TL;DR
This study evaluates various Bayesian methods for quantifying the evidence of 0 to 3 planets in synthetic radial velocity data, highlighting the challenges in estimating uncertainties and the consistency of certain algorithms.
Contribution
It systematically compares multiple Bayesian evidence estimation techniques for exoplanet detection in RV data, emphasizing their reliability and limitations.
Findings
Dispersion in evidence estimates increases with the number of planets.
Monte Carlo approaches provide more plausible uncertainty estimates.
Importance and nested sampling methods yield consistent model comparison results.
Abstract
We present results from a data challenge posed to the radial velocity (RV) community: namely, to quantify the Bayesian "evidence" for n={0,1,2,3} planets in a set of synthetically generated RV datasets containing a range of planet signals. Participating teams were provided the same likelihood function and set of priors to use in their analysis. They applied a variety of methods to estimate Z, the marginal likelihood for each n-planet model, including cross-validation, the Laplace approximation, importance sampling, and nested sampling. We found the dispersion in Z across different methods grew with increasing n-planet models: ~3 for 0-planets, ~10 for 1-planet, ~100-1000 for 2-planets, and >10,000 for 3-planets. Most internal estimates of uncertainty in Z for individual methods significantly underestimated the observed dispersion across all methods. Methods that adopted a Monte Carlo…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
