Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Advice on describing Bayesian analysis of neutron and X-ray reflectometry

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 2207.10406 v4 pith:PIPHF5Y2 submitted 2022-07-21 stat.AP cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.soft

classification stat.APcond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.soft
keywords analysisbayesianreflectometryadviceneutronresultsx-rayenable
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Driven by the availability of modern software and hardware, Bayesian analysis is becoming more popular in neutron and X-ray reflectometry analysis. The understandability and replicability of these analyses may be harmed by inconsistencies in how the probability distributions central to Bayesian methods are represented in the literature. Herein, we provide advice on how to report the results of Bayesian analysis as applied to neutron and X-ray reflectometry. This includes the clear reporting of initial starting conditions, the prior probabilities, and results of any analysis, and the posterior probabilities that are the Bayesian equivalent of the error bar, to enable replicability and improve understanding. We believe that this advice, grounded in our experience working in the field, will enable greater analytical reproducibility among the reflectometry community, as well as improve the quality and usability of results.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools