pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 1904.02180 · v1 · submitted 2019-04-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM · stat.CO

Recognition: 2 theorem links

dynesty: A Dynamic Nested Sampling Package for Estimating Bayesian Posteriors and Evidences

Joshua S Speagle
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 11:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM stat.CO
keywords dynestydynamic nested samplingBayesian posteriorsevidence estimationmarginal likelihoodastronomical inferencesampling efficiencyMCMC comparison
0
0 comments X

The pith

dynesty uses dynamic nested sampling to estimate Bayesian posteriors and evidences with efficiency gains over MCMC in select problems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents dynesty, a Python package implementing dynamic nested sampling for Bayesian posterior and evidence estimation. Dynamic nested sampling works by adaptively allocating live points based on the structure of the posterior as sampling progresses. This lets the algorithm focus effort on high-probability regions while still computing the marginal likelihood and handling multi-modal distributions. A sympathetic reader would care because many astronomical data analyses require both accurate parameter constraints and model evidence comparisons, and standard methods often trade off one for the other.

Core claim

The central claim is that extending nested sampling to dynamically adjust the number of live points according to posterior structure allows dynesty to deliver substantial sampling efficiency improvements over popular MCMC methods in particular problems, while retaining nested sampling's ability to estimate evidences and sample complex, multi-modal distributions.

What carries the argument

Dynamic nested sampling, an extension of nested sampling that adaptively allocates live points based on the evolving posterior structure to balance exploration and efficiency.

If this is right

  • A single run yields both posterior samples and an evidence estimate without requiring separate MCMC and nested sampling calculations.
  • The adaptive scheme focuses computational effort where the posterior mass is concentrated, reducing wasted samples in low-probability regions.
  • The approach remains effective for multi-modal distributions that challenge standard MCMC chains.
  • Performance gains are shown on both toy problems and several astronomical applications.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method could be tested on higher-dimensional parameter spaces typical of modern astrophysical models to see whether efficiency gains persist.
  • Hybrid pipelines that switch between dynesty and other samplers might further improve results on very large datasets.
  • The adaptive allocation logic might be ported to other evidence estimators outside astronomy.
  • Users should benchmark dynesty on their specific likelihood and prior to confirm the reported efficiency improvements hold.

Load-bearing premise

Adaptive allocation of live points based on posterior structure produces unbiased posterior and evidence estimates without introducing new biases from the specific implementation choices.

What would settle it

Running dynesty on a toy problem with known analytic posterior and evidence values and checking whether the returned estimates match the truth within reported uncertainties, or measuring wall-clock time and effective sample size against a standard MCMC run on the same astronomical dataset.

read the original abstract

We present dynesty, a public, open-source, Python package to estimate Bayesian posteriors and evidences (marginal likelihoods) using Dynamic Nested Sampling. By adaptively allocating samples based on posterior structure, Dynamic Nested Sampling has the benefits of Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms that focus exclusively on posterior estimation while retaining Nested Sampling's ability to estimate evidences and sample from complex, multi-modal distributions. We provide an overview of Nested Sampling, its extension to Dynamic Nested Sampling, the algorithmic challenges involved, and the various approaches taken to solve them. We then examine dynesty's performance on a variety of toy problems along with several astronomical applications. We find in particular problems dynesty can provide substantial improvements in sampling efficiency compared to popular MCMC approaches in the astronomical literature. More detailed statistical results related to Nested Sampling are also included in the Appendix.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents dynesty, a public open-source Python package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences using Dynamic Nested Sampling. It describes the extension from standard Nested Sampling, addresses algorithmic challenges, and shows performance on toy problems and astronomical applications, claiming substantial efficiency improvements over MCMC in particular problems.

