Balancing central and marginal rejection when combining independent significance tests

Abstract

A common approach to evaluating the significance of a collection of $p$-values combines them with a pooling function, in particular when the original data are not available. These pooled $p$-values convert a sample of $p$-values into a single number which behaves like a univariate $p$-value. To clarify discussion of these functions, a telescoping series of alternative hypotheses are introduced that communicate the strength and prevalence of non-null evidence in the $p$-values before general pooling formulae are discussed. A pattern noticed in the UMP pooled $p$-value for a particular alternative motivates the definition and discussion of central and marginal rejection levels at $\alpha$. It is proven that central rejection is always greater than or equal to marginal rejection, motivating a quotient to measure the balance between the two for pooled $p$-values. A combining function based on the $\chi^2_{\kappa}$ quantile transformation is proposed to control this quotient and shown to be robust to mis-specified parameters relative to the UMP. Different powers for different parameter settings motivate a map of plausible alternatives based on where this pooled $p$-value is minimized.