Frequentist model comparison tests of sinusoidal variations in measurements of Newton's gravitational constant

TL;DR

This paper reevaluates claims of sinusoidal variations in Newton's gravitational constant measurements using frequentist model comparison, supporting the view that a constant plus systematic offset explains the data better than periodic models.

Contribution

It applies frequentist model comparison tests to assess sinusoidal variation claims, providing an alternative analysis to previous Bayesian approaches.

Findings

Constant plus systematic offset model fits data better

Sinusoidal variation models are disfavored by the data

Supports previous Bayesian conclusions against periodic variations

Abstract

Anderson et al have claimed to find evidence for periodic sinusoidal variations (period=5.9 years) in measurements of Newton's Gravitational constant. These claims have been disputed by Pitkin. Using Bayesian model comparison, he argues that a model with an unknown Gaussian noise component is favored over any periodic variations by more than $e^{30}$. We re-examine the claims of Anderson et al using frequentist model comparison tests, both with and without errors in the measurement times. Our findings lend support to Pitkin's claim that a constant term along with an unknown systematic offset provides a better fit to the measurements of Newton's constant, compared to any sinusoidal variations.