论文标题
回复：贝叶斯对星系旋转曲线分析的过度自信
Reply to: Overconfidence in Bayesian analyses of galaxy rotation curves
论文作者
论文摘要
Cameron {\ it等人} 〜2019（以下简称C19）建议对天文学中的统计分析采取更加谨慎和严格的方法。我们欢迎他们交流的这一特定方面，因为它有助于刺激在Galaxy旋转曲线中采用更好统计方法的努力，这是我们与Rodrigues {\ it等人} 〜2018（以下R18）做出了贡献的努力。的确，R18是为了在加速度量表的普遍性$ A_0 $的通用性结束的情况下进行的第一项工作，研究了$ a_0 $的大型星系的后验分布。正如C19同意的那样，在贝叶斯框架中发现了可靠的间隔，也就是说，使用贝叶斯定理发现了$ a_0 $的边缘化后期，根据观测数据，发现了先验。此过程是在没有引入任何近似值的情况下完成的。考虑到R18，C19还指出：i）可以使用更好的方法来选择滋扰参数和相应的先验； ii）基于$χ^2 $值的质量削减不应使用，ii）应更健壮的方式评估后期的兼容性。在下文中，在首先澄清我们的工作背景之后，我们解决了这些批评。
Cameron {\it et al.}~2019 (hereafter C19) recommends a more cautious and rigorous approach to statistical analysis in astronomy. We welcome this particular side of their communication as it helps stimulating the effort towards the adoption of better statistical methods in galaxy rotation curves, an effort to which we contributed with Rodrigues {\it et al.}~2018 (hereafter R18). Indeed, R18 was the first work that, in order to conclude on the universality of the acceleration scale $a_0$, studied the posterior distributions on $a_0$ of a large set of galaxies. As C19 agrees, the credible intervals were found within the Bayesian framework, that is, the marginalized posteriors on $a_0$ were found using Bayes' theorem to update the priors in light of the observational data; this process was done without introducing any approximation. Considering R18, C19 also remarks that: i) better methods to select the nuisance parameters and the corresponding priors could be used; ii) a quality cut based on $χ^2$ values should not be used, and iii) the compatibility of the posteriors should be assessed in a more robust way. In the following, after first clarifying the context of our work, we address these criticisms.
