-$$\alpha$$ $$FDR$$ implies controlling level-$$\alpha$$ $$FWER$$ in the weak sense, meaning that under the global $$H_0$$ we get $$FWER=FDR$$: Under the global $$H_0$$ every rejection is a false rejection, meaning $$V=R$$, so $$FDP=\left\{\begin{matrix} \frac{V}{R} & R\ge1\\ 0 & o.w\end{matrix}\right.=\left\{\begin{matrix} \frac{V}{V} & V\ge1\\ 0 & o.w\end{matrix}\right.=\left\{\begin{matrix} 1 & V\ge1\\ 0 & o.w\end{matrix}\right.=I\{V\ge1\}$$ and then $$FDR=E[FDP]=E[I\{V\ge1\}]=P(V\ge1)=FWER.$$

## B-H

The Benjamini-Hochberg method is as follows:

1. Order the p-values $$p_{(1)},...,p_{(m)}$$ and then respectively the hypotheses $$H_{0,(1)},...,H_{0,(m)}$$
2. Mark as $$i_0$$ the largest $$i$$ for which $$p_{(i)}\le \frac{i}{m}\alpha$$
3. Reject $$H_{0,(1)},...,H_{0,(i_0)}$$

Contrary to the previous claims, it is not trivial to show why the BH method keeps $$FDR\le\alpha$$ (to be more precise, it keeps $$FDR=\frac{m_0}{m}\alpha$$). It isn't a short proof either, ,his is some advanced statistical courses material (I've seen it in one of my Master of Statistics courses). I do think that for the extent of this question, we can simply assume it controls the FDR.

BH example: again we've simulated $$m=20$$ p-values, then ordered them. Red circles indicate rejected hypotheses, green circles were not rejected, the blue line is the criterion $$\frac{i\cdot\alpha}{m}$$:

The hypotheses rejected were $$H_{0,(1)}$$ to $$H_{0,(10)}$$. You can see that $$p_{(11)}$$ is the largest p-value larger than the criterion, so we reject all hypotheses with smaller p-values - even though some of them ($$p_{(6)},p_{(7)}$$) are larger than the criterion. Compare this (largest p-value larger than the criterion) and Holm's method (smallest p-value larger than the criterion).

### Proving $$FDR\le\alpha$$ for BH

For $$m_0=0$$ (which means each $$p_i$$ is distributed under $$H_{1,i}$$) we get $$FDR\le\alpha$$ because $$V=0$$, so assume $$m_0\ge1$$. Denote $$V_i=I\{H_{0,i}\text{ was rejected}\}$$ and $$\mathcal{H}_0\subseteq\{1,...,m\}$$ the set of hypotheses for which $$H_{0,i}$$ is correct, so $$FDP=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{H}_0}{\frac{V_i}{\max\{1,R\}}}=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{H}_0}{X_i}$$. We start by proving that for $$i\in\mathcal{H}_0$$ we get $$E[X_i]=\frac{\alpha}{m}$$:

$$X_i=\sum_{k=0}^{m}{\frac{V_i}{\max\{1,R\}}I\{R=k\}}=\sum_{k=1}^{m}{\frac{I\{H_{0,i}\text{ was rejected}\}}{k}I\{R=k\}}=\sum_{k=1}^{m}{\frac{I\left\{ p_i\le\frac{k}{m}\alpha \right\}}{k}I\{R=k\}}$$

Let $$R(p_i)$$ the number of rejections we get if $$p_i=0$$ and the rest of the p-values unchanged. Assume $$R=k^*$$, if $$p_i\le\frac{k^*}{m}\alpha$$ then $$R=R(p_i)=k^*$$ so in this case, $$I\left\{ p_i\le\frac{k^*}{m}\alpha \right\}\cdot I\{R=k^*\}=I\left\{ p_i\le\frac{k^*}{m}\alpha \right\}\cdot I\{R(p_i)=k^*\}$$. If $$p_i>\frac{k^*}{m}\alpha$$ we get $$I\left\{ p_i\le\frac{k^*}{m}\alpha \right\}=0$$ and again $$I\left\{ p_i\le\frac{k^*}{m}\alpha \right\}\cdot I\{R=k^*\}=I\left\{ p_i\le\frac{k^*}{m}\alpha \right\}\cdot I\{R(p_i)=k^*\}$$, so overall we can deduce

$$X_i=\sum_{k=1}^{m}{\frac{I\left\{ p_i\le\frac{k}{m}\alpha \right\}}{k}I\{R=k\}}=\sum_{k=1}^{m}{\frac{I\left\{ p_i\le\frac{k}{m}\alpha \right\}}{k}I\{R(p_i)=k\}},$$