Significance. If the results hold, this provides a valuable tool for the community by adaptively allocating samples to improve efficiency while retaining unbiased evidence estimation. The open-source package and tests on real astronomical applications are strengths that support reproducibility and practical utility.

major comments (1)
  1. [Performance evaluation] The section on performance evaluation: the reported efficiency gains over MCMC lack accompanying uncertainty estimates (e.g., standard deviations across repeated runs or bootstrap resampling), which weakens the robustness of the 'substantial improvements' claim for the astronomical applications.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Algorithm overview] The overview of live-point management and stopping criteria would be clearer with a short pseudocode block or flowchart illustrating the dynamic allocation rules.
  2. [Appendix] Appendix results on statistical properties of Nested Sampling should include explicit cross-references to the corresponding toy-problem figures in the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for their thoughtful review and recommendation for minor revision. We respond to the major comment point-by-point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The section on performance evaluation: the reported efficiency gains over MCMC lack accompanying uncertainty estimates (e.g., standard deviations across repeated runs or bootstrap resampling), which weakens the robustness of the 'substantial improvements' claim for the astronomical applications.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. We agree that including uncertainty estimates would strengthen the robustness of the efficiency claims. In the revised manuscript we will add standard deviations computed from multiple independent runs for the toy problems. For the astronomical applications, where full repeated runs are computationally expensive, we will report results from a limited number of repeats where feasible and include a short discussion of observed variability based on the toy-model results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper presents dynesty as an implementation of Dynamic Nested Sampling, building on established Nested Sampling principles with transparent descriptions of algorithmic extensions, live-point management, stopping criteria, and dynamic allocation rules. Performance claims regarding sampling efficiency gains are demonstrated through explicit comparisons to external MCMC methods on toy models and astronomical applications, rather than any internal reduction to fitted parameters or self-referential definitions. The central argument remains self-contained and independently verifiable via the open-source package, with no load-bearing steps that equate predictions or results to their own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard nested sampling theory without introducing new free parameters, axioms beyond domain assumptions, or invented entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Nested sampling principles allow unbiased estimation of evidences from constrained prior volumes.
    Invoked in the overview of nested sampling and its dynamic extension as the foundation for the package.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5434 in / 1169 out tokens · 60717 ms · 2026-05-15T11:30:10.212039+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 19 Pith papers

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

  1. GW240925 and GW250207: Astrophysical Calibration of Gravitational-wave Detectors

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    The first informative astrophysical calibration of gravitational-wave detectors is reported using GW240925 and GW250207.

  2. Testing the Kerr hypothesis beyond the quadrupole with GW241011

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    GW241011 data shows consistency with Kerr black holes for both quadrupole and octupole moments and delivers the first observational bounds on spin-induced octupole deviations.

  3. Novel ringdown tests of general relativity with black hole greybody factors

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    GreyRing model based on greybody factors reproduces numerical relativity ringdown signals with mismatches of order 10^{-6} and enables a new post-merger consistency test of general relativity applied to GW250114.

  4. GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run

    gr-qc 2020-10 accept novelty 7.0

    LIGO and Virgo detected 39 compact binary coalescence events in O3a, including 13 new ones, with black hole binaries up to 150 solar masses and the first significantly asymmetric mass ratios.

  5. Fast neural network surrogate for multimodal effective-one-body gravitational waveforms from generically precessing compact binaries

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Neural network surrogate approximates precessing compact binary gravitational waveforms up to 1000x faster than the base EOB model with validated accuracy.

  6. Post-Newtonian inspiral waveform model for eccentric precessing binaries with higher-order modes and matter effects

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    pyEFPEHM extends prior PN models to include higher-order quasi-circular phasing, generalized precession solutions, and eccentric corrections up to 1PN in selected multipoles for eccentric precessing binaries with matt...

  7. GW231123: False Massive Graviton Signatures from Unmodeled Point-Mass Lensing

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Unmodeled point-mass lensing produces a spurious nonzero graviton mass posterior in GW231123 that vanishes when lensing is included in the analysis.

  8. Posterior Predictive Checks for Gravitational-wave Populations: Limitations and Improvements

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Maximum-likelihood-based posterior predictive checks detect model misspecification better than event-level versions for uncertain spin tilts, but current detector sensitivity limits their power; the Gaussian Component...

  9. The Impact of Spin Priors on Parameterized Tests of General Relativity

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Spin prior choices propagate into tests of GR via the 1.5PN deviation parameter δφ̂3 in a non-trivial, event-dependent way, with stronger effects for short-inspiral events and partial degeneracy with χ_eff when the de...

