A standard practice in statistical hypothesis testing is to mention the p-value alongside the accept/reject decision. We show the advantages of mentioning an e-value instead. With p-values, it is not clear how to use an extreme observation (e.g. p ≪α) for getting better frequentist decisions. With e-values it is straightforward, since they provide Type-I risk control in a generalized Neyman-Pearson setting with the decision task (a general loss function) determined post-hoc, after observation of the data -- thereby providing a handle on `roving α's'. When Type-II risks are taken into consideration, the only admissible decision rules in the post-hoc setting turn out to be e-value-based. Similarly, if the loss incurred when specifying a faulty confidence interval is not fixed in advance, standard confidence intervals and distributions may fail whereas e-confidence sets and e-posteriors still provide valid risk guarantees. Sufficiently powerful e-values have by now been developed for a range of classical testing problems. We discuss the main challenges for wider development and deployment.

, , , ,
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2302098121
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Grünwald, P. (2024). Beyond Neyman-Pearson: E-values enable hypothesis testing with a data-driven alpha. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121(39), 1–36. doi:10.1073/pnas.2302098121