BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Kamran Javid

Kamran Javid contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
astro-ph.COComputationastro-ph.IMApplicationsMachine LearningMethodologyphysics.data-an

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
8works
0followers
7topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

8 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Comparison of physical and observational galaxy cluster modelling

We present a comparison between three cluster models applied to data obtained by the Arcminute Microkelvin Imager radio interferometer system. The physical model (PM) parameterises a cluster in terms of its physical quantities to model the dark matter and baryonic components of the cluster using NFW and GNFW profiles respectively. The observational models (OM I and OM II) model only the gas content of the cluster. The two OMs vary only in the priors they use in Bayesian inference: OM I has a joint prior on angular radius $θ$ and integrated Comptonisation $Y$, derived from simulations, while OM II uses separable priors on $θ$ and $Y$ which are based on calculations of the physical model. For the comparison we consider a sample of $54$ clusters which are a subsample of the second Planck catalogue of Sunyaev-Zel'dovich sources. We first compare the $Y$ estimates of the three models, and find that the PM generally yields lower estimates relative to the OMs. We then compute the Earth Mover's Distance between the $θ$ - $Y$ posterior distributions obtained from each model for each cluster, and find that the two models which are most discrepant are PM and OM I. Finally, we compare the Bayesian evidence values obtained from each model for each cluster. OM I generally provides the best fit to the data but not at a statistically significant level, according to the Jeffreys scale. The highest evidence ratio obtained is actually in favour of the PM over OM I.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Compromise-free Bayesian neural networks

We conduct a thorough analysis of the relationship between the out-of-sample performance and the Bayesian evidence (marginal likelihood) of Bayesian neural networks (BNNs), as well as looking at the performance of ensembles of BNNs, both using the Boston housing dataset. Using the state-of-the-art in nested sampling, we numerically sample the full (non-Gaussian and multimodal) network posterior and obtain numerical estimates of the Bayesian evidence, considering network models with up to 156 trainable parameters. The networks have between zero and four hidden layers, either $\tanh$ or $ReLU$ activation functions, and with and without hierarchical priors. The ensembles of BNNs are obtained by determining the posterior distribution over networks, from the posterior samples of individual BNNs re-weighted by the associated Bayesian evidence values. There is good correlation between out-of-sample performance and evidence, as well as a remarkable symmetry between the evidence versus model size and out-of-sample performance versus model size planes. Networks with $ReLU$ activation functions have consistently higher evidences than those with $\tanh$ functions, and this is reflected in their out-of-sample performance. Ensembling over architectures acts to further improve performance relative to the individual BNNs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Geometric nested sampling: sampling from distributions defined on non-trivial geometries

Metropolis Hastings nested sampling evolves a Markov chain, accepting new points along the chain according to a version of the Metropolis Hastings acceptance ratio, which has been modified to satisfy the nested sampling likelihood constraint. The geometric nested sampling algorithm I present here is based on the Metropolis Hastings method, but treats parameters as though they represent points on certain geometric objects, namely circles, tori and spheres. For parameters which represent points on a circle or torus, the trial distribution is "wrapped" around the domain of the posterior distribution such that samples cannot be rejected automatically when evaluating the Metropolis ratio due to being outside the sampling domain. Furthermore, this enhances the mobility of the sampler. For parameters which represent coordinates on the surface of a sphere, the algorithm transforms the parameters into a Cartesian coordinate system before sampling which again makes sure no samples are automatically rejected, and provides a physically intuitive way of the sampling the parameter space.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Nested sampling on non-trivial geometries

Metropolis nested sampling evolves a Markov chain from a current livepoint and accepts new points along the chain according to a version of the Metropolis acceptance ratio modified to satisfy the likelihood constraint, characteristic of nested sampling algorithms. The geometric nested sampling algorithm we present here is a based on the Metropolis method, but treats parameters as though they represent points on certain geometric objects, namely circles, tori and spheres. For parameters which represent points on a circle or torus, the trial distribution is `wrapped' around the domain of the posterior distribution such that samples cannot be rejected automatically when evaluating the Metropolis ratio due to being outside the sampling domain. Furthermore, this enhances the mobility of the sampler. For parameters which represent coordinates on the surface of a sphere, the algorithm transforms the parameters into a Cartesian coordinate system before sampling which again makes sure no samples are automatically rejected, and provides a physically intutive way of the sampling the parameter space. We apply the geometric nested sampler to two types of toy model which include circular, toroidal and spherical parameters. We find that the geometric nested sampler generally outperforms \textsc{MultiNest} in both cases. \\ %We also apply the algorithm to a gravitational wave detection model which includes circular and spherical parameters, and find that the geometric nested sampler and \textsc{MultiNest} appear to perform equally well as one another. Our implementation of the algorithm can be found at \url{https://github.com/SuperKam91/nested_sampling}.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Physical modelling of galaxy clusters and Bayesian inference in astrophysics

I compare the mass values obtained with data taken from the Arcminute Microkelvin Imager (AMI) radio interferometer system and from the Planck satellite. The former of these uses a Bayesian analysis pipeline that parameterises a cluster in terms of its physical quantities, and models the dark matter \& baryonic components of a cluster using Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) and generalised-NFW profiles respectively. I also analyse simulated AMI data with input values based on PwS mass estimates. I then compare three cluster models using AMI data for the 54 cluster sample. The two observational models considered only model the gas content of the cluster. To compare the physical and observational models I consider their posterior parameter estimates, including the calculation of a metric defined between two probability distributions. The models' fit to the cluster data is evaluated by looking at the Bayesian evidence values. Improvements to the physical modelling of galaxy clusters are then considered, either by relaxing some of the assumptions underlying the physical model, or by introducing a new profile for the dark matter component of clusters. The final part of the cluster analysis work focuses on Bayesian analysis using a joint likelihood function of data from both AMI and the Planck satellite simultaneously. Finally, a new Bayesian inference algorithm based on nested sampling is presented. The algorithm, named the "geometric nested sampler", is an adaption of the Metropolis-Hastings nested sampler and makes use of the geometrical interpretation of sets of parameters to sample from their domains efficiently. The geometric nested sampler is tested on several toy models as well as a model representing the emission of gravitational waves from binary black hole mergers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Physical modelling of galaxy clusters detected by Planck

We present a comparison of mass estimates for $54$ galaxy cluster candidates from the second Planck catalogue (PSZ2) of Sunyaev-Zel'dovich sources. We compare the mass values obtained with data taken from the Arcminute Microkelvin Imager (AMI) radio interferometer system and from the Planck satellite. The former of these uses a Bayesian analysis pipeline that parameterises a cluster in terms of its physical quantities, and models the dark matter & baryonic components of a cluster using NFW and GNFW profiles respectively. Our mass estimates derived from Planck data are obtained from the results of the Bayesian detection algorithm PowellSnakes (PwS), are based on the methodology detailed in the PSZ2 paper, and produce two sets of mass estimates; one estimate is calculated directly from the angular radius $θ$ - integrated Comptonisation parameter $Y$ posterior distributions, and the other uses a `slicing function' to provide information on $θ$ based on X-ray measurements and previous Planck mission samples. We find that for $37$ of the clusters, the AMI mass estimates are lower than both values obtained from Planck data. However the AMI and slicing function estimates are within one combined standard deviation of each other for $31$ clusters. We also generate cluster simulations based on the slicing-function mass estimates, and analyse them in the same way as we did the real AMI data. We find that inclusion in the simulations of radio-source confusion & CMB noise and measurable radio-sources causes AMI mass estimates to be systematically low.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Physical modelling of galaxy clusters using Einasto dark matter profiles

We derive a model for Sunyaev--Zel'dovich data from a galaxy cluster which uses an Einasto profile to model the cluster's dark matter component. This model is similar to the physical models for clusters previously used by the Arcminute Microkelvin Imager (AMI) consortium, which model the dark matter using a Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) profile, but the Einasto profile provides an extra degree of freedom. We thus present a comparison between two physical models which differ only in the way they model dark matter: one which uses an NFW profile (PM I) and one that uses an Einasto profile (PM II). We illustrate the differences between the models by plotting physical properties of clusters as a function of cluster radius. We generate AMI simulations of clusters which are \textit{created} and \textit{analysed} with both models. From this we find that for 14 of the 16 simulations, the Bayesian evidence gives no preference to either of the models according to the Jeffreys scale, and for the other two simulations, weak preference in favour of the correct model. However, for the mass estimates obtained from the analyses, the values were within $1σ$ of the input values for 14 out of 16 of the clusters when using the correct model, but only in 6 out of 16 cases when the incorrect model was used to analyse the data. Finally we apply the models to real data from cluster A611 obtained with AMI, and find the mass estimates to be consistent with one another except in the case of when PM II is applied using an extreme value for the Einasto shape parameter.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Sunyaev--Zel'dovich profile fitting with joint AMI-Planck analysis

We develop a Bayesian method of analysing Sunyaev-Zel'dovich measurements of galaxy clusters obtained from the Arcminute Microkelvin Imager (AMI) radio interferometer system and from the Planck satellite, using a joint likelihood function for the data from both instruments. Our method is applicable to any combination of Planck data with interferometric data from one or more arrays. We apply the analysis to simulated clusters and find that when the cluster pressure profile is known a-priori, the joint dataset provides precise and accurate constraints on the cluster parameters, removing the need for external information to reduce the parameter degeneracy. When the pressure profile deviates from that assumed for the fit, the constraints become biased. Allowing the pressure profile shape parameters to vary in the analysis allows an unbiased recovery of the integrated cluster signal and produces constraints on some shape parameters, depending on the angular size of the cluster. When applied to real data from Planck-detected cluster PSZ2 G063.80+11.42, our method resolves the discrepancy between the AMI and Planck $Y$-estimates and usefully constrains the gas pressure profile shape parameters at intermediate and large radii.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access