Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Apr 15.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Stat Assoc. 2019 Jun 28;115(531):1279–1291. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2019.1623040

Table 1.

Empirical FDR and empirical power, in percentages, for the proposed testing procedure.

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.