← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明
本页整理公开书目信息，不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成，未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要；缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
本页为预印本版本；arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历，都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对，只展示已核实例，档案仍可能误合并。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计多个记录；关联记录可能包含正式发表版本，不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零，引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配，同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列，再参考通用方法与发表日期。
分类依据与纠错
分类依据题名和摘要中的方法词与领域语境，不使用期刊名称猜测研究方向。
反馈分类问题
正在核对关联版本…
代码、数据与补充材料
正在核对对应版本的资源…
原文摘要
Policy decisions often hinge on conventional p-value thresholds, which ignore economic costs and benefits of further data collection. This paper recasts statistical significance as a choice between making an immediate policy recommendation and deferring it until further evidence is collected. The welfare-optimal decision corresponds, under minimax regret, to a statistical test whose level depends on the cost and precision of additional evidence. Inverting this rule, we introduce and recommend reporting the abstention-value (A-value) to determine where additional data collection is most needed. The A-value defines the break-even welfare cost of abstaining and recommending further experimentation given the initial evidence. Computing the A-value only requires a point estimate and its standard error, imposes no prior assumptions on policy effects, and can be converted to a monetary research budget using inputs already frequently used by regulators and funding agencies. When experimentation capacity is limited, we show that prioritizing additional data collection where A-values are the largest yields strong finite-sample guarantees. Applications to anti-poverty programs and to a medical study illustrate the practical benefits of using A-values.