Paper detail

Statistical coverage for supersymmetric parameter estimation: a case study with direct detection of dark matter

Models of weak-scale supersymmetry offer viable dark matter (DM) candidates. Their parameter spaces are however rather large and complex, such that pinning down the actual parameter values from experimental data can depend strongly on the employed statistical framework and scanning algorithm. In frequentist parameter estimation, a central requirement for properly constructed confidence intervals is that they cover true parameter values, preferably at exactly the stated confidence level when experiments are repeated infinitely many times. Since most widely-used scanning techniques are optimised for Bayesian statistics, one needs to assess their abilities in providing correct confidence intervals in terms of the statistical coverage. Here we investigate this for the Constrained Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (CMSSM) when only constrained by data from direct searches for dark matter. We construct confidence intervals from one-dimensional profile likelihoods and study the coverage by generating several pseudo-experiments for a few benchmark sets of pseudo-true parameters. We use nested sampling to scan the parameter space and evaluate the coverage for the benchmarks when either flat or logarithmic priors are imposed on gaugino and scalar mass parameters. The sampling algorithm has been used in the configuration usually adopted for exploration of the Bayesian posterior. We observe both under- and over-coverage, which in some cases vary quite dramatically when benchmarks or priors are modified. We show how most of the variation can be explained as the impact of explicit priors as well as sampling effects, where the latter are indirectly imposed by physicality conditions. For comparison, we also evaluate the coverage for Bayesian credible intervals, and observe significant under-coverage in those cases.

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.