[This article was first published on s3alfisc.github.io/blog/, and kindly contributed to R-bloggers]. (You can report issue about the content on this page here)
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.
For the final chapter of my dissertation, I had examined the effects of ordinal class rank on the academic achievement of Danish primary school students (following a popular identification strategy introduced in a paper by Murphy and Weinhard). Because of the richness of the Danish register data, I had a large number of potential outcome variables at my disposal, and as a result, I was able to examine literally all the outcomes that the previous literature had covered in individual studies – the effect of rank on achievement, personality, risky behaviour, mental health, parental investment, etc. – in one paper.
Figure 1: The Effect of Ordinal Class Rank on quite a few outcome variables
But with (too) many outcome variables comes a risk: inflated type 1 error rates, or an increased risk of ‘false positives’. So I was wondering: were all the significant effects I estimated – shown in the figure above – “real”, or was I simply being fooled by randomness?
A common way to control the risk of false positive when testing multiple hypothesis is to use methods that control the ‘family-wise’ error rate, i.e.the risk of at least one false positive in a family of S hypotheses.
Among such methods, Romano and Wolf’s correction is particularly popular, because it is “uniformly the most powerful”. Without going into too much detail, I’ll just say that if you have a choice between a number of methods that control the family-wise error rate at a desired level \(\alpha\), you might want to choose the “most powerful” one, i.e.the one that has the highest success rate of finding a true effect.
Now, there is actually an amazing Stata package for the Romano-Wolf method called rwolf.
But this is an R blog, and I’m an R guy … In addition, my regression involved several million rows and some high-dimensional fixed effects, and rwolf quickly showed its limitations. It just wasn’t fast enough!
While playing around with the rwolf package, I finally did my due diligence on the method it implements, and after a little background reading, I realized that both the Romano and Wolf method – as well as its main rival, the method proposed by Westfall and Young – are based on the bootstrap!
But wait! Had I not just spent a lot of time porting a super-fast bootstrap algorithm from R to Stata? Could I not use Roodman et al’s “fast and wild” cluster bootstrap algorithm for bootstrap-based multiple hypothesis correction?
Of course it was inevitable: I ended up writing an R package. Today I am happy to present the first MVP version of the wildwrwolf package!
The wildrwolf package
You can simply install the package from github or r-universe by typing
# install.packages("devtools")devtools::install_github("s3alfisc/wildrwolf")# from r-universe (windows & mac, compiled R > 4.0 required)install.packages('wildrwolf', repos ='https://s3alfisc.r-universe.dev')The Romano Wolf correction in wildrwolf is implemented as a post-estimation commands for multiple estimation objects from the fabulous fixest package.
To demonstrate how wildrwolf's main function, rwolf, works, let’s first simulate some data:
library(wildrwolf)library(fixest)set.seed(1412)library(wildrwolf)library(fixest)set.seed(1412)N <- 5000X1 <- rnorm(N)X2 <- rnorm(N)rho <- 0.5sigma <- matrix(rho, 4, 4); diag(sigma) <- 1u <- MASS::mvrnorm(n = N, mu = rep(0, 4), Sigma = sigma)Y1 <- 1 + 1 * X1 + X2 Y2 <- 1 + 0.01 * X1 + X2Y3 <- 1 + 0.4 * X1 + X2Y4 <- 1 + -0.02 * X1 + X2for(x in 1:4){ var_char <- paste0("Y", x) assign(var_char, get(var_char) + u[,x])}group_id <- sample(1:100, N, TRUE)data <- data.frame(Y1 = Y1, Y2 = Y2, Y3 = Y3, Y4 = Y4, X1 = X1, X2 = X2, group_id = group_id, splitvar = sample(1:2, N, TRUE))We now estimate a regression via the fixest package:
fit <- feols(c(Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4) ~ csw(X1,X2), data = data, cluster = ~group_id, ssc = ssc(cluster.adj = TRUE))# clean workspace except for res & datarm(list= ls()[!(ls() %in% c('fit','data'))])For all eight estimated regressions, we want to apply the Romano-Wolf correction to the parameter of interest, X1. We simply need to provide the regression object of type fixest_multi (it is also possible to simply provide a list of objects of type fixest), the parameter of interest, the number of bootstrap draws, and possibly a seed (for replicability). That’s it! If the regressions use clustered standard errors, rwolf will pick this up and run a wild cluster bootstrap, otherwise just a robust wild bootstrap.