  10. Do equation of state parametrizations of dark energy faithfully capture the dynamics of the late universe?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Node-based reconstruction of cosmic expansion prefers stronger deceleration at z≈1.7 than smooth DE EoS parametrizations, isolating z~1.5-2 as a window where the latter may compress localized kinematic features permit...

  11. GW250114: testing Hawking's area law and the Kerr nature of black holes

    gr-qc 2025-09 accept novelty 5.0

    GW250114 data confirm the remnant black hole ringdown frequencies lie within 30% of Kerr predictions and that the final horizon area is larger than the sum of the progenitors' areas to high credibility.

  12. Closing the knowledge gap in semileptonic $B\rightarrow X_c\ell\nu$ decays

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The unmeasured fraction of inclusive semileptonic B to charm decays is dominated by final states without D mesons, likely from baryons and Ds mesons.

  13. Gravitational-wave astronomy requires population-informed parameter estimation

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Population-informed hierarchical parameter estimation is required for unbiased astrophysical interpretation of gravitational-wave events rather than using standard individual posteriors with reference priors.

  14. Basilic: An end-to-end pipeline for Bayesian burst inference and model classification in gravitational-wave data

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Basilic is an end-to-end Bayesian pipeline for gravitational-wave burst inference and model classification, with a case study showing signal degeneracies between binary black hole mergers and cosmic strings.

  15. Impact of the SNe Ia Magnitude Transition at 20 Mpc on Cosmological Parameter Estimation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A 0.19 mag step in supernova absolute magnitude at 20 Mpc improves data fit and increases the Hubble constant by 2% while leaving matter density and dark energy parameters stable.

  16. GW190711_030756 and GW200114_020818: astrophysical interpretation of two asymmetric binary black hole mergers in the IAS catalog

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Two asymmetric BBH mergers are characterized with mass ratios 0.35 and ≤0.20; one shows high spins, negative χ_eff, and strong precession, suggesting an emerging population of massive rapidly spinning systems.

  17. GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run

    gr-qc 2021-11 accept novelty 4.0

    GWTC-3 catalogs 90 compact binary coalescence events with p_astro > 0.5 from LIGO and Virgo's first three observing runs, including the first confident neutron star-black hole binaries.

  18. Improved Constraints on Non-Kerr Deviations from Binary Black Hole Inspirals Using GWTC-4 Data

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Bayesian constraints from GWTC-4 binary black hole inspirals show Johannsen metric deformation parameters α13 and ε3 consistent with zero, supporting the Kerr hypothesis.

  19. Signatures of a subpopulation of hierarchical mergers in the GWTC-4 gravitational-wave dataset

    gr-qc 2026-01

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · cited by 19 Pith papers · 15 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    N., 2013, Journal of Improbable Astronomy, 1, 1

    Author A. N., 2013, Journal of Improbable Astronomy, 1, 1

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    D., 2015, Journal of Interesting Stuff, 17, 198

    Jones C. D., 2015, Journal of Interesting Stuff, 17, 198

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    B., 2014, The Example Journal, 12, 345 (Paper I)

    Smith A. B., 2014, The Example Journal, 12, 345 (Paper I)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Bilby: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy

    Ashton G., et al., 2018, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018arXiv181102042A p. arXiv:1811.02042

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    A Conceptual Introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo

    Betancourt M., 2017, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017arXiv170102434B p. arXiv:1701.02434

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    M., Kucukelbir A., McAuliffe J

    Blei D. M., Kucukelbir A., McAuliffe J. D., 2016, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160100670B

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science, CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, https://books.google.com/books?id=ZwSlMAEACAAJ

    Blitzstein J., Hwang J., 2014, Introduction to Probability. Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science, CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, https://books.google.com/books?id=ZwSlMAEACAAJ

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Borne K., et al., 2009, in astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey. p. P6 ( @eprint arXiv 0909.3892 )

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  9. [9]

    B., et al., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012ApJS..200...13B 200, 13

    Brammer G. B., et al., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012ApJS..200...13B 200, 13

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/13 2012

  10. [10]

