  Our purpose, is to put forward a change in the paradigm of testing by
generalizing a very natural idea exposed by Morris DeGroot (1975) aiming to an
approach that is attractive to all schools of statistics, in a procedure better
suited for the needs of science. DeGroot's seminal idea is to base testing
statistical hypothesis on minimizing the weighted sum of type I plus type II
error instead of of the prevailing paradigm which is fixing type I error and
minimizing type II error. DeGroot's result is that in simple vs simple
hypothesis the optimal criterion is to reject, according to the likelihood
ratio as the evidence (ordering) statistics using a fixed threshold value,
instead of a fixed tail probability. By defining expected type I and type II
errors, we generalize DeGroot's approach and find that the optimal region is
defined by the ratio of evidences, that is, averaged likelihoods (with respect
to a prior measure) and a threshold fixed. This approach yields an optimal
theory in complete generality, which the Classical Theory of Testing does not.
This can be seen as a Bayes-Non-Bayes compromise: the criteria (weighted sum of
type I and type II errors) is Frequentist, but the test criterion is the ratio
of marginalized likelihood, which is Bayesian. We give arguments, to push the
theory still further, so that the weighting measures (priors)of the likelihoods
does not have to be proper and highly informative, but just predictively
matched, that is that predictively matched priors, give rise to the same
evidence (marginal likelihoods) using minimal (smallest) training samples. The
theory that emerges, similar to the theories based on Objective Bayes
approaches, is a powerful response to criticisms of the prevailing approach of
hypothesis testing, see for example Ioannidis (2005) and Siegfried (2010) among
many others.