and now we can calculate $$E[X_i]$$ conditional on all p-values except $$p_i$$. Under this condition, $$I\{R(p_i)=k\}$$ is deterministic and we overall get:

$$E\left[I\left\{ p_i\le\frac{k}{m}\alpha \right\}\cdot I\{R(p_i)=k\}\middle|p\backslash p_i\right]=E\left[I\left\{ p_i\le\frac{k}{m}\alpha \right\}\middle|p\backslash p_i\right]\cdot I\{R(p_i)=k\}$$ Because $$p_i$$ is independent of $$p\backslash p_i$$ we get

$$E\left[I\left\{ p_i\le\frac{k}{m}\alpha \right\}\middle|p\backslash p_i\right]\cdot I\{R(p_i)=k\}=E\left[I\left\{ p_i\le\frac{k}{m}\alpha \right\}\right]\cdot I\{R(p_i)=k\}\\=P\left(p_i\le\frac{k}{m}\alpha\right)\cdot I\{R(p_i)=k\}$$

We assumed before that under $$H_{0,i}$$, $$p_i\sim U[0,1]$$ so the last expression can be written as $$\frac{k}{m}\alpha\cdot I\{R(p_i)=k\}$$. Next,

$$E[X_i|p\backslash p_i]=\sum_{k=1}^m\frac{E\left[I\left\{ p_i\le\frac{k}{m}\alpha \right\}\cdot I\{R(p_i)=k\}\middle|p\backslash p_i\right]}{k}=\sum_{k=1}^m\frac{\frac{k}{m}\alpha\cdot I\{R(p_i)=k\}}{k}\\=\frac{\alpha}{m}\cdot\sum_{k=1}^m{I\{R(p_i)=k\}}=\frac{\alpha}{m}\cdot 1=\frac{\alpha}{m}.$$

Using the law of total expectation we get $$E[X_i]=E[E[X_i|p\backslash p_i]]=E\left[\frac{\alpha}{m}\right]=\frac{\alpha}{m}$$. We have previously obtained $$FDP=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{H}_0}{X_i}$$ so

$$FDR=E[FDP]=E\left[\sum_{i\in\mathcal{H}_0}{X_i}\right]=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{H}_0}{E[X_i]}=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{H}_0}{\frac{\alpha}{m}}=\frac{m_0}{m}\alpha\le\alpha\qquad\blacksquare$$

## Summary

We've seen the differences between strong and weak sense of $$FWER$$ as well as the $$DFR$$. I think that you can now spot yourself the differences and understand why $$FDR\le\alpha$$ does not imply that $$FWER\le\alpha$$ in the strong sense.

• Nice explanation of FWER (weak and strong) and FDR. I guess that my view in the footnote is about FWER in the weak sense, assuming that all hypotheses are true. Nov 24, 2021 at 15:08
• @SextusEmpiricus True, that's the global null. Also, see the visual examples I've added. Nov 24, 2021 at 15:37
• They are nice explanations, but the question is about the derivation/proof of the FDR for the BH procedure. Nov 24, 2021 at 15:46
• @SextusEmpiricus There you go Nov 25, 2021 at 7:40
• Thank you @Spätzle that looks like nice work (that I still have to digest) more than worthy of the bounty. I was myselve hoping that I could find an easy solution by the ordered p-values $p_1, p_2, \cdots p_n$ and the conditions $p_k \geq \frac{k}{n} \alpha$ by computing the integral $$\int_{p_1 = \frac{1}{n} \alpha}^1 \int_{p_2 = max(p_1,\frac{2}{n} \alpha)}^1 \dots \int_{p_n = max(p_{n-1},\frac{n}{n} \alpha)}^1 n! dp_n \dots dp_2 dp_1$$ but I still have to write it out as a piecewise polynomial and express it generally. I will see how it compares to your solution. Nov 25, 2021 at 8:42

## Geometric interpretation

The values of the different p-values $$p_1,p_2,\dots, p_n$$ are distributed in a hypercube and rejection occurs when the point falls inside a region.

### The case of 2 variables

For this case we can see easily that the rejection rate is $$\alpha$$ by adding the area's in the below figure together

### Algebraic computation for more variables

We can represent the above area's by the following product where each $$x_k$$ represents whether for a p-value we have $$\alpha \frac{k-1}{n} < p<\alpha \frac{k}{n}$$ and the last $$x_{n+1}$$ represents that the $$p>\alpha$$

$$(x_1+x_2+ \dots +x_{n+1})^n$$

... to be continued