Paper detail

Robust model comparison tests of DAMA/LIBRA annual modulation

We evaluate the statistical significance of the DAMA/LIBRA claims for annual modulation using three independent model comparison techniques, viz frequentist, information theory, and Bayesian analysis. We fit the data from the DAMA/LIBRA experiment to both cosine and a constant model, and carry out model comparison by choosing the constant model as the null hypothesis. For the frequentist test, we invoke Wilk's theorem and calculate the significance using $Δχ^2$ between the two models. For information theoretical tests, we calculate the difference in Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information criterion (BIC) between the two models. We also compare the two models in a Bayesian context by calculating the Bayes factor. We also search for higher harmonics in the DAMA/LIBRA data using generalized Lomb-Scargle periodogram. We finally test the sensitivity of these model comparison techniques in discriminating between pure noise and a cosine signal using synthetic data. This is the first proof of principles application of AIC, BIC as well as Bayes factor to the DAMA data. All our analysis codes along with the data used in this work have been made publicly available.

preprint2020arXivOpen 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.