Paper detail

The power of Bayesian evidence in astronomy

We discuss the use of the Bayesian evidence ratio, or Bayes factor, for model selection in astronomy. We treat the evidence ratio as a statistic and investigate its distribution over an ensemble of experiments, considering both simple analytical examples and some more realistic cases, which require numerical simulation. We find that the evidence ratio is a noisy statistic, and thus it may not be sensible to decide to accept or reject a model based solely on whether the evidence ratio reaches some threshold value. The odds suggested by the evidence ratio bear no obvious relationship to the power or Type I error rate of a test based on the evidence ratio. The general performance of such tests is strongly affected by the signal to noise ratio in the data, the assumed priors, and the threshold in the evidence ratio that is taken as `decisive'. The comprehensiveness of the model suite under consideration is also very important. The usefulness of the evidence ratio approach in a given problem can be assessed in advance of the experiment, using simple models and numerical approximations. In many cases, this approach can be as informative as a much more costly full-scale Bayesian analysis of a complex problem.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

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 map preview

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.