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.
翻译:我们应如何评价政策对冲突等不良事件可能性的影响? 意义测试有三个限制。 首先,依赖统计意义,忽略了不确定性是一个连续规模的事实。 其次,侧重于标准点估计忽略了合理效果大小的差异。 第三,实质性意义标准很少得到解释或说明。 新的巴耶斯决定理论模型“因子损失的双重功能模型”克服了这些问题。 它比较了政策干预下的预期损失与不干预下的预期损失。 这些损失是根据政策影响规模的特定范围、这种影响规模的概率范围、政策的成本以及政策打算处理的不良事件的成本计算的。该模型比使用标准损失函数或从假正数和假负数中捕捉取成本的通用统计决定理论模型更适用。 我通过三个应用程序举例说明模型的使用,并提供一套R包。