3 ms·

To your last paragraph: most of my fellow physicists do not care much about the distinction between bayesian and frequentist approaches, they just use a prepack

To your last paragraph: most of my fellow physicists do not care much about the distinction between bayesian and frequentist approaches, they just use a prepackaged tool to process their data. But of the few that learn those tools intimately, cosmologists are always bayesians (because we have only one Universe), and experimental particle physicists are always frequentist (because generating a ton of repeated test events is "cheap").

jessriedel 10y ago
The particle physics do sometimes make Bayesian plots and end up arguing over priors. See this, for example: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1375842/files/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-011.pdf https://cds.cern.ch/record/1375842/files/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-0... And I've heard more than one confused argument between particle physicists about whether Bayesianism or frequentism is "right"...
- asher_ 10y ago
  Given the high level of statistical certainty that particle physicists strive for from experimental data, how much of a difference does the approach matter by the point where they are confident enough to endorse the theory? For instance, if you are going for five sigma (like in the Higgs Boson discovery), how would the different techniques change when the data is considered sufficient, if at all?
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    The five-sigma threshold is a limit for making big public announcements, or claiming definitive discrete discoveries (like new particles) that non-particle physicists can take for granted. But there's lots of intermediate work done at accelerators that can't reach that threshold but still informs further work, and even influences the construction and design of the next multi-billion dollar machines. The bi-annual Review of Particle Physics is as thick as a phone book and filled with (usually) 95%-confidence intervals for measured values. For instance, here is the 89-page summary of what is known about the tau particle: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2015/listings/rpp2015-list-tau.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2015/listings/rpp2015-list-tau.pdf

jessriedel 10y ago

The particle physics do sometimes make Bayesian plots and end up arguing over priors. See this, for example: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1375842/files/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-011.pdf https://cds.cern.ch/record/1375842/files/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-0... And I've heard more than one confused argument between particle physicists about whether Bayesianism or frequentism is "right"...

asher_ 10y ago
Given the high level of statistical certainty that particle physicists strive for from experimental data, how much of a difference does the approach matter by the point where they are confident enough to endorse the theory? For instance, if you are going for five sigma (like in the Higgs Boson discovery), how would the different techniques change when the data is considered sufficient, if at all?
- jessriedel 10y ago
  The five-sigma threshold is a limit for making big public announcements, or claiming definitive discrete discoveries (like new particles) that non-particle physicists can take for granted. But there's lots of intermediate work done at accelerators that can't reach that threshold but still informs further work, and even influences the construction and design of the next multi-billion dollar machines. The bi-annual Review of Particle Physics is as thick as a phone book and filled with (usually) 95%-confidence intervals for measured values. For instance, here is the 89-page summary of what is known about the tau particle: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2015/listings/rpp2015-list-tau.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2015/listings/rpp2015-list-tau.pdf