Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 721

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Higher criticism for detecting sparse heterogeneous mixtures

Open access
Donoho, David, Jin, Jiashun·2004·The Annals of Statistics

Abstract

Higher criticism, or second-level significance testing, is a multiple-comparisons concept mentioned in passing by Tukey. It concerns a situation where there are many independent tests of significance and one is interested in rejecting the joint null hypothesis. Tukey suggested comparing the fraction of observed significances at a given α-level to the expected fraction under the joint null. In fact, he suggested standardizing the difference of the two quantities and forming a z-score; the resulting z-score tests the significance of the body of significance tests. We consider a generalization, where we maximize this z-score over a range of significance levels 0<α≤α0. We are able to show that the resulting higher criticism statistic is effective at resolving a very subtle testing problem: testing whether n normal means are all zero versus the alternative that a small fraction is nonzero. The subtlety of this “sparse normal means” testing problem can be seen from work of Ingster and Jin, who studied such problems in great detail. In their studies, they identified an interesting range of cases where the small fraction of nonzero means is so small that the alternative hypothesis exhibits little noticeable effect on the distribution of the p-values either for the bulk of the tests or for the few most highly significant tests. In this range, when the amplitude of nonzero means is calibrated with the fraction of nonzero means, the likelihood ratio test for a precisely specified alternative would still succeed in separating the two hypotheses. We show that the higher criticism is successful throughout the same region of amplitude sparsity where the likelihood ratio test would succeed. Since it does not require a specification of the alternative, this shows that higher criticism is in a sense optimally adaptive to unknown sparsity and size of the nonnull effects. While our theoretical work is largely asymptotic, we provide simulations in finite samples and suggest some possible applications. We also show that higher critcism works well over a range of non-Gaussian cases.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1214/009053604000000265

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 721

Metadata

Authors
Donoho, D., & Jin, J.
Venue
The Annals of Statistics
Published
2004-06-01
Volume
32
Issue
3
Pages
962-994
ISSN
0090-5364 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1981106668
Cited by
721
References
19
FWCI
9.51
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: Higher criticism for detecting sparse heterogeneous mixtures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1214/009053604000000265
The paper
Donoho, D., & Jin, J. (2004). Higher criticism for detecting sparse heterogeneous mixtures. The Annals of Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1214/009053604000000265

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.