When models fail: an introduction to posterior predictive checks and model misspecification in gravitational-wave astronomy
Isobel M. Romero-Shaw, Eric Thrane, Paul D. Lasky

TL;DR
This paper reviews the importance of posterior predictive checks in gravitational-wave astronomy, highlighting how model misspecification can mislead Bayesian inferences and proposing methods to detect such issues.
Contribution
It introduces practical tests and checks for identifying model misspecification in Bayesian analyses within gravitational-wave research.
Findings
Posterior predictive checks help detect model misspecification.
Model deficiencies can lead to misleading parameter estimates.
Python notebooks illustrate key concepts and methods.
Abstract
Bayesian inference is a powerful tool in gravitational-wave astronomy. It enables us to deduce the properties of merging compact-object binaries and to determine how these mergers are distributed as a population according to mass, spin, and redshift. As key results are increasingly derived using Bayesian inference, there is increasing scrutiny on Bayesian methods. In this review, we discuss the phenomenon of \textit{model misspecification}, in which results obtained with Bayesian inference are misleading because of deficiencies in the assumed model(s). Such deficiencies can impede our inferences of the true parameters describing physical systems. They can also reduce our ability to distinguish the "best fitting" model: it can be misleading to say that Model~A is preferred over Model~B if both models are manifestly poor descriptions of reality. Broadly speaking, there are two ways in…
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.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
