Source author record

Alanna Connors

Alanna Connors appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Applications astro-ph astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE physics.data-an

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works

5topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2011arXiv

Accounting for Calibration Uncertainties in X-ray Analysis: Effective Areas in Spectral Fitting

While considerable advance has been made to account for statistical uncertainties in astronomical analyses, systematic instrumental uncertainties have been generally ignored. This can be crucial to a proper interpretation of analysis results because instrumental calibration uncertainty is a form of systematic uncertainty. Ignoring it can underestimate error bars and introduce bias into the fitted values of model parameters. Accounting for such uncertainties currently requires extensive case-specific simulations if using existing analysis packages. Here we present general statistical methods that incorporate calibration uncertainties into spectral analysis of high-energy data. We first present a method based on multiple imputation that can be applied with any fitting method, but is necessarily approximate. We then describe a more exact Bayesian approach that works in conjunction with a Markov chain Monte Carlo based fitting. We explore methods for improving computational efficiency, and in particular detail a method of summarizing calibration uncertainties with a principal component analysis of samples of plausible calibration files. This method is implemented using recently codified Chandra effective area uncertainties for low-resolution spectral analysis and is verified using both simulated and actual Chandra data. Our procedure for incorporating effective area uncertainty is easily generalized to other types of calibration uncertainties.

preprint2010arXiv

On Computing Upper Limits to Source Intensities

A common problem in astrophysics is determining how bright a source could be and still not be detected. Despite the simplicity with which the problem can be stated, the solution involves complex statistical issues that require careful analysis. In contrast to the confidence bound, this concept has never been formally analyzed, leading to a great variety of often ad hoc solutions. Here we formulate and describe the problem in a self-consistent manner. Detection significance is usually defined by the acceptable proportion of false positives (the TypeI error), and we invoke the complementary concept of false negatives (the TypeII error), based on the statistical power of a test, to compute an upper limit to the detectable source intensity. To determine the minimum intensity that a source must have for it to be detected, we first define a detection threshold, and then compute the probabilities of detecting sources of various intensities at the given threshold. The intensity that corresponds to the specified TypeII error probability defines that minimum intensity, and is identified as the upper limit. Thus, an upper limit is a characteristic of the detection procedure rather than the strength of any particular source and should not be confused with confidence intervals or other estimates of source intensity. This is particularly important given the large number of catalogs that are being generated from increasingly sensitive surveys. We discuss the differences between these upper limits and confidence bounds. Both measures are useful quantities that should be reported in order to extract the most science from catalogs, though they answer different statistical questions: an upper bound describes an inference range on the source intensity, while an upper limit calibrates the detection process. We provide a recipe for computing upper limits that applies to all detection algorithms.

preprint2002arXiv

Statistics: Handle with Care, Detecting Multiple Model Components with the Likelihood Ratio Test

The likelihood ratio test (LRT) and the related $F$ test, do not (even asymptotically) adhere to their nominal $χ^2$ and $F$ distributions in many statistical tests common in astrophysics, thereby casting many marginal line or source detections and non-detections into doubt. Although there are many legitimate uses of these statistics, in some important cases it can be impossible to compute the correct false positive rate. For example, it has become common practice to use the LRT or the $F$ test for detecting a line in a spectral model or a source above background despite the lack of certain required regularity conditions. In these and other settings that involve testing a hypothesis that is on the boundary of the parameter space, {\it contrary to common practice, the nominal $χ^2$ distribution for the LRT or the $F$ distribution for the $F$ test should not be used}. In this paper, we characterize an important class of problems where the LRT and the $F$ test fail and illustrate this non-standard behavior. We briefly sketch several possible acceptable alternatives, focusing on Bayesian posterior predictive probability-values. We present this method in some detail, as it is a simple, robust, and intuitive approach. This alternative method is illustrated using the gamma-ray burst of May 8, 1997 (GRB 970508) to investigate the presence of an Fe K emission line during the initial phase of the observation.

preprint2000arXiv

Analysis of Energy Spectra with Low Photon Counts via Bayesian Posterior Simulation

Over the past 10 years Bayesian methods have rapidly grown more popular as several computationally intensive statistical algorithms have become feasible with increased computer power. In this paper, we begin with a general description of the Bayesian paradigm for statistical inference and the various state-of-the-art model fitting techniques that we employ (e.g., Gibbs sampler and Metropolis- Hastings). These algorithms are very flexible and can be used to fit models that account for the highly hierarchical structure inherent in the collection of high-quality spectra and thus can keep pace with the accelerating progress of new space telescope designs. The methods we develop, which will soon be available in the CIAO software package, explicitly model photon arrivals as a Poisson process and, thus, have no difficulty with high resolution low count X-ray and gamma-ray data. We expect these methods to be useful not only for the recently launched Chandra X-ray observatory and XMM but also new generation telescopes such as Constellation X, GLAST, etc. In the context of two examples (Quasar S5 0014+813 and Hybrid-Chromosphere Supergiant Star alpha TrA) we illustrate a new highly structured model and how Bayesian posterior sampling can be used to compute estimates, error bars, and credible intervals for the various model parameters.