Bayesian comparison evaluates 21-cm signal recovery across different amplitudes, suggesting improved methodologies for detection.
The reliable detection of the global 21-cm signal, a key tracer of Cosmic Dawn and the Epoch of Reionization, requires meticulous data modelling and robust statistical frameworks for model validation and comparison. In Paper I of this series, we presented the Beam-Factor-based Chromaticity Correction (BFCC) model for spectrometer data processed using BFCC to suppress instrumentally induced spectral structure. We demonstrated that the BFCC model, with complexity calibrated by Bayes factor-based model comparison (BFBMC), enables unbiased recovery of a 21-cm signal consistent with the one reported by EDGES from simulated data. Here, we extend the evaluation of the BFCC model to lower amplitude 21-cm signal scenarios where deriving reliable conclusions about a model’s capacity to recover unbiased 21-cm signal estimates using BFBMC is more challenging. Using realistic simulations of chromaticity-corrected EDGES-low spectrometer data, we evaluate three signal amplitude regimes – null, moderate, and high. We then conduct a Bayesian comparison between the BFCC model and three alternative models previously applied to 21-cm signal estimation from EDGES data. To mitigate biases introduced by systematics in the 21-cm signal model fit, we incorporate the Bayesian Null-Test-Evidence-Ratio (BaNTER) validation framework and implement a Bayesian inference workflow based on posterior odds of the validated models. The BaNTER validated posterior-odds-based methodology presented here is general and transferable to other global 21-cm experiments employing Bayesian signal inference. We demonstrate that, unlike BFBMC alone, this approach consistently recovers 21-cm signal estimates that align with the true signal across all amplitude regimes, advancing robust global 21-cm signal detection methodologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sims et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: