您是对的，其中涉及随机数生成，并且它使计算因运行而异。罪魁祸首其实不是 Dunnett 程序，而是单步调整所需的多元 t 分布。

以下代码显示了一个计算示例$P(X<0)$带有 5 维向量$X$具有多元$T_5$具有可交换相关性的分布：

> library(mvtnorm)
> cr2 <- matrix(rep(0.3, 25), nr=5); diag(cr2) <- 1
> cr2
     [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5]
[1,]  1.0  0.3  0.3  0.3  0.3
[2,]  0.3  1.0  0.3  0.3  0.3
[3,]  0.3  0.3  1.0  0.3  0.3
[4,]  0.3  0.3  0.3  1.0  0.3
[5,]  0.3  0.3  0.3  0.3  1.0
> b <- pmvt(lower=rep(-Inf,5), upper=rep(0,5), delta=rep(0,5), df=5, corr=cr2)
> a <- pmvt(lower=rep(-Inf,5), upper=rep(0,5), delta=rep(0,5), df=5, corr=cr2)
> all.equal(a,b)
[1] "Attributes: < Component 1: Mean relative difference: 0.1527122 >"
[2] "Mean relative difference: 0.0003698006"     

如果这值得关注，只需set.seed在计算之前调用任何参数以使其完全可重现。

顺便说一句，对输出中的错误进行了确认和量化glht：

> ss <- summary(glht(aov, linfct=mcp(Group="Dunnett")))
> attr(ss$test$pvalues, "error")
[1] 0.0006597562

我通过示例一起回答您的前两个问题。

library(multcomp)

Group <- factor(c("A","A","B","B","B","C","C","C","D","D","D","E","E","F","F","F"))
Value <- c(5,5.09901951359278,4.69041575982343,4.58257569495584,4.79583152331272,5,5.09901951359278,4.24264068711928,5.09901951359278,5.19615242270663,4.58257569495584,6.16441400296898,6.85565460040104,7.68114574786861,7.07106781186548,6.48074069840786)
data <- data.frame(Group, Value)

fit <- aov(Value ~ Group, data)

set.seed(20140123)
Dunnet <- glht(fit, linfct=mcp(Group="Dunnett"))
summary(Dunnet)

结果：

     Simultaneous Tests for General Linear Hypotheses

Multiple Comparisons of Means: Dunnett Contrasts


Fit: aov(formula = Value ~ Group, data = data)

Linear Hypotheses:
           Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)   
B - A == 0 -0.35990    0.37009  -0.972  0.76536   
C - A == 0 -0.26896    0.37009  -0.727  0.90012   
D - A == 0 -0.09026    0.37009  -0.244  0.99895   
E - A == 0  1.46052    0.40541   3.603  0.01794 * 
F - A == 0  2.02814    0.37009   5.480  0.00112 **
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
(Adjusted p values reported -- single-step method)

再次运行（不设置种子）：

summary(Dunnet)

不同的结果：

     Simultaneous Tests for General Linear Hypotheses

Multiple Comparisons of Means: Dunnett Contrasts


Fit: aov(formula = Value ~ Group, data = data)

Linear Hypotheses:
           Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)   
B - A == 0 -0.35990    0.37009  -0.972  0.76535   
C - A == 0 -0.26896    0.37009  -0.727  0.90020   
D - A == 0 -0.09026    0.37009  -0.244  0.99895   
E - A == 0  1.46052    0.40541   3.603  0.01767 * 
F - A == 0  2.02814    0.37009   5.480  0.00105 **
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
(Adjusted p values reported -- single-step method)

再次运行（使用固定的种子）：

set.seed(20140123)
Dunnet <- glht(fit, linfct=mcp(Group="Dunnett"))
summary(Dunnet)

结果相同：

     Simultaneous Tests for General Linear Hypotheses

Multiple Comparisons of Means: Dunnett Contrasts


Fit: aov(formula = Value ~ Group, data = data)

Linear Hypotheses:
           Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)   
B - A == 0 -0.35990    0.37009  -0.972  0.76536   
C - A == 0 -0.26896    0.37009  -0.727  0.90012   
D - A == 0 -0.09026    0.37009  -0.244  0.99895   
E - A == 0  1.46052    0.40541   3.603  0.01794 * 
F - A == 0  2.02814    0.37009   5.480  0.00112 **
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
(Adjusted p values reported -- single-step method)

通过在每次运行之前设置种子，您可以获得一致的结果。因此，似乎在计算 p 值时使用了随机数。

我认为这种微小的变化是一个问题吗？我不是很喜欢它，但我会忍受它。使用固定种子将使您的结果具有可重复性。我建议不要根据旁边有多少颗星来考虑 p 值——而是选择一个$alpha$这对你来说是有意义和有用的。我尽量不被小数点后 5 或 6 位发生的事情所困扰，除非我正在从事的项目确实需要这种精确度。在这种情况下，我认为大多数人都会同意，即使 p 值计算略有变化，结果的解释也是一样的。