pracma::tic()res_rwolf <- wildrwolf::rwolf( models = fit, param = "X1", B = 9999, seed = 23)## | | | 0% | |========= | 12% | |================== | 25% | |========================== | 38% | |=================================== | 50% | |============================================ | 62% | |==================================================== | 75% | |============================================================= | 88% | |======================================================================| 100%pracma::toc()## elapsed time is 3.980000 seconds
For \(N=5000\) observations with \(G=100\) clusters, \(S=8\) hypothesis and \(B=9999\) bootstrap draws, the calculation of Romano-Wolf corrected p-values takes less than 5 seconds. If you ask me, that is pretty fast! =) 🚀
We can now compare the results of rwolf with the uncorrected p-values and another popular multiple testing adjustment, Holm’s method.
pvals <- lapply(fit, function(x) pvalue(x)["X1"]) |> unlist() df <- data.frame( "uncorrected" = pvals, "Holm" = p.adjust(pvals, method = "holm"), "rwolf" = res_rwolf$pval)rownames(df) <- NULLround(df, 3)## uncorrected Holm rwolf## 1 0.000 0.000 0.000## 2 0.000 0.000 0.000## 3 0.140 0.420 0.367## 4 0.033 0.132 0.128## 5 0.000 0.000 0.000## 6 0.000 0.000 0.000## 7 0.398 0.420 0.394## 8 0.152 0.420 0.367
Both Holm’s method and rwolf produce similar corrected p-values, which - in general - are larger than the uncorrected p-values.
But does it actually work? Monte Carlo Experiments
We test \(S=6\) hypotheses and generate data as
\[Y_{i,s,g} = \beta_{0} + \beta_{1,s} D_{i} + u_{i,g} + \epsilon_{i,s} \]where \(D_i = 1(U_i > 0.5)\) and \(U_i\) is drawn from a uniformdistribution, \(u_{i,g}\) is a cluster level shock with intra-clustercorrelation \(0.5\), and the idiosyncratic error term is drawn from amultivariate random normal distribution with mean \(0_S\) and covariancematrix
S <- 6rho <- 0.5Sigma <- matrix(1, 6, 6)diag(Sigma) <- rhoSigma
This experiment imposes a data generating process as in equation (9) inClarke, Romano and Wolf, with anadditional error term \(u_g\) for \(G=20\) clusters and intra-clustercorrelation 0.5 and \(N=1000\) observations.
You can run the simulations via the run_fwer_sim() function attachedin the package.
# note that this will take some timeres <- run_fwer_sim( seed = 232123, n_sims = 500, B = 499, N = 1000, s = 6, rho = 0.5 #correlation between hypotheses, not intra-cluster!)# > res# reject_5 reject_10 rho# fit_pvalue 0.274 0.460 0.5# fit_pvalue_holm 0.046 0.112 0.5# fit_padjust_rw 0.052 0.110 0.5
Both Holm’s method and wildrwolf control the family wise error rates, at both the 5 and 10% significance level. Very cool!
The method by Westfall and Young
A package for Westfall and Young’s (1993) method is currently in development. I am not yet fully convinced that it works as intented - in simulations, I regularly find that wildwyoung overrejects.
Literature
Clarke, Damian, Joseph P. Romano, and Michael Wolf. “The Romano–Wolf multiple-hypothesis correction in Stata.” The Stata Journal 20.4 (2020): 812-843.
Murphy, Richard, and Felix Weinhardt. “Top of the class: The importance of ordinal rank.” The Review of Economic Studies 87.6 (2020): 2777-2826.
Romano, Joseph P., and Michael Wolf. “Stepwise multiple testing as formalized data snooping.” Econometrica 73.4 (2005): 1237-1282.
Roodman, David, et al.“Fast and wild: Bootstrap inference in Stata using boottest.” The Stata Journal 19.1 (2019): 4-60.
Westfall, Peter H., and S. Stanley Young. Resampling-based multiple testing: Examples and methods for p-value adjustment. Vol. 279. John Wiley & Sons, 1993.
Related
To leave a comment for the author, please follow the link and comment on their blog: s3alfisc.github.io/blog/.
R-bloggers.com offers daily e-mail updates about R news and tutorials about learning R and many other topics. Click here if you're looking to post or find an R/data-science job.
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.