Posterior Predictive Checks for Gravitational-wave Populations: Limitations and Improvements
Simona J. Miller, Sophia Winney, Katerina Chatziioannou, Patrick M. Meyers

TL;DR
This paper evaluates the effectiveness of posterior predictive checks (PPCs) in assessing gravitational-wave population models, highlighting limitations with uncertain parameters and proposing alternative methods, but finds limited improvements with current data.
Contribution
It systematically compares various PPC methods for poorly-constrained parameters and demonstrates their limitations in diagnosing model misspecification in gravitational-wave data.
Findings
PPCs on maximum likelihood parameters are more effective than event-level PPCs.
Alternative PPCs do not significantly improve model diagnostics at current sensitivity.
The GWTC-4.0 catalog shows the Gaussian Spins model misfits in spin magnitude and tilt distributions.
Abstract
When selecting a model to characterize an astrophysical population, it is crucial to assess whether that model fits the data and, if not, how it can be improved. To this end, posterior predictive checks (PPCs) are a widely-used statistical test of model fit when inferring gravitational-wave source populations. However, PPCs exhibit limitations when assessing single-event parameters with large measurement uncertainty, like the spin tilt angles of the binary black holes (BBHs) observable with the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) detectors. When single-event inference is prior-dominated, traditional PPCs fail to flag even very poor model fits. In this work, we assess the efficacy of various alternative PPCs on poorly-constrained parameters. We compare PPCs conducted on event- vs. data-level parameters (e.g. posterior samples vs. maximum likelihood points), and explore two additional event-level…
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.
