Paper detail

A Bayesian Approach to Comparing Cosmic Ray Energy Spectra

A common problem in ultra-high energy cosmic ray physics is the comparison of energy spectra. The question is whether the spectra from two experiments or two regions of the sky agree within their statistical and systematic uncertainties. We develop a method to directly compare energy spectra for ultra-high energy cosmic rays from two different regions of the sky in the same experiment without reliance on agreement with a theoretical model of the energy spectra. The consistency between the two spectra is expressed in terms of a Bayes factor, defined here as the ratio of the likelihood of the two-parent source hypothesis to the likelihood of the one-parent source hypothesis. Unlike other methods, for example chi^2 tests, the Bayes factor allows for the calculation of the posterior odds ratio and correctly accounts for non-Gaussian uncertainties. The latter is particularly important at the highest energies, where the number of events is very small.

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.