4.7 Article

Tests of Bayesian model selection techniques for gravitational wave astronomy

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 76, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.083006

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The analysis of gravitational wave data involves many model selection problems. The most important example is the detection problem of selecting between the data being consistent with instrument noise alone, or instrument noise and a gravitational wave signal. The analysis of data from ground based gravitational wave detectors is mostly conducted using classical statistics, and methods such as the Neyman-Peterson criteria are used for model selection. Future space based detectors, such as the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), are expected to produce rich data streams containing the signals from many millions of sources. Determining the number of sources that are resolvable, and the most appropriate description of each source poses a challenging model selection problem that may best be addressed in a Bayesian framework. An important class of LISA sources are the millions of low-mass binary systems within our own galaxy, tens of thousands of which will be detectable. Not only are the number of sources unknown, but so are the number of parameters required to model the waveforms. For example, a significant subset of the resolvable galactic binaries will exhibit orbital frequency evolution, while a smaller number will have measurable eccentricity. In the Bayesian approach to model selection one needs to compute the Bayes factor between competing models. Here we explore various methods for computing Bayes factors in the context of determining which galactic binaries have measurable frequency evolution. The methods explored include a reverse jump Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm, Savage-Dickie density ratios, the Schwarz-Bayes information criterion, and the Laplace approximation to the model evidence. We find good agreement between all of the approaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据