Evaluation of three methods for calculating statistical significance when incorporating a systematic uncertainty into a test of the background-only hypothesis for a Poisson process

By Robert D. Cousins, J. Linnemann, J. Tucker. 2007

208 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Hypothesis tests for the presence of new sources of Poisson counts amidst background processes are frequently performed in high energy physics (HEP), gamma ray astronomy (GRA), and other branches of science. While there are conceptual issues already when the mean rate of background is precisely known, the issues are even more difficult when the mean background rate has non-negligible uncertainty. After describing a variety of methods to be found in the HEP and GRA literature, we consider in detail three classes of algorithms and evaluate them over a wide range of parameter space, by the criterion of how close the ensemble-average Type I error rate (rejection of the background-only hypothesis when it is true) compares with the nominal significance level given by the algorithm. We recommend wider use of an algorithm firmly grounded in frequentist tests of the ratio of Poisson means, although for very low counts the overcoverage can be severe due to the effect of discreteness. We extend the studies of Cranmer, who found that a popular Bayesian-frequentist hybrid can undercover severely when taken to high Z-values. We also examine the profile likelihood method, which has long been used in GRA and HEP; it provides an excellent approximation in much of the parameter space, as previously studied by Rolke and collaborators.

Subfields: Nuclear and High Energy Physics, Radiation, Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/208a65d1a3acd28fe4ecc1263e10351e0a9b6e01

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

  1. Atlas Collaboration
  2. Cms Collaboration
  3. K. Tobe
  4. Syuhei Iguro
  5. A. Vladimirov
  6. I. Scimemi

In Radiation

  1. Atlas Collaboration

Citations in the corpus