    Diffusive Nested Sampling

    Brewer B. J., P \'a rtay L. B., Cs \'a nyi G., 2009, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2009arXiv0912.2380B p. arXiv:0912.2380

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    CRC press

    Brooks S., Gelman A., Jones G., Meng X.-L., 2011, Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo. CRC press

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    Buchner J., 2016, @doi [Statistics and Computing] 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2016S&C....26..383B 26, 383

    work page doi:10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y 2016

  13. [13]

    arXiv:1707.04476

    Buchner J., 2017, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017arXiv170704476B p. arXiv:1707.04476

    work page arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Carpenter B., et al., 2017, @doi [Journal of Statistical Software, Articles] 10.18637/jss.v076.i01 , 76, 1

    work page doi:10.18637/jss.v076.i01 2017

  15. [15]

    Chopin N., Ridgway J., 2015, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv150608640C ( @eprint arXiv 1506.08640 )

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    P., 2010, @doi [Biometrika] 10.1093/biomet/asq021 , 97, 741

    Chopin N., Robert C. P., 2010, @doi [Biometrika] 10.1093/biomet/asq021 , 97, 741

    work page doi:10.1093/biomet/asq021 2010

  17. [17]

    Diamond-Lowe H., Berta-Thompson Z., Charbonneau D., Kempton E. M. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aac6dd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018AJ....156...42D 156, 42

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aac6dd 2018

  18. [18]

    Comparison of Resampling Schemes for Particle Filtering

    Douc R., Capp \'e O., Moulines E., 2005, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2005cs........7025D p. cs/0507025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  19. [19]

    Estimating the D imension of a M odel

    Efron B., 1979, @doi [Ann. Statist.] 10.1214/aos/1176344552 , 7, 1

    work page doi:10.1214/aos/1176344552 1979

  20. [20]

    arXiv:1812.08549

    Espinoza N., Kossakowski D., Brahm R., 2018, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018arXiv181208549E p. arXiv:1812.08549

    work page arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    The changing landscape of astrostatistics and astroinformatics

    Feigelson E. D., 2017, in Brescia M., Djorgovski S. G., Feigelson E. D., Longo G., Cavuoti S., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 325, Astroinformatics. pp 3--9 ( @eprint arXiv 1612.06238 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921317003453

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1017/s1743921317003453 2017

  22. [22]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 378, 245–275

    Feroz F., Hobson M. P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384..449F 384, 449

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x 2008

  23. [23]

    Exploring Multi-Modal Distributions with Nested Sampling

    Feroz F., Skilling J., 2013, in von Toussaint U., ed., American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 1553, American Institute of Physics Conference Series. pp 106--113 ( @eprint arXiv 1312.5638 ), @doi 10.1063/1.4819989

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1063/1.4819989 2013

  24. [24]

    MNRAS403(2), 625–645 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009

    Feroz F., Hobson M. P., Bridges M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1601F 398, 1601

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x 2009

  25. [25]

    P., Cameron E., Pettitt A

    Feroz F., Hobson M. P., Cameron E., Pettitt A. N., 2013, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1306.2144F ( @eprint arXiv 1306.2144 )

    work page arXiv 2013

  26. [26]

    A., 1922, @doi [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rsta.1922.0009 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1922RSPTA.222..309F 222, 309

    Fisher R. A., 1922, @doi [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rsta.1922.0009 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1922RSPTA.222..309F 222, 309

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.1922.0009 1922

  27. [27]

    Foreman-Mackey D., 2016, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00024 , 24

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00024 2016

  28. [28]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  29. [29]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018A&A...616A...1G 616, A1

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 2018

  30. [30]

    B., 1992, @doi [Statistical Science] 10.1214/ss/1177011136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1992StaSc...7..457G 7, 457

    Gelman A., Rubin D. B., 1992, @doi [Statistical Science] 10.1214/ss/1177011136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1992StaSc...7..457G 7, 457

    work page doi:10.1214/ss/1177011136 1992

  31. [31]

    A., Firschein O., eds, , Readings in Computer Vision

    Geman S., Geman D., 1987, in Fischler M. A., Firschein O., eds, , Readings in Computer Vision. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (CA), pp 564 -- 584, @doi https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-051581-6.50057-X , http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978008051581650057X

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-051581-6.50057-x 1987

  32. [32]

    Goodman J., Weare J., 2010, @doi [Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computer Science] 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 , 5, 65

    work page doi:10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 2010

  33. [33]

    A., Mockler B., Narayan G., Mandel K

    Guillochon J., Nicholl M., Villar V. A., Mockler B., Narayan G., Mandel K. S., Berger E., Williams P. K. G., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab761 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJS..236....6G 236, 6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab761 2018

  34. [34]

    N., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019arXiv190306107G p

    G \"u nther M. N., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019arXiv190306107G p. arXiv:1903.06107

    work page arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    J., Hobson M

    Handley W. J., Hobson M. P., Lasenby A. N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv047 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450L..61H 450, L61

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv047 2015

  36. [36]

    Hastings W., 1970, @doi [Biometrika] 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97 , 57, 97

    work page doi:10.1093/biomet/57.1.97 1970

  37. [37]

    Marginal Likelihoods from Monte Carlo Markov Chains

    Heavens A., Fantaye Y., Mootoovaloo A., Eggers H., Hosenie Z., Kroon S., Sellentin E., 2017, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017arXiv170403472H p. arXiv:1704.03472

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    Sampling Errors in Nested Sampling Parameter Estimation

    Higson E., Handley W., Hobson M., Lasenby A., 2017a, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017arXiv170309701H p. arXiv:1703.09701

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    arXiv:1704.03459

    Higson E., Handley W., Hobson M., Lasenby A., 2017b, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017arXiv170403459H p. arXiv:1704.03459

    work page arXiv

  40. [40]

    Higson E., Handley W., Hobson M., Lasenby A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3090 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019MNRAS.483.2044H 483, 2044

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3090 2019

  41. [41]

    The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo

    Hoffman M. D., Gelman A., 2011, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2011arXiv1111.4246H p. arXiv:1111.4246

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    D., Schon T

    Hol J. D., Schon T. B., Gustafsson F., 2006, in 2006 IEEE Nonlinear Statistical Signal Processing Workshop. pp 79--82, @doi 10.1109/NSSPW.2006.4378824

    work page doi:10.1109/nsspw.2006.4378824 2006

  43. [43]

    Computing in Science & Engineering9(3), 90–95 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  44. [44]

    Jasa T., Xiang N., 2012, @doi [Acoustical Society of America Journal] 10.1121/1.4754550 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012ASAJ..132.3251J 132, 3251

    work page doi:10.1121/1.4754550 2012

  45. [45]

    W., & Ebeling, H

    Keeton C. R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18474.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2011MNRAS.414.1418K 414, 1418

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18474.x 2011

  46. [46]

    Lartillot N., Philippe H., 2006, @doi [Systematic Biology] 10.1080/10635150500433722 , 55, 195

    work page doi:10.1080/10635150500433722 2006

  47. [47]

    D., Conroy C., van Dokkum P

    Leja J., Johnson B. D., Conroy C., van Dokkum P. G., Byler N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017ApJ...837..170L 837, 170

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe 2017

  48. [48]

    How to Measure Galaxy Star Formation Histories II: Nonparametric Models

    Leja J., Carnall A. C., Johnson B. D., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2018a, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018arXiv181103637L p. arXiv:1811.03637

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    An Older, More Quiescent Universe from Panchromatic SED Fitting of the 3D-HST Survey

    Leja J., et al., 2018b, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018arXiv181205608L p. arXiv:1812.05608

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    D., Conroy C., van Dokkum P., 2018c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8db , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJ...854...62L 854, 62

    Leja J., Johnson B. D., Conroy C., van Dokkum P., 2018c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8db , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJ...854...62L 854, 62

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8db

  51. [51]

    W., Rosenbluth M

    Metropolis N., Rosenbluth A. W., Rosenbluth M. N., Teller A. H., Teller E., 1953, @doi [ ] 10.1063/1.1699114 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1953JChPh..21.1087M 21, 1087

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1699114 1953

  52. [52]

    R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/501068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2006ApJ...638L..51M 638, L51

