The Neyman-Pearson paradigm is formulated in terms of Type I and Type II errors. Suppose we are testing the null vs the alternative (see hypothesis testing). In particular, we focus on constructing hypothesis tests such that

for some pre-specified . Here are the observations. (Note the pre-specification is important; see issues with p-values. This motivates post-hoc hypothesis testing). Subject to this constraint we want to maximize the power of the test, i.e.,

Wald was the first (I think) to formulate NP in terms of decision-theory. Introduce a loss function with two parameters, , where represents the null and alternative hypothesis, and represents the action (accept or reject). Presumably one has .

We restate the type-I error guarantee as a Type-I risk guarantee:

Note that so in order to recapture the type-I error guarantee, we can take , in which case

To recover the notion of power, introduce type-II risk, which is Write

which relates type-II risk to power. We want to minimize type-II risk.

Using losses allows us to generalize the NP paradigm beyond binary decisions (accept/reject) and to consider more general decision spaces. Eg we can consider for . This enables post-hoc hypothesis testing, as Grunwald studies.

References