This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Rodrigues, D. C., Marra, V., Del Popolo, A. & Davari, Z. Absence of a fundamental acceleration scale in galaxies. Nat. Astron. 2, 668–672 (2018).
Rodrigues, D. C., Marra, V., Del Popolo, A. & Davari, Z. Reply to ‘Presence of a fundamental acceleration scale in galaxies’ and ‘A common Milgromian acceleration scale in nature’ Nat. Astron. 2, 927–929 (2018).
McGaugh, S. S., Li, P., Lelli, F. & Schombert, J. M. Presence of a fundamental acceleration scale in galaxies. Nat. Astron. 2, 924 (2018).
Kroupa, P. et al. A common Milgromian acceleration scale in nature. Nat. Astron. 2, 925–926 (2018).
Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S. & Schombert, J. M. SPARC: Mass models FOR 175 disk galaxies with SPITZ. Astron. J. 152, 157 (2016).
de Blok, W. J. G. et al. High-resolution rotation curves and galaxy mass models from things. Astron. J. 136, 2648–2719 (2008).
Andrae, R., Schulze-Hartung, T. & Melchior, P. Dos and don’ts of reduced chi-squared. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3754 (2010).
Clopper, C. J. & Pearson, E. S. The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 26, 404–413 (1934).
Jin, S., Thulin, M. & Larsson, R. Approximate Bayesianity of frequentist confidence intervals for a binomial proportion. Am. Stat. 71, 106–111 (2017).
Chang, Z. & Zhou, Y. Is there a fundamental acceleration scale in galaxies? Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 486, 1658–1666 (2019).
Marchand, E. & Strawderman, W. E. On Bayesian credible sets, restricted parameter spaces and frequentist coverage. Electron. J. Stat. 7, 1419–1431 (2013).
Sweeting, T. J. On predictive probability matching priors. Inst. Mat. Stat. Collections 3, 46–59 (2008).
Bayarri, M. J. & Berger, J. O. The interplay of Bayesian and frequentist analysis. Stat. Sci. 19, 58–80 (2004).
Berger, J. O., Boukai, B. & Wang, Y. Unified frequentist and Bayesian testing of a precise hypothesis. Stat. Sci. 12, 133–160 (1997).
Trotta, R. Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology. Contemp. Phys. 49, 71–104 (2008).
Kennedy, L. A. et al. Not every credible interval is credible: evaluating robustness in the presence of contamination in Bayesian data analysis. Behav. Res. Methods 49, 2219–2234 (2017).
Yang, Z. & Zhu, T. Bayesian selection of misspecified models is overconfident and may cause spurious posterior probabilities for phylogenetic trees. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 1854–1859 (2018).
Lv, J. & Liu, J. S. Model selection principles in misspecified models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 76, 141–167 (2014).
Gelman, A. & Shalizi, C. R. Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 66, 8–38 (2013).
Gabry, J. et al. Visualization in Bayesian workflow. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 182, 389–402 (2019).
Gelman, A., Simpson, D. & Betancourt, M. The prior can often only be understood in the context of the likelihood. Entropy 19, 555 (2017).
Lyddon, S. P., Holmes, C. C. & Walker, S. G. General Bayesian updating and the loss-likelihood bootstrap. Biometrika 106, 465–478 (2019).
Bernton, E. et al. On parameter estimation with the Wasserstein distance. Inf. Inference 8, 657–676 (2019).
Gelman, A. & Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).
Li, P., Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. & Schombert, J. Fitting the radial acceleration relation to individual SPARC galaxies. Astron. Astrophys. 615, A3 (2018).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
E.C. recognized the core statistical problem, conceived the project, and wrote an initial draft. G.W.A. and J.M.B. contributed expertise towards understanding key domain-specific issues and refining the arguments presented. All authors participated in revising the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Nature Astronomy thanks Johannes Buchner, Roberto Trotta and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cameron, E., Angus, G.W. & Burgess, J.M. Overconfidence in Bayesian analyses of galaxy rotation curves. Nat Astron 4, 132–133 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0998-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0998-2
This article is cited by
-
Reply to: Overconfidence in Bayesian analyses of galaxy rotation curves
Nature Astronomy (2020)