Policy Implications of Statistical Estimates: A General Bayesian Decision-Theoretic Model for Binary Outcomes

IF 1.5 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS
A. Suzuki
{"title":"Policy Implications of Statistical Estimates: A General Bayesian Decision-Theoretic Model for Binary Outcomes","authors":"A. Suzuki","doi":"10.1080/2330443X.2022.2050328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract How should we evaluate the effect of a policy on the likelihood of an undesirable event, such as conflict? The significance test has three limitations. First, relying on statistical significance misses the fact that uncertainty is a continuous scale. Second, focusing on a standard point estimate overlooks the variation in plausible effect sizes. Third, the criterion of substantive significance is rarely explained or justified. A new Bayesian decision-theoretic model, “causal binary loss function model,” overcomes these issues. It compares the expected loss under a policy intervention with the one under no intervention. These losses are computed based on a particular range of the effect sizes of a policy, the probability mass of this effect size range, the cost of the policy, and the cost of the undesirable event the policy intends to address. The model is more applicable than common statistical decision-theoretic models using the standard loss functions or capturing costs in terms of false positives and false negatives. I exemplify the model’s use through three applications and provide an R package. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.","PeriodicalId":43397,"journal":{"name":"Statistics and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistics and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2022.2050328","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract How should we evaluate the effect of a policy on the likelihood of an undesirable event, such as conflict? The significance test has three limitations. First, relying on statistical significance misses the fact that uncertainty is a continuous scale. Second, focusing on a standard point estimate overlooks the variation in plausible effect sizes. Third, the criterion of substantive significance is rarely explained or justified. A new Bayesian decision-theoretic model, “causal binary loss function model,” overcomes these issues. It compares the expected loss under a policy intervention with the one under no intervention. These losses are computed based on a particular range of the effect sizes of a policy, the probability mass of this effect size range, the cost of the policy, and the cost of the undesirable event the policy intends to address. The model is more applicable than common statistical decision-theoretic models using the standard loss functions or capturing costs in terms of false positives and false negatives. I exemplify the model’s use through three applications and provide an R package. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.
统计估计的政策含义:二元结果的一般贝叶斯决策理论模型
我们应该如何评估政策对不良事件(如冲突)发生可能性的影响?显著性检验有三个局限性。首先,依赖统计显著性忽略了不确定性是连续尺度的事实。其次,专注于标准点估计忽略了合理效应大小的变化。第三,实质性意义的标准很少得到解释或证明。一个新的贝叶斯决策理论模型,“因果二元损失函数模型”,克服了这些问题。它比较了政策干预和不干预下的预期损失。这些损失是根据政策效应大小的特定范围、该效应大小范围的概率质量、政策的成本以及政策打算处理的不良事件的成本来计算的。该模型比使用标准损失函数或根据假阳性和假阴性捕获成本的常见统计决策理论模型更适用。我通过三个应用程序举例说明了模型的使用,并提供了一个R包。本文的补充材料可在网上获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Statistics and Public Policy
Statistics and Public Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
13
审稿时长
32 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信