Anyone has comments on the difference between the "Frequentist Multi-Probe Approach" and the bayesian statistics?
The results given in Fig.2 seem to be very impressive.
[astro-ph/0507170] Prospects for Dark Energy Evolution: a Frequentist Multi-Probe Approach
|Authors:||Ch. Yeche, A. Ealet, A. Refregier, C. Tao, A. Tilquin, J.-M. Virey, D. Yvon|
|Abstract:||A major quest in cosmology is the understanding of the nature of dark energy. It is now well known that a combination of cosmological probes is required to break the underlying degeneracies on cosmological parameters. In this paper, we present a method, based on a frequentist approach, to combine probes without any prior constraints, taking full account of the correlations in the parameters. As an application, a combination of current SNIa and CMB data with an evolving dark energy component is first compared to other analyses. We emphasise the consequences of the implementation of the dark energy perturbations on the result for a time varying equation of state. The impact of future weak lensing surveys on the measurement of dark energy evolution is then studied in combination with future measurements of the cosmic microwave background and type Ia supernovae. We present the combined results for future mid-term and long-term surveys and confirm that the combination with weak lensing is very powerful in breaking parameter degeneracies. A second generation of experiment is however required to achieve a 0.1 error on the parameters describing the evolution of dark energy.|
|[PDF] [PS] [BibTex] [Bookmark]|
Discussion related to specific recent arXiv papers
1 post • Page 1 of 1