Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

On Computing Upper Limits to Source Intensities

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 1006.4334 v1 pith:HKNF2ONQ submitted 2010-06-22 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HEstat.AP

classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HEstat.AP
keywords uppersourceintensitydetectionlimitconfidenceerrorlimits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

A common problem in astrophysics is determining how bright a source could be and still not be detected. Despite the simplicity with which the problem can be stated, the solution involves complex statistical issues that require careful analysis. In contrast to the confidence bound, this concept has never been formally analyzed, leading to a great variety of often ad hoc solutions. Here we formulate and describe the problem in a self-consistent manner. Detection significance is usually defined by the acceptable proportion of false positives (the TypeI error), and we invoke the complementary concept of false negatives (the TypeII error), based on the statistical power of a test, to compute an upper limit to the detectable source intensity. To determine the minimum intensity that a source must have for it to be detected, we first define a detection threshold, and then compute the probabilities of detecting sources of various intensities at the given threshold. The intensity that corresponds to the specified TypeII error probability defines that minimum intensity, and is identified as the upper limit. Thus, an upper limit is a characteristic of the detection procedure rather than the strength of any particular source and should not be confused with confidence intervals or other estimates of source intensity. This is particularly important given the large number of catalogs that are being generated from increasingly sensitive surveys. We discuss the differences between these upper limits and confidence bounds. Both measures are useful quantities that should be reported in order to extract the most science from catalogs, though they answer different statistical questions: an upper bound describes an inference range on the source intensity, while an upper limit calibrates the detection process. We provide a recipe for computing upper limits that applies to all detection algorithms.

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. On the X-ray Emission From Supernovae, and Implications for the Mass-Loss Rates of their Progenitor Stars

    astro-ph.HE 2025-05 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A compilation of 115 supernova X-ray light curves and selected spectra concludes that Type Ib/c and low-mass-loss Type IIP supernovae emit non-thermally, while Type IIn supernovae emit thermally, with inferred progeni...

Pith tools