    Mukherjee P., Parkinson D., Liddle A. R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/501068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2006ApJ...638L..51M 638, L51

    work page doi:10.1086/501068 2006

  53. [53]

    N., 2006, Order Statistics from Independent Exponential Random Variables and the Sum of the Top Order Statistics

    Nagaraja H. N., 2006, Order Statistics from Independent Exponential Random Variables and the Sum of the Top Order Statistics. Birkh \"a user Boston, Boston, MA, pp 173--185, @doi 10.1007/0-8176-4487-3_11 , https://doi.org/10.1007/0-8176-4487-3_11

    work page doi:10.1007/0-8176-4487-3_11 2006

  54. [54]

    M., 2003, @doi [Ann

    Neal R. M., 2003, @doi [Ann. Statist.] 10.1214/aos/1056562461 , 31, 705

    work page doi:10.1214/aos/1056562461 2003

  55. [55]

    M., 2012, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012arXiv1206.1901N p

    Neal R. M., 2012, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012arXiv1206.1901N p. arXiv:1206.1901

    work page arXiv 2012

  56. [56]

    E., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.58 , 9, 10

    Oliphant T. E., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.58 , 9, 10

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.58 2007

  57. [57]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525898 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525898 2016

  58. [58]

    Plummer M., 2003, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing

    work page 2003

  59. [59]

    F., Drovandi C

    Salomone R., South L. F., Drovandi C. C., Kroese D. P., 2018, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018arXiv180503924S p. arXiv:1805.03924

    work page arXiv 2018

  60. [60]

    Sharma S., 2017, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122339 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017ARA&A..55..213S 55, 213

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122339 2017

  61. [61]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 378, 245–275

    Shaw J. R., Bridges M., Hobson M. P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11871.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2007MNRAS.378.1365S 378, 1365

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11871.x 2007

  62. [62]

    Oxford science publications, Oxford University Press, https://books.google.com/books?id=6O8ZAQAAIAAJ

    Sivia D., Skilling J., 2006, Data analysis: a Bayesian tutorial. Oxford science publications, Oxford University Press, https://books.google.com/books?id=6O8ZAQAAIAAJ

    work page 2006

  63. [63]

    V., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol

    Skilling J., 2004, in Fischer R., Preuss R., Toussaint U. V., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 735, American Institute of Physics Conference Series. pp 395--405, @doi 10.1063/1.1835238

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1835238 2004

  64. [64]

    Skilling J., 2006, @doi [Bayesian Anal.] 10.1214/06-BA127 , 1, 833

    work page doi:10.1214/06-ba127 2006

  65. [65]

    H., Vrscay E., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol

    Skilling J., 2012, in Goyal P., Giffin A., Knuth K. H., Vrscay E., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 1443, American Institute of Physics Conference Series. pp 145--156, @doi 10.1063/1.3703630

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3703630 2012

  66. [66]

    Trotta R., 2008, @doi [Contemporary Physics] 10.1080/00107510802066753 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2008ConPh..49...71T 49, 71

    work page doi:10.1080/00107510802066753 2008

  67. [67]

    arXiv:1903.08008

    Vehtari A., Gelman A., Simpson D., Carpenter B., B \"u rkner P.-C., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019arXiv190308008V p. arXiv:1903.08008

    work page arXiv 2019

  68. [68]

    G., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301513 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120.1579Y 120, 1579

    York D. G., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301513 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120.1579Y 120, 1579

    work page doi:10.1086/301513 2000

  69. [69]

    F., Speagle J

    Zucker C., Schlafly E. F., Speagle J. S., Green G. M., Portillo S. K. N., Finkbeiner D. P., Goodman A. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae97c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJ...869...83Z 869, 83

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae97c 2018

  70. [70]

    A Large Catalog of Accurate Distances to Local Molecular Clouds: The Gaia DR2 Edition

    Zucker C., Speagle J. S., Schlafly E. F., Green G. M., Finkbeiner D. P., Goodman A. A., Alves J., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019arXiv190201425Z p. arXiv:1902.01425

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  71. [71]

    C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , 13, 22

    van der Walt S., Colbert S. C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , 13, 22

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2011.37 2011