A Bayesian interpretation of inconsistency measures in cosmology

TL;DR

This paper introduces a Bayesian framework to interpret inconsistency measures in cosmology, providing a more accurate assessment of dataset discordances and their physical significance, especially in multi-parameter models.

Contribution

The authors develop a Bayesian interpretation of inconsistency measures, addressing limitations of traditional significance levels and demonstrating its application to cosmological data tensions.

Findings

Bayesian interpretation offers stable inconsistency assessments across different parameter counts.

Traditional significance levels tend to underestimate physical inconsistency in multi-parameter models.

Application confirms and revisits known cosmological tensions with improved robustness.

Abstract

Measures of discordance between datasets have become an essential part of cosmological analyses. It is important to accurately evaluate the significance of such discordances when present. We propose here a Bayesian interpretation of inconsistency measures that can extract information about physical inconsistencies in the presence of data scatter. The new framework is based on the conditional probability distribution of the level of physical inconsistency given the obtained value of the measure. We use the index of inconsistency as a case study to illustrate the new interpretation framework, but this can be generalized to other metrics. Importantly, there are two aspects in the quantification of inconsistency that behave differently as the number of model parameters increases. The first is the probability for the level of physical inconsistency to reach a threshold which drops with the increase of the number of parameters under consideration. Then the second is the actual level of physical inconsistency which remains rather insensitive to such an increase in parameters. This often-overlooked ambiguity leads to an underestimation of the physical inconsistency by the commonly adopted significance level when used, but is resolved by the Bayesian interpretation because the conditional probability distribution includes all the statistical information of the level of physical inconsistency. Finally, we apply the Bayesian interpretation to examine the (in)consistency between Planck versus the Cepheid-based local measurement, the Dark Energy Survey (DES), the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) and WMAP. We confirm and revisit the degrees of previous physical inconsistencies and show the stability of the new interpretation to the number of cosmological parameters compared to the commonly used n-$\sigma$ interpretation when applied to cosmological tensions in multi-parameter spaces.