Aug 6th, 2008| 01:00 pm | Posted by vlk
As mentioned before, background subtraction plays a big role in astrophysical analyses. For a variety of reasons, it is not a good idea to subtract out background counts from source counts, especially in the low-counts Poisson regime. What Bayesians recommend instead is to set up a model for the intensity of the source and the background and to infer these intensities given the data. Continue reading ‘Background Subtraction, the Sequel [Eqn]’ »
Tags:
background,
background marginalization,
background subtraction,
EotW,
Equation,
Equation of the Week Category:
Astro,
Bayesian,
Data Processing,
High-Energy,
Imaging,
Jargon,
Stat |
Comment
May 21st, 2008| 01:00 pm | Posted by vlk
There is a lesson that statisticians, especially of the Bayesian persuasion, have been hammering into our skulls for ages: do not subtract background. Nevertheless, old habits die hard, and old codes die harder. Such is the case with X-ray aperture photometry. Continue reading ‘Background Subtraction [EotW]’ »
Tags:
aperture photometry,
background,
background marginalization,
background subtraction,
celldetect,
Chandra,
ciao,
EotW,
Equation,
error propagation,
ldetect,
local detect,
wavdetect,
X-ray Category:
Algorithms,
Astro,
Jargon |
6 Comments
Apr 20th, 2008| 09:05 pm | Posted by hlee
The dichotomy of outliers; detecting outliers to be discarded or to be investigated; statistics that is robust enough not to be influenced by outliers or sensitive enough to alert the anomaly in the data distribution. Although not related, one paper about outliers made me to dwell on what outliers are. This week topics are diverse. Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 3rd week, Apr. 2008’ »
Tags:
background,
bootstrap,
calibration errors,
Cash statistics,
clusters,
CMB,
corona,
edge detection,
FFT,
gravitational lens,
maximum likelihood,
multiscale,
neural network,
outlier,
SDSS,
sunspot,
systematic errors,
topology,
WMAP,
XMM-Newton Category:
High-Energy,
MCMC,
arXiv |
Comment