This analysis compares Bayesian and frequentist methods for modeling uncertainty in errors, clarifying their structural equivalence.
When combining apparently inconsistentexperimental results, one often implements errors on errors. The Particle Data Group’s phenomenological prescription offers a practical solution but lacks a firm theoretical foundation. To address this, D’Agostini and Cowan have proposed Bayesian and frequentist approaches, respectively, both introducing gamma-distributed auxiliary variables to model uncertainty in quoted errors. In this Letter, we show that these two formulations admit a parameter-by-parameter correspondence, and are structurally equivalent. This identification clarifies how Bayesian prior choices can be interpreted in terms of frequentist sampling assumptions, providing a unified probabilistic framework for modeling uncertainty in quoted variances.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mishima et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: