Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: a very common statistical procedure is obtaining a confidence interval for a physics parameter of interest , when there are uncertainties in quantities such as the acceptance of the detector and/or the analysis procedure , the beam intensity , and the estimated background . these are known in statistics as nuisance parameters , or in particle physics as sources of systematic uncertainty . we assume that estimates of these quantities are available from subsidiary measurements . ; that is not enough information for a bayesian approach . alternatively the data relevant for the physics and nuisance parameters could be bound up in the main measurement , and not require a subsidiary one . ] a variant of this procedure which is particularly relevant for particle physics is the extraction of an upper limit on the rate of some hypothesized process or on a physical parameter , again with systematic uncertainties .    to specify the problem in more detail , we assume that we are performing a counting experiment in which we observe @xmath0 counts , and that the acceptance has been estimated as @xmath1 and the background as @xmath2 . for a signal rate @xmath3 , @xmath0 is poisson distributed with mean @xmath4 . here @xmath5 contains factors like the intensity of the accelerator beam(s ) , the running time , and various efficiencies . it is constrained to be non - negative , but can be larger than unity . we aim to study and compare different approaches for determining confidence intervals for this problem . in general we are interested in pathologies in these areas :    * * coverage . * this is a measure of how often the limits that we deduce would in fact include the true value of the parameter . this requires consideration of an ensemble of experiments like the one we actually performed , and hence is an essentially frequentist concept . nevertheless , it can be applied to a bayesian technique . + coverage is a property of the technique , and not of the particular limit deduced from a given measurement . it can , however , be a function of the true value of the parameter , which is in general unknown in a real measurement . + undercoverage ( i.e.  the probability of containing the true value is less than the stated confidence level ) is regarded by frequentists as a serious defect . usually coverage is required for all possible values of the physical parameter . occur at values which are not fixed in @xmath3 , but which depend on the details of our experiment ( such as the values of @xmath5 and @xmath6 ) . these details vary from experiment to experiment . thus we could achieve ` no undercoverage for the ensemble of experiments measuring the parameter @xmath3 ' , even if the individual coverage plots did fall below the nominal coverage occasionally . thus in some sense ` average coverage ' would be sufficient ( see for example reference @xcite ) , although it is hard to quantify the exact meaning of ` average ' . it should be stated that this is not the accepted position of most high energy physics frequentists . ] in contrast , overcoverage is permissible , but the larger intervals result in less stringent tests of models that predict the value of the parameter . for measurements involving quantised data ( e.g.  poisson counting ) , most methods have coverage which varies with the true value of the parameter of interest , and hence if undercoverage is to be avoided , overcoverage is inevitable . + frequentist methods by construction will not undercover for any values of the parameters . this is not guaranteed for other approaches . for example , even though the bayesian intervals shown here do not undercover , in other problems bayesian 95% credible intervals could even have zero coverage for some values of the parameter of interest.@xcite it should also be remarked that , although coverage is a very important property for frequentists , on its own exact coverage does not guarantee that intervals have desirable properties ( for many examples , see refs . @xcite and @xcite ) . * * interval length . * this is sometimes used as a criterion of accuracy of intervals , in the sense that shorter intervals have less probability of covering false values of the parameter of interest . however , one should keep in mind that short intervals are only desirable if they contain the true value of the parameter . thus empty intervals , which do occur in some frequentist constructions , are generally undesirable , even when their construction formally enjoys frequentist coverage . + intervals that fill the entire physically allowed range of the parameter of interest may also occur in some situations . examples of this behavior are given in @xcite and @xcite . an experimenter who requests a 68% confidence interval , but receives what appears to be a 100% confidence interval instead , may not be satisfied with the explanation that he is performing a useful service in helping to keep the coverage probability  averaged over his measurement and his competitor s measurements  from dropping below 68% . * * bayesian credibility . * in some situations it may be relevant to calculate the bayesian credibility of an interval , even when the latter was constructed by frequentist methods . this would of course require one to choose a prior for all the unknown parameters . the question is one of plausibility : given the type of measurement we are making , the resolution of the apparatus , etc . , how likely is it that the true value of the parameter we are interested in lies in the calculated interval ? does this differ dramatically from the nominal coverage probability of the interval ? in fact for different values of the observable(s ) , frequentist ranges are very likely to have different credibilities . some examples of this behavior are noted in ref .  @xcite . + when calculating the bayesian credibility of frequentist intervals , `` uninformative '' priors appear advisable . note that severe interval length pathologies will automatically produce a large inconsistency between the nominal coverage and the bayesian credibility of an interval . except in a handful of very special cases , it is not possible to construct an interval scheme that has simultaneously constant bayesian credibility and constant frequentist coverage , even if one has total freedom in choosing the prior(s ) . although it is not at all clear exactly how large a level of disagreement is pathological , nevertheless it may be instructive to know how severely an interval scheme deviates from constant bayesian credibility ( and how sensitive this is to the choice of prior ) . * * bias . * in the context of interval selection , this means having a larger coverage @xmath7 for an incorrect value @xmath8 of the parameter than for the true value @xmath9 . this requires plots of coverage versus @xmath8 for different values of @xmath9 . for upper limits , @xmath10 if @xmath11 is less than @xmath12 , so methods are necessarily biassed for low @xmath8 . bias thus is not very interesting for upper limits . it will be discussed in later notes dealing with two - sided intervals . * * transformation under reparametrisation . * intervals that are not transformation - respecting can be problematic . for example , it is possible for the predicted value of the lifetime of a particle to be contained within the 90% interval determined from the data , but for the corresponding predicted value of the decay rate ( equal to the reciprocal of the predicted lifetime ) to be outside the 90% interval when the data is analysed by the same procedure , but in terms of decay rate . this would result in unwanted ambiguities about the compatibility of the data with the prediction . * * unphysical ranges . * the question here is whether the interval construction procedure can be made to respect the physical boundaries of the problem . for example , branching fractions should be in the range zero to one , masses should not be negative , etc . statements about the _ true _ value of a parameter should respect any physical bounds . in contrast , some methods give _ estimates _ of parameters which can themselves be unphysical , or which include unphysical values when the errors are taken into account . we do not recommend truncating ranges of _ estimates _ of parameters to obey such bounds . thus the fact that a branching fraction is estimated as @xmath13 conveys more information about the experimental result than does the statement that it lies in the range 0.9 to 1 . * * behavior with respect to nuisance parameter . * we would normally expect that the limits on a physical parameter would tighten as the uncertainty on a nuisance parameter decreases ; and that as this uncertainty tends to zero , the limits should agree with those obtained under the assumption that the `` nuisance parameter '' was exactly known . ( otherwise we could sometimes obtain a tighter limit simply by pretending that we knew less about the nuisance parameter than in fact is the case . ) these desiderata are not always satisfied by non - bayesian methods ( see @xcite and @xcite ) . although we are ultimately interested in comparing different approaches to this problem , in this note we investigate a bayesian technique for determining upper limits . our purpose is to spell out in some detail how this approach is used , and to discuss some of the properties of the resulting limits in this specific example . we believe that , for variants of this problem ( e.g.  different choice of prior for @xmath3 ; alternative assumptions about the information on the nuisance parameters ; etc . ) , the reader could readily adapt the techniques described here ( and the associated software ) to their particular situation . we will report on two - sided intervals and also compare with other methods ( e.g.  cousins  highland , pure frequentist , profiled frequentist ) in later notes . before dealing with the problem of extracting and studying the limits on @xmath3 as deduced from observing @xmath0 events from a poisson distribution with mean @xmath4 in the presence of an uncertainty on @xmath5 , we recall the way the bayesian approach works for the simpler problem of a counting experiment with no background and with @xmath5 exactly known . then @xmath0 is poisson distributed with mean @xmath14 , and bayes theorem s denote prior p.d.f.s , lower case @xmath15 s denote other p.d.f.s , upper case @xmath16 s denote prior probabilities , and upper case @xmath17 s denote other probabilities . equation  ( [ eqn : bayesth ] ) is true for probabilities , p.d.f.s , or mixtures depending on whether @xmath18 and/or @xmath19 are discrete or continuous variables . ] @xmath20 gives @xmath21 where @xmath22 is the prior probability density for @xmath3 ; @xmath23 is the posterior probability density function ( p.d.f . )  for @xmath3 , given the observed @xmath0 ; and @xmath24 is the probability of observing @xmath0 , given @xmath3 . we assume a constant prior for @xmath3 , . ) ] and that @xmath24 is given by the poisson @xmath25 then of the discrete distribution ( [ eqn : poisson ] ) and the integral over @xmath3 of the continuous distribution ( [ eqn : poisson2 ] ) are both equal to unity . this means that the probability @xmath24 and the probability density @xmath23 are correctly normalised . ] @xmath26 the limit is now obtained by integrating this posterior p.d.f .  for @xmath3 until we achieve the required fraction @xmath27 of the total integral from zero to infinity . if @xmath27 is @xmath28 , the upper limit @xmath29 is given by @xmath30 @xmath27 is termed the credible or bayesian confidence level for the limit .    for different observed @xmath0 , the upper limits are shown in the last two columns of table  [ ltablex ] , for @xmath31 and for @xmath32 respectively . the gaussian approximation for the case @xmath31 , @xmath33 , would yield @xmath34 , which is roughly comparable to the corresponding @xmath35 of the table . for @xmath31 , it coincidentally turns out that , for this particular example , the bayesian upper limits are identical with those obtained in a frequentist calculation with the neyman construction and a simple ordering rule ( see later note on the frequentist approach to this problem ) . in general this is not so . other priors sometimes used for @xmath3 are @xmath36 @xcite or @xmath37 @xcite . having a prior peaked at smaller values of @xmath3 in general results in tighter limits for a given observed @xmath0 . if the whole procedure is now repeated with a background @xmath6 and a flat prior , the upper limits not surprisingly decrease for increasing @xmath6 at fixed @xmath0 ( except for the case @xmath38 where the limits can trivially be seen to be independent of @xmath6 ) . this is not inconsistent with the fact that the mean limit for a series of measurements increases with @xmath6 , i.e.  experiments with larger expected backgrounds have poorer sensitivity .    .upper 90% limits for @xmath0 observed events with @xmath6 background and @xmath39 ( @xmath40 and @xmath41 , as defined in section  [ submeas ] ) . also shown are limits for @xmath42 and @xmath43 with fixed @xmath44 . [ ltablex ] [ cols= " > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > " , ]      next we can investigate the frequentist coverage @xmath45 when the poisson variable is generated with @xmath46 . this differs from @xmath7 where the coverage is checked at @xmath47 when the generation value is @xmath9 . ] of this bayesian approach . that is , we can ask what the probability is , for a given value of @xmath9 , of our upper limit being larger than @xmath9 , and hence being consistent with it . this is equivalent to adding up the poisson probabilities of eqn . ( [ eqn : poisson ] ) for those values of @xmath0 for which @xmath48 i.e. @xmath49 as @xmath9  increases through any of the values of @xmath29 of the last two columns of table  [ ltablex ] , the coverage drops sharply . for example , for the case of zero background and efficiency known to be unity , the 90% bayesian upper limits will include @xmath50 for @xmath51 or larger . but @xmath52 is no longer below the upper limit for @xmath51 . thus one term drops out of the summation of eqn . ( [ csum ] ) for the calculation of the coverage at @xmath52 , while the remaining terms change but little for the small change in @xmath9 ; this produces the abrupt fall in coverage . the coverage is plotted in fig .  [ fig : bayes ] , where the drop at @xmath53 can be seen . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ the calculation of @xmath45 can be done as follows : the identity @xmath54= -e^{-x}{x^n\over n ! } \qquad\mathrm{for}\qquad f(x)=e^{-x}\sum_{k=0}^n{x^k\over k!}\ ] ] allows us to write ( integrating @xmath55 ) @xmath56 from this , it follows that `` relevant @xmath0 '' is equivalent to any one of these inequalities : @xmath57 and our expression for the coverage becomes @xmath58 where @xmath59 means `` sum until the next term would cause the sum to exceed @xmath60 '' . this result proves that @xmath61 for all values of @xmath9  in this simple example . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    it is seen that the coverage starts at @xmath62 for small @xmath9 . this is because even for @xmath38 the bayesian upper limit will include @xmath9 , and this is even more so for larger @xmath0 . bayesian methods can be shown to achieve average coverage . by this we mean that when the coverage is averaged over the parameter @xmath3 , weighted by the prior in @xmath3 , the result will agree with the nominal value @xmath27 , i.e. @xmath63 a proof of this theorem is given in the second appendix , section  [ ac ] of this note . for a constant prior , the region at large @xmath3 tends to dominate the average , while in general we will be interested in the coverage at small @xmath3 . thus the `` average coverage '' result is of academic rather than practical interest , especially for the case of a flat prior . indeed it is possible to have a situation where the average coverage is , say , @xmath28 , while the coverage as a function of @xmath3 is always larger than or equal to @xmath28 . our actual problem differs from the simple case of section [ bayes ] in that + ( a ) we have a background @xmath6 , assumed for the time being to be accurately known ; and ( b ) we have an acceptance @xmath5 estimated in a subsidiary experiment as @xmath1 . what we are going to do is to use a multidimensional version of bayes theorem to express @xmath64 in terms of @xmath65 and the priors for @xmath3 and @xmath5 . the relationship is and +   + @xmath66 . +   + so with @xmath67 , @xmath68 and @xmath69 identified with @xmath3 , @xmath5 and @xmath0 respectively , and with the prior for @xmath3 and @xmath5 factorising into two separate priors for @xmath3 and for @xmath5 , we obtain @xmath70 . ] @xmath71    to obtain the posterior p.d.f .  for @xmath3 , we now integrate this over @xmath5 : @xmath72 and finally we use this to set a limit on @xmath3 as in eqn . ( [ eqn:0.9 ] ) . the coverage for this procedure needs to be calculated as a function of @xmath9  and @xmath73 . the average coverage theorem of the previous section must be generalized to @xmath74      to implement the above procedure we need priors for @xmath3 and @xmath5 . as in the simple example of section [ bayes ] , for simplicity we assume that the prior for @xmath3 is constant . it will be interesting to look at the way the properties of this method change as other priors for @xmath3 are used . we assume that the prior for @xmath5 is extracted from some subsidiary measurement @xmath75 . we do * not * assume that this implies that our belief about @xmath73  is represented by a * gaussian * distribution centred on @xmath76 , as this would give trouble with the lower end of the gaussian extending to negative @xmath5 . instead , we specify some particular form of the subsidiary experiment that provides information about @xmath5 , and then assume that a bayesian analysis of this yields a posterior p.d.f .  for @xmath5 . slightly confusingly , this posterior from the subsidiary experiment is used as the prior for the application of bayes theorem to extract the limit on @xmath3 ( see eqns.([eqn : extended ] ) and ( [ eqn : posterior ] ) ) . somewhat arbitrarily , we assume that , for a true acceptance @xmath73 , the probability for the measured value @xmath76 in the subsidiary experiment is given by a poisson distribution @xmath77 where @xmath78 , @xmath79 and @xmath80 is a scaling constant and @xmath81 as the mean and variance of the posterior p.d.f .  of eqn . ( [ eqn : posterior_e ] ) . ] . we interpret this as the probability for @xmath76 . this is discrete because the observable @xmath82 is discrete , but the allowed values become closely spaced for large @xmath80 . for small @xmath83 ( i.e.  for large @xmath82 ) , these probabilities approximate to a narrow gaussian ( see fig .  [ fig : comparison ] ) .    given our choice of probability in eqn . ( [ eqn : pdf ] ) , the likelihood for the parameter @xmath5 , given measured @xmath76 , is @xmath84 this is the same function of @xmath5 and @xmath76 as eqn . ( [ eqn : pdf ] ) , but now @xmath82 is regarded as fixed , and @xmath5 is the variable . the likelihood is a continuous function of @xmath5 . it is compared with a gaussian in fig .  [ fig : comparison2 ] .    finally in the bayes approach , with the choice of a constant prior for @xmath5 , the posterior probability density for @xmath5 after our subsidiary measurement is @xmath85 which is obtained by multiplying the right - hand side of eqn . ( [ eqn : likelihood ] ) by unity . this * posterior * probability density for @xmath5 will be used as our * prior * for @xmath5 in the next step of deducing the limit for @xmath3 . the details of the necessary analytical calculations are presented in the appendix of this note . in this section we investigate the behavior of the bayesian limits in this example , especially the shape of the frequentist coverage probability as a function of @xmath9 . the posterior p.d.f .  for @xmath3 has the form @xmath861\,ds\ ] ] where the likelihood , the prior for @xmath5 , the ( constant ) prior for @xmath3 , and the marginalization integral over @xmath5 are all prominently displayed . the posterior probability density for @xmath3 gives the complete summary of the outcome of the measurement in the bayesian approach . it is therefore important to understand its shape before proceeding to use it to compute a limit ( or extract a central value and error - bars ) . figure  [ pdfs ] illustrates the shape of the posterior for @xmath3 ( i.e.  marginalized over @xmath5 ) in the case of a nominal 10% uncertainty on @xmath5 , and an expectation of 3 background events . plots are shown for 1 , 3 , 5 , and 10 observed events . the posterior evolves gracefully from being strongly peaked at @xmath87 to a roughly gaussian shape that excludes the neighborhood near @xmath87 with high probability . technically , the posterior would be described as a mixture of @xmath88 beta distributions of the 2nd kind '' ( i.e.  `` beta prime '' ) , `` inverted beta '' , `` pearson type  vi '' , `` variance - ratio '' , `` gamma - gamma '' , `` f '' , `` snedecor '' , `` fisher - snedecor''  . ] , giving it a tail at high @xmath3 that is heavier than that of a gaussian .      in this note , our main goal is to obtain a bayesian upper limit @xmath29 from our observation of @xmath0 events . it is by integrating the posterior p.d.f . out to @xmath89 that an upper limit is calculated : a @xmath90 upper limit is defined so that the integral of the posterior from @xmath87 to @xmath89 is 0.9 . the probability ( in the bayesian sense ) of @xmath91 is then exactly @xmath27 . table  [ ltablex ] shows the upper limits ( @xmath92 ) for @xmath9320 observed events with @xmath428 and @xmath39 . ( integer values of @xmath6 are chosen for illustration purposes only ; @xmath6 can , of course , take any real value @xmath94 . ) one notices that when @xmath93 , the limit is independent of the expected background @xmath6 . this is required in the bayesian approach : we know that exactly zero background events were produced ( when no events at all were produced ) , and this knowledge of what _ did _ happen makes what might have happened superfluous . an interesting corollary is , in the case of no events observed , uncertainties in estimating the background rate are of no consequence in the bayesian approach , and must not contribute any systematic uncertainty to the limit . this reasoning does not hold in the frequentist framework , where what might have happened definitely does influence the limit .    for comparison , limits for fixed @xmath44 with @xmath42 or @xmath43 are also shown in table  [ ltablex ] . it is interesting that these two columns start out equal at @xmath93 and differ by almost exactly 3 for @xmath95 . in contrast , the difference between the @xmath42 and @xmath43 columns for @