The **Bonferroni test**, also known as the Bonferroni correction, is a statistical method used to counteract the problem of multiple comparisons. When conducting multiple hypothesis tests simultaneously, the likelihood of obtaining a significant result by chance alone increases. The Bonferroni test adjusts the significance level for each individual test to maintain the desired overall significance level, reducing the risk of false positives.

In scenarios involving multiple hypothesis testing, such as analyzing numerous metrics or variants in an experiment, the Bonferroni correction becomes crucial. Without proper adjustment, the probability of making a Type I error (rejecting a true null hypothesis) increases rapidly with the number of tests performed. By applying the Bonferroni test, researchers can control the family-wise error rate (FWER), ensuring that the probability of making at least one Type I error across all tests remains at the desired level.

The key components of the Bonferroni test include the number of hypothesis tests (m) and the desired overall significance level (α). Mathematically, the Bonferroni correction adjusts the significance level for each individual test by dividing α by m. For example, if conducting 10 tests with a desired overall significance level of 0.05, each individual test would have a significance level of 0.005 (0.05 / 10). This adjustment makes the criteria for rejecting the null hypothesis more stringent, reducing the likelihood of false positives.

The Bonferroni test is a simple yet effective method for correcting multiple comparisons. It works by dividing the desired significance level (α) by the number of hypotheses being tested (m). This adjusted significance level (α/m) is then used as the new threshold for determining statistical significance.

For example, if you're testing 20 hypotheses with a desired α of 0.05, the Bonferroni-corrected significance level would be 0.05/20 = 0.0025. Any p-value less than 0.0025 would be considered significant after the correction.

The Bonferroni test is designed to control the family-wise error rate (FWER), which is the probability of making at least one Type I error (false positive) among all hypotheses tested. By setting a more stringent significance level, the Bonferroni correction reduces the likelihood of obtaining false positives when conducting multiple tests.

However, the Bonferroni test can be quite conservative, especially when dealing with a large number of hypotheses. As the number of tests increases, the adjusted significance level becomes smaller, making it more difficult to detect true positives (i.e., increased risk of Type II errors or false negatives).

Despite its limitations, the Bonferroni test remains a widely used method for multiple testing correction due to its simplicity and effectiveness in controlling the FWER. It is particularly useful when the number of hypotheses is relatively small, and the cost of false positives is high.

When applying the Bonferroni test, it's essential to consider the trade-off between Type I and Type II errors. While the correction helps minimize false positives, it may also increase the risk of missing true effects, particularly when dealing with a large number of tests or when the effect sizes are small.

The Bonferroni correction is useful when conducting multiple hypothesis tests simultaneously. It helps control the family-wise error rate (FWER), reducing the likelihood of Type I errors (false positives). Apply the Bonferroni test when you have a small number of comparisons and want to maintain a strict control over false positives.

One advantage of using the Bonferroni correction is its simplicity and effectiveness in controlling Type I errors. By adjusting the significance level for each individual test, it ensures that the overall FWER remains at the desired level (e.g., 0.05). This conservative approach is particularly valuable when false positives could lead to costly or harmful consequences.

However, the Bonferroni test has some limitations and drawbacks. As the number of comparisons increases, the correction becomes more conservative, potentially leading to a loss of statistical power and increased risk of Type II errors (false negatives). In situations with a large number of tests, the Bonferroni correction may be too stringent, making it difficult to detect true differences between groups.

Another consideration is the assumption of independence among the tests. The Bonferroni correction assumes that the tests are independent or have a positive dependence structure. If the tests are negatively correlated, the correction may be overly conservative. In such cases, alternative methods like the Holm-Bonferroni procedure or the Hochberg procedure may be more appropriate.

When deciding whether to use the Bonferroni test, consider the number of comparisons, the desired level of Type I error control, and the potential consequences of false positives. If you have a small number of planned comparisons and strict control over false positives is crucial, the Bonferroni correction can be a suitable choice. However, if you have a large number of tests or are concerned about loss of power, explore alternative multiple testing correction methods.

The Bonferroni test adjusts p-values and confidence intervals to account for multiple comparisons. This correction makes the significance threshold more stringent, reducing the risk of false positives.

When interpreting Bonferroni-corrected results, focus on the adjusted p-values and confidence intervals. These values provide a more conservative estimate of statistical significance, considering the number of hypotheses tested.

Compare the adjusted and unadjusted results to understand the impact of the correction. If a result remains significant after the Bonferroni adjustment, you can be more confident in its validity.

However, the Bonferroni test can be overly conservative, potentially leading to false negatives. If a result is not significant after the correction, it may still be worth investigating further.

When making decisions based on Bonferroni-corrected outcomes, consider the context and practical significance of the results. A statistically significant result may not always translate to a meaningful difference in practice.

Balancing the need to control for multiple comparisons with the desire to detect true effects is crucial. The Bonferroni test provides a rigorous approach, but it's not the only option.

Other methods, such as the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure, offer a more powerful alternative for controlling the false discovery rate. These approaches can be particularly useful when dealing with a large number of hypotheses.

Ultimately, interpreting the results of a Bonferroni test requires careful consideration of the research question, the number of comparisons made, and the practical implications of the findings. By understanding the strengths and limitations of this correction method, you can make informed decisions based on your experimental results.

While the Bonferroni correction is a simple and effective method for controlling the family-wise error rate in multiple hypothesis testing, there are several alternatives and variations worth considering:

The

**Holm-Bonferroni correction**is a step-down procedure that offers more power than the standard Bonferroni correction. It works by sequentially testing hypotheses ordered by their p-values, adjusting the significance level for each test based on the number of remaining hypotheses.The

**Šidák correction**is similar to the Bonferroni correction but assumes that the individual tests are independent. It calculates the adjusted significance level as 1 - (1 - α)^(1/m), where α is the desired family-wise error rate and m is the number of hypotheses.The Benjamini-Hochberg procedure controls the false discovery rate (FDR) instead of the family-wise error rate. FDR is the expected proportion of false positives among all significant results. This method is less conservative than the Bonferroni correction and offers more power when testing a large number of hypotheses.

**Adaptive procedures**, such as the Benjamini-Hochberg-Yekutieli procedure, take into account the dependency structure among the hypotheses. These methods can provide more power than the standard Bonferroni correction when the tests are positively dependent.

When applying the Bonferroni test or its alternatives, it's crucial to strike a balance between controlling Type I errors (false positives) and minimizing Type II errors (false negatives). Being too conservative with the significance level may lead to missed discoveries, while being too lenient can result in false positives.

To find the right balance, consider the following factors:

The

**cost of false positives versus false negatives**in your specific context. In some cases, false positives may be more detrimental than false negatives, or vice versa.The

**number of hypotheses**being tested. As the number of hypotheses increases, the Bonferroni correction becomes more conservative, potentially leading to a higher rate of false negatives.The

**expected effect sizes**. If the expected effect sizes are large, you may be able to tolerate a higher significance level without compromising the validity of your results.

By carefully considering these factors and selecting an appropriate multiple testing correction method, you can effectively control the error rates in your experiments while maximizing the power to detect true effects.

Connect with like-minded product leaders, data scientists,
and engineers to share the latest in product experimentation.

At OpenAI, we want to iterate as fast as possible. **Statsig enables us to grow, scale, and learn efficiently**. Integrating experimentation with product analytics and feature flagging has been crucial for quickly understanding and addressing our users' top priorities.

OpenAI

Engineering Manager, ChatGPT

Brex's mission is to help businesses move fast. **Statsig is now helping our engineers move fast**. It has been a game changer to automate the manual lift typical to running experiments and has helped product teams ship the right features to their users quickly.

Brex

President

At Notion, we're continuously learning what our users value and want every team to run experiments to learn more. It’s also critical to maintain speed as a habit. **Statsig's experimentation platform enables both this speed and learning for us**.

Notion

Data Science Manager

We evaluated Optimizely, LaunchDarkly, Split, and Eppo, but **ultimately selected Statsig due to its comprehensive end-to-end integration**. We wanted a complete solution rather than a partial one, including everything from the stats engine to data ingestion.

SoundCloud

SVP, Data & Platform Engineering

We only had so many analysts. Statsig provided the necessary tools to remove the bottleneck. I know that we are able to impact our key business metrics in a positive way with Statsig. **We are definitely heading in the right direction with Statsig**.

Ancestry

Director of Engineering