Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Bayesian versus frequentist upper limits

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1103.2987 v3 pith:5SERKWP7 submitted 2011-03-15 physics.data-an gr-qcstat.ME

classification physics.data-angr-qcstat.ME
keywords upperbayesiandetectioneffectfrequentistlimitsrequireswhile
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

While gravitational waves have not yet been measured directly, data analysis from detection experiments commonly includes an upper limit statement. Such upper limits may be derived via a frequentist or Bayesian approach; the theoretical implications are very different, and on the technical side, one notable difference is that one case requires maximization of the likelihood function over parameter space, while the other requires integration. Using a simple example (detection of a sinusoidal signal in white Gaussian noise), we investigate the differences in performance and interpretation, and the effect of the "trials factor", or "look-elsewhere effect".

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Optomechanical Accelerometer Search for Ultralight Dark Matter

    hep-ex 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A 39 kHz optomechanical membrane accelerometer was operated at 4 K to search for ultralight vector dark matter, yielding no signal and upper limits weaker than existing equivalence-principle bounds.

Pith tools