4.7 Article

Estimating multidimensional probability fields using the Field Estimator for Arbitrary Spaces (FiEstAS) with applications to astrophysics

期刊

COMPUTER PHYSICS COMMUNICATIONS
卷 181, 期 8, 页码 1436-1441

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpc.2010.04.011

关键词

Kernel density estimation; Multivariate data analysis

资金

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia [AYA2007-67965-C03-03]
  2. European Science Foundation (ESF) [ASTROSIM 2027]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Field Estimator for Arbitrary Spaces (FiEstAS) computes the continuous probability density field underlying a given discrete data sample in multiple, non-commensurate dimensions. The algorithm works by constructing a metric-independent tessellation of the data space based on a recursive binary splitting. Individual, data-driven bandwidths are assigned to each point, scaled so that a constant mass M(0) is enclosed. Kernel density estimation may then be performed for different kernel shapes, and a combination of balloon and sample point estimators is proposed as a compromise between resolution and variance. A bias correction is evaluated for the particular (yet common) case where the density is computed exactly at the locations of the data points rather than at an uncorrelated set of locations. By default, the algorithm combines a top-hat kernel with M(0) = 2.0 with the balloon estimator and applies the corresponding bias correction. These settings are shown to yield reasonable results for a simple test case, a two-dimensional ring, that illustrates the performance for oblique distributions, as well as for a six-dimensional Hernquist sphere, a fairly realistic model of the dynamical structure of stellar bulges in galaxies and dark matter haloes in cosmological N-body simulations. Results for different parameter settings are discussed in order to provide a guideline to select an optimal configuration in other cases. Source code is available upon request. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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