Table 1.
Normal distribution | Scenario 1 |
Scenario 2 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Covariance | Struct-1 | Struct-2 | Struct-3 | Struct-1 | Struct-2 | Struct-3 |
Empirical FDR | ||||||
Xie and Kang | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Sparse CCA | 92.3 | 18.9 | 15.8 | 91.5 | 17.3 | 11.1 |
Our test | 4.8 | 3.3 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 3.6 | 4.7 |
Empirical power | ||||||
Xie and Kang | 18.8 | 3.4 | 13.1 | 35.2 | 4.4 | 16.8 |
Sparse CCA | 22.3 | 11.2 | 3.8 | 24.0 | 1.5 | 0.8 |
Our test | 96.3 | 40.3 | 57.2 | 96.3 | 41.0 | 57.0 |
t-distribution | Scenario 1 |
Scenario 2 |
||||
Covariance | Struct-1 | Struct-2 | Struct-3 | Struct-1 | Struct-2 | Struct-3 |
Empirical FDR | ||||||
Xie and Kang | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Sparse CCA | 91.6 | 18.0 | 11.0 | 93.6 | 14.4 | 8.8 |
Our test | 2.8 | 2.3 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 2.7 |
Empirical power | ||||||
Xie and Kang | 7.1 | 3.0 | 11.6 | 16.5 | 3.1 | 13.7 |
Sparse CCA | 21.4 | 8.4 | 3.1 | 24.0 | 1.8 | 0.9 |
Our test | 85.2 | 23.2 | 37.3 | 85.5 | 21.8 | 38.4 |
NOTES: It is also compared with the testing method of Xie and Kang (2017) and sparse CCA. The results are based on 100 data replications. The significance level is set at α = 5%. The sample size is n = 100.