Matching Bayesian and frequentist coverage probabilities when using an approximate data covariance matrix
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observational astrophysics consists of making inferences about the Universe by comparing data and models. The credible intervals placed on model parameters are often as important as the maximum a posteriori probability values, as the intervals indicate concordance or discordance between models and with measurements from other data. Intermediate statistics (e.g. the power spectrum) are usually measured and inferences made by fitting models to these rather than the raw data, assuming that the likelihood for these statistics has multivariate Gaussian form. The covariance matrix used to calculate the likelihood is often estimated from simulations, such that it is itself a random variable. This is a standard problem in Bayesian statistics, which requires a prior to be placed on the true model parameters and covariance matrix, influencing the joint posterior distribution. As an alternative to the commonly-used Independence-Jeffreys prior, we introduce a prior that leads to a posterior that has approximately frequentist matching coverage. This is achieved by matching the covariance of the posterior to that of the distribution of true values of the parameters around the maximum likelihood values in repeated trials, under certain assumptions. Using this prior, credible intervals derived from a Bayesian analysis can be interpreted approximately as confidence intervals, containing the truth a certain proportion of the time for repeated trials. Linking frequentist and Bayesian approaches that have previously appeared in the astronomical literature, this offers a consistent and conservative approach for credible intervals quoted on model parameters for problems where the covariance matrix is itself an estimate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.226 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".