LOO-PIT: A sensitive posterior test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract With the advent of the next generation of astrophysics experiments, the volume of data available to researchers will be greater than ever. As these projects will significantly drive down statistical uncertainties in measurements, it is crucial to develop novel tools to assess the ability of our models to fit these data within the specified errors. We introduce to astronomy the Leave One Out-Probability Integral Transform (LOO-PIT) technique. This first estimates the LOO posterior predictive distributions based on the model and likelihood distribution specified, then evaluates the quality of the match between the model and data by applying the PIT to each estimated distribution and data point, outputting a LOO-PIT distribution. Deviations between this output distribution and that expected can be characterised visually and with a standard Kolmogorov-Smirnov distribution test. We compare LOO-PIT and the more common χ 2 test using both a simplified model and a more realistic astrophysics problem, where we consider fitting Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in galaxy survey data with contamination from emission line interlopers. LOO-PIT and χ 2 tend to find different signals from the contaminants, and using these tests in conjunction increases the statistical power compared to using either test alone. We also show that LOO-PIT outperforms χ 2 in certain realistic test cases.
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 | 0.018 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".