Papers › REACT to NHST: Sensible conclusions to meaningful hypotheses
REACT to NHST: Sensible conclusions to meaningful hypotheses
Rafael Izbicki, Luben M. C. Cabezas, Fernando A. B. Colugnatti, Rodrigo F. L. Lassance, Altay A. L. de Souza, Rafael B. Stern
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
While Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) remains a widely used statistical tool, it suffers from several shortcomings in its common usage, such as conflating statistical and practical significance, the formulation of inappropriate null hypotheses, and the inability to distinguish between accepting the null hypothesis and failing to reject it. Recent efforts have focused on developing alternatives that address these issues. Despite these efforts, conventional NHST remains dominant in scientific research due to its procedural simplicity and mistakenly presumed ease of interpretation. Our work presents an intuitive alternative to conventional NHST designed to bridge the gap between the expectations of researchers and the actual outcomes of hypothesis tests: REACT. REACT not only tackles shortcomings of conventional NHST but also offers additional advantages over existing alternatives. For instance, REACT applies to multiparametric hypotheses and does not require stringent significance-level corrections when conducting multiple tests. We illustrate the practical utility of REACT through real-world data examples.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections