The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Controlling the Proportion of Falsely Rejected Hypotheses when Conducting Multiple Tests with Climatological Data
Open accessAbstract
The analysis of climatological data often involves statistical significance testing at many locations. While the field significance approach determines if a field as a whole is significant, a multiple testing procedure determines which particular tests are significant. Many such procedures are available, most of which control, for every test, the probability of detecting significance that does not really exist. The aim of this paper is to introduce the novel “false discovery rate” approach, which controls the false rejections in a more meaningful way. Specifically, it controls a priori the expected proportion of falsely rejected tests out of all rejected tests; additionally, the test results are more easily interpretable. The paper also investigates the best way to apply a false discovery rate (FDR) approach to spatially correlated data, which are common in climatology. The most straightforward method for controlling the FDR makes an assumption of independence between tests, while other FDR-controlling methods make less stringent assumptions. In a simulation study involving data with correlation structure similar to that of a real climatological dataset, the simple FDR method does control the proportion of falsely rejected hypotheses despite the violation of assumptions, while a more complicated method involves more computation with little gain in detecting alternative hypotheses. A very general method that makes no assumptions controls the proportion of falsely rejected hypotheses but at the cost of detecting few alternative hypotheses. Despite its unrealistic assumption, based on the simulation results, the authors suggest the use of the straightforward FDR-controlling method and provide a simple modification that increases the power to detect alternative hypotheses.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency
Benjamini, Y., & Yekutieli, D. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013699998 · Cited by 10,490
Cited by
Wilks, D. S. (2016) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-15-00267.1 · Cited by 895
Understanding flood regime changes in Europe: a state-of-the-art assessment
Hall, J., Arheimer, B., Borga, M., Brázdil, R., Claps, P., Kiss, A., Kjeldsen, T. R., Kriaučiūnienė, J., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Lang, M., et al. (2014) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-18-2735-2014 · Cited by 620
On “Field Significance” and the False Discovery Rate
Wilks, D. S. (2006) · Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology · doi:10.1175/jam2404.1 · Cited by 531
Trends and variability of droughts over the Indian monsoon region
Mallya, G., Mishra, V., Niyogi, D., Tripathi, S., & Govindaraju, R. S. (2016) · Weather and Climate Extremes · doi:10.1016/j.wace.2016.01.002 · Cited by 286
Rising Precipitation Extremes across Nepal
Karki, R., Hasson, S. U., Schickhoff, U., Scholten, T., & Böhner, J. (2017) · Climate · doi:10.3390/cli5010004 · Cited by 286
Metadata
- Authors
- Ventura, V., Paciorek, C. J., & Risbey, J. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Climate
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2004-11-15
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 4343-4356
- ISSN
- 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0442
- OpenAlex
- W2163861531
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Controlling the Proportion of Falsely Rejected Hypotheses when Conducting Multiple Tests with Climatological Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/3199.1
- The paper
- Ventura, V., Paciorek, C. J., & Risbey, J. S. (2004). Controlling the Proportion of Falsely Rejected Hypotheses when Conducting Multiple Tests with Climatological Data. Journal of Climate. https://doi.org/10.1175/3199.1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.