Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Assessing the pattern of covariance matrices via an augmentation multiple testing procedure

  • 95 Accesses

  • 11 Citations


This paper extends the scedasticity comparison among several groups of observations, usually complying with the homoscedastic and the heteroscedastic cases, in order to deal with data sets laying in an intermediate situation. As is well known, homoscedasticity corresponds to equality in orientation, shape and size of the group scatters. Here our attention is focused on two weaker requirements: scatters with the same orientation, but with different shape and size, or scatters with the same shape and size but different orientation. We introduce a multiple testing procedure that takes into account each of the above conditions. This approach discloses a richer information on the data underlying structure than the classical method only based on homo/heteroscedasticity. At the same time, it allows a more parsimonious parametrization, whenever the patterned model is appropriate to describe the real data. The new inferential methodology is then applied to some well-known data sets, chosen in the multivariate literature, to show the real gain in using this more informative approach. Finally, a wide simulation study illustrates and compares the performance of the proposal using data sets with gradual departure from homoscedasticity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Anderson E (1935) The irises of the Gaspe peninsula. Bull Am Ir Soc 59: 2–5

  2. Banfield JD, Raftery AE (1993) Model-based gaussian and non-gaussian clustering. Biometrics 49(3): 803–821

  3. Bartlett MS (1937) Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. Proc R Stat Soc Lond Ser A Math Phys Sci 160(901): 268–282

  4. Benjamini Y (2010) Discovering the false discovery rate. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodol) 72(4): 405–416

  5. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodol) 57(1): 289–300

  6. Bonferroni CE (1936) Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilita. Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali di Firenze 8(1): 3–62

  7. Bretz F, Maurer W, Brannath W, Posch M (2009) A graphical approach to sequentially rejective multiple test procedures. Stat Med 28(4): 586–604

  8. Burman CF, Sonesson C, Guilbaud O (2009) A recycling framework for the construction of Bonferroni-based multiple tests. Stat Med 28(5): 739–761

  9. Campbell NA, Mahon RJ (1974) A multivariate study of variation in two species of rock crab of genus Leptograpsus. Aust J Zool 22(3): 417–425

  10. Celeux G, Govaert G (1995) Gaussian parsimonious clustering models. Pattern Recognit 28(5): 781–793

  11. Dudoit S, van der Laan MJ (2008) Multiple testing procedures with applications to genomics. Springer, New York

  12. Farcomeni A (2008) A review of modern multiple hypothesis testing, with particular attention to the false discovery proportion. Stat Methods Med Res 17(4): 347–388

  13. Fisher RA (1936) The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Ann Eugen 7(2): 179–188

  14. Flury BN (1984) Common principal components in k groups. J Am Stat Assoc 79(388): 892–898

  15. Flury BN (1988) Common principal components and related multivariate models. Wiley, New York

  16. Flury BN, Constantine G (1985) The F-G diagonalization algorithm. Appl Stat 35: 177–183

  17. Flury BN, Gautschi W (1986) An algorithm for simultaneous orthogonal transformation of several positive definite matrices to nearly diagonal form. SIAM J Sci Stat Comput 7: 169–184

  18. Flury BN, Riedwyl H (1983) Angewandte multivariate statistik. Verlag Gustav Fischer, Jena

  19. Gabriel KR (1969) Simultaneous test procedures–some theory of multiple comparisons. Ann Math Stat 40(1): 224–250

  20. Genovese CR, Wasserman L (2006) Exceedance control of the false discovery proportion. J Am Stat Assoc 101(476): 1408–1417

  21. Goeman J, Finos L (2010) The inheritance procedure: multiple testing of tree-structured hypotheses (unpublished preprint dowloadable from http://www.msbi.nl/dnn/Default.aspx?tabid=202)

  22. Goeman J, Solari A (2010) The sequential rejection principle of familywise error control. Ann Stat (to appear)

  23. Greselin F, Ingrassia S (2009) Weakly homoscedastic constraints for mixtures of t distributions. In: Fink A, Lausen B, Seidel W, Ultsch A (eds) Advances in data analysis, data handling and business intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 219–228

  24. Greselin F, Ingrassia S (2010) Constrained monotone EM algorithms for mixtures of multivariate t distributions. Stat Comput 20(1): 9–22

  25. Hawkins DM (1981) A new test for multivariate normality and homoscedasticity. Technometrics 23(1): 105–110

  26. Hochberg Y, Tamhane AC (1987) Multiple comparison procedures. Wiley, New York

  27. Holland BS, Copenhaver MDP (1987) An improved sequentially rejective Bonferroni test procedure. Biometrics 43(2): 417–423

  28. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6(2): 65–70

  29. Jolicoeur P (1963) The degree of generality of robustness in Martes Americana. Growth 27: 1–27

  30. Jolicoeur P, Mosimann J (1960) Size and shape variation in the painted turtle: a principal component analysis. Growth 24(4): 339–354

  31. Marcus R, Peritz E, Gabriel KR (1976) On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika 63(3): 655–660

  32. Mardia KV (1985) Mardia’s test of multinormality. In: Kotz S, Johnson NL (eds) Encyclopedia of statistical sciences, vol 5. Wiley, New York, pp 217–221

  33. McLachlan GJ, Peel D (2000) Finite mixture models. Wiley, New York

  34. Murtagh F, Raftery A (1984) Fitting straight lines to point patterns. Pattern Recognit 17(5): 479–483

  35. Peel D, McLachlan GJ (2000) Robust mixture modelling using the t distribution. Stat Comput 10(4): 339–348

  36. Rencher AC (1998) Multivariate statistical inference and applications. Wiley, New York

  37. Ripley B (1996) Pattern recognition and neural network. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  38. Rosenthal R, Rubin DB (1983) Ensemble adjusted p-values. Psychol Bull 94(3): 540–541

  39. Shaffer JP (1995) Multiple hypothesis testing. Ann Rev Psychol 46(1): 561–584

  40. Sheskin DJ (2000) Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Chapman & Hall, London

  41. Van der Laan MJ, Duduoit S, Pollard KS (2004) Augmentation procedures for control of the generalized family-wise error rate and tail probabilities for the proportion of false positives. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol 3(1):Article 15

  42. Westfall PH, Young SS (1993) Resampling-based multiple testing: examples and methods for p-value adjustment. Wiley, New York

  43. Wright SP (1992) Adjusted p-values for simultaneous inference. Biometrics 48(4): 1005–1013

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Francesca Greselin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greselin, F., Ingrassia, S. & Punzo, A. Assessing the pattern of covariance matrices via an augmentation multiple testing procedure. Stat Methods Appl 20, 141–170 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-010-0157-5

Download citation


  • Homoscedasticity
  • Spectral decomposition
  • Principal component analysis
  • F–G algorithm
  • Multiple testing procedures
  • Augmentation