Paper detail

Bayesian vs Frequentist: Comparing Bayesian model selection with a frequentist approach using the iterative smoothing method

We have developed a frequentist approach for model selection which determines the consistency between any cosmological model and the data using the distribution of likelihoods from the iterative smoothing method. Using this approach, we have shown how confidently we can conclude whether the data support any given model without comparison to a different one. In this current work, we compare our approach with the conventional Bayesian approach based on the estimation of the Bayesian evidence using nested sampling. We use simulated future Roman (formerly WFIRST)-like type Ia supernovae data in our analysis. We discuss the limits of the Bayesian approach for model selection and show how our proposed frequentist approach can perform better in the falsification of individual models. Namely, if the true model is among the candidates being tested in the Bayesian approach, that approach can select the correct model. If all of the options are false, then the Bayesian approach will select merely the least incorrect one. Our approach is designed for such a case and we can conclude that all of the models are false.

preprint2021arXivOpen 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.