More exoplanets …

Some thought about today’s astro-ph paper on Bayesian model selection for exoplanet discovery by Tuomi et al.  While the methodology is more-or-less reasonable I feel like there’s always one or two things a bit ‘off’ with Tuomi & Jones’ statistical analyses.  In this case one thing that caught my eye was that they go to the trouble of defining Bayesian credible sets for the marginal posterior of a given parameter as defined by the interval range of theta such that the two end points share an equal posterior density while enclosing the specified fraction, d, of posterior mass (say, 99%).  That is as opposed to the more frequently used Bayesian credible intervals defined simply by finding the lower and upper bounds excluding (1-d)/2 worth of mass below and above, respectively.  While it is possible to estimate the former via MCMC (e.g. Chen & Shao 1998) it’s generally a bit of a faff since it requires estimating the density, whereas the ‘ordinary’ credible intervals are trivially recovered from MCMC. As there’s no mention of how Tuomi et al went about recovering their credible sets I wonder if they did actually compute credible intervals?? Hmm … too confusing.  Likewise, I notice they temper on pi(theta)^beta*L(y|theta)^beta rather than the more conventional (and I would say more sensible) pi(theta)*L(y|theta)^beta, and then use the old Newton & Raftery (1994) prior + posterior estimator of the evidence rather than something more powerful (if you’re tempering anyway then thermodynamic integration or biased sampling should be far more robust).
Interesting to see that they used an AR(1) model for the noise; if any exoplaneters out there are interested in something like an MA(>1) noise models then I have a lot of thoughts about particle Gibbs strategies for efficient posterior sampling 🙂

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to More exoplanets …

  1. Highest density intervals and the like are stupid.

    Also, big warning for exoplaneteers calculating the evidence: the kind of data you have can quite easily give you first order phase transitions.

    • Agreed. Re the HPDs, I imagine there’s some highly restrictive conditions (that one probably couldn’t verify on a practical problem) to ensure that they’re well behaved. Somewhere on my future reading list is Donoho 1988 which deals with the problem that you can only ever place lower bounds on the number of modes in a density (of unknown form) with finite draws.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s