Need help about a demo with inverse weighted variance average

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on deriving the variance of an estimator in cosmology, specifically transitioning from equation (3) to equation (4) in the context of inverse variance weighting. The estimator ##\hat{O}## is defined as an optimal average of spectroscopic and photometric coefficients, with its variance expressed in terms of the power spectrum ##C_{\ell, p h}##. The key challenge is to demonstrate how the factor ##2\ell + 1## appears in the variance calculation, which is essential for understanding the statistical properties of the estimator.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of spherical harmonics and their coefficients in cosmology.
  • Familiarity with Poisson noise and unbiased estimators in statistical analysis.
  • Knowledge of inverse variance weighting techniques.
  • Basic concepts of power spectrum ##C_{\ell}## in cosmological data analysis.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the power spectrum ##C_{\ell}## and its implications in cosmology.
  • Learn about the properties of unbiased estimators and their variances in statistical inference.
  • Research inverse variance weighting methods and their applications in data analysis.
  • Explore detailed examples of transitioning between statistical equations in cosmological contexts.
USEFUL FOR

Researchers and students in cosmology, statisticians working with astronomical data, and anyone interested in advanced statistical methods for analyzing cosmological probes.

fab13
Messages
300
Reaction score
7
TL;DR
I need help about the understanding of all the steps in a demonstration of the optimal variance by inverse-weighted variance average.
I have a problem of understanding in the following demo :

In a cosmology context with 2 probes (spectroscopic and photometric), let notice ##a_{\ell m, s p}## the spectroscopic and ##a_{\ell m, p h}## the photometric coefficients of the decomposition in spherical harmonics of the distributions of each population. In the absence of any Poisson noise we have:
##\dfrac{a_{\ell m, s p}^{2}}{a_{\ell m, p h}^{2}}=\left(\dfrac{b_{s p}}{b_{p h}}\right)^{2}\quad(1)##
Now let assume the spectroscopic sample is a Poisson realization of density ##N_{s p}## (the galaxy density of the spectroscopic sample) and that we have an unbiased estimator ##\hat{a}_{\ell m, s p}## of ##a_{\ell m, s p}##. We then have the average :
##
\left\langle\dfrac{\hat{a}_{\ell m, s p}^{2}}{a_{\ell m, p h}^{2}}\right\rangle=\dfrac{\left\langle\hat{a}_{\ell m, s p}^{2}\right\rangle}{a_{\ell m, p h}^{2}}=\left(\dfrac{b_{s p}}{b_{p h}}\right)^{2}\quad(2)
##
with its variance :
##
\dfrac{2}{f_{s k y} a_{\ell m, p h}^{4} N_{s p}^{2}}
##
We can therefore build an estimator ##\hat{O}## of ##\left(\dfrac{b_{s p}}{b_{p h}}\right)^{2}## by taking the optimal (inverse-variance weighted) average over all ##\ell## and ##m## :

##\hat{O}=\dfrac{\sum_{\ell=\ell_{\min }}^{\ell_{\max }} \sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} a_{\ell m, p h}^{2} \hat{a}_{\ell m, s p}^{2}}{\sum_{\ell=\ell_{\min }}^{\ell_{\max }} \sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} a_{\ell m, p h}^{4}}\quad(3)##
the variance of which being:

##\sigma_{\hat{o}}^{2}=\left(\sum_\limits{\ell=\ell_{\min }}^{\ell_{\max }}(2 \ell+1) C_{\ell, p h}^{2}\right)^{-1} \dfrac{2}{f_{s k y} N_{sp}^{2}}\quad(4)##

I don't understanding the passing between eq(3) and eq(4). Indeed, I can't make appear from eq(3) the existing factor ##2\ell+1## in eq(4). The goal is to prove the relation eq(4).

If someone could help me to detail the different necessary steps to obtain eq(4), this would be fine.

I recall that in general, ##C_{\ell}=\dfrac{1}{2\ell+1}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{+\ell} a_{\ell m}^{2}##

Best regards
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ohwilleke
Physics news on Phys.org
a little up to demonstrate the passing from eq(3) to eq(4) ?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K