Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,658

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Multimodal nested sampling: an efficient and robust alternative to Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods for astronomical data analyses

Open access
Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P.·2008·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

In performing a Bayesian analysis of astronomical data, two difficult problems often emerge. First, in estimating the parameters of some model for the data, the resulting posterior distribution may be multimodal or exhibit pronounced (curving) degeneracies, which can cause problems for traditional Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling methods. Secondly, in selecting between a set of competing models, calculation of the Bayesian evidence for each model is computationally expensive using existing methods such as thermodynamic integration. The nested sampling method introduced by Skilling, has greatly reduced the computational expense of calculating evidence and also produces posterior inferences as a by-product. This method has been applied successfully in cosmological applications by Mukherjee, Parkinson & Liddle, but their implementation was efficient only for unimodal distributions without pronounced degeneracies. Shaw, Bridges & Hobson recently introduced a clustered nested sampling method which is significantly more efficient in sampling from multimodal posteriors and also determines the expectation and variance of the final evidence from a single run of the algorithm, hence providing a further increase in efficiency. In this paper, we build on the work of Shaw et al. and present three new methods for sampling and evidence evaluation from distributions that may contain multiple modes and significant degeneracies in very high dimensions; we also present an even more efficient technique for estimating the uncertainty on the evaluated evidence. These methods lead to a further substantial improvement in sampling efficiency and robustness, and are applied to two toy problems to demonstrate the accuracy and economy of the evidence calculation and parameter estimation. Finally, we discuss the use of these methods in performing Bayesian object detection in astronomical data sets, and show that they significantly outperform existing MCMC techniques. An implementation of our methods will be publicly released shortly.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 1,658

Metadata

Authors
Feroz, F., & Hobson, M. P.
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2008-01-18
Volume
384
Issue
2
Pages
449-463
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W1839094326
Cited by
1,658
References
0
FWCI
27.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Multimodal nested sampling: an efficient and robust alternative to Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods for astronomical data analyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x
The paper
Feroz, F., & Hobson, M. P. (2008). Multimodal nested sampling: an efficient and robust alternative to Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods for astronomical data analyses. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x

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.