The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Determination of confidence limits for experiments with low numbers of counts
Abstract
Two different methods, classical and Bayesian, for determining confidence intervals involving Poisson-distributed data are compared. Particular consideration is given to cases where the number of counts observed is small and is comparable to the mean number of background counts. Reasons for preferring the Bayesian over the classical method are given. Tables of confidence limits calculated by the Bayesian method are provided for quick reference.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Schneider, D. P., Becker, R. H., White, R. L., Haiman, Z., Gregg, M., Pentericci, L., Grebel, E. K., Narayanan, V. K., et al. (2003) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.1086/368246 · Cited by 773
PROPERTIES OF THE DISTANT KUIPER BELT: RESULTS FROM THE PALOMAR DISTANT SOLAR SYSTEM SURVEY
Schwamb, M. E., Brown, M. E., Rabinowitz, D. L., & Ragozzine, D. (2010) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/2/1691 · Cited by 80
Metadata
- Authors
- Kraft, R. P., Burrows, D. N., & Nousek, J. A.
- Venue
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 1991-06
- Volume
- 374
- Pages
- 344
- ISSN
- 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4357
- OpenAlex
- W1485073943
- Cited by
- 479
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Determination of confidence limits for experiments with low numbers of counts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/170124
- The paper
- Kraft, R. P., Burrows, D. N., & Nousek, J. A. (1991). Determination of confidence limits for experiments with low numbers of counts. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1086/170124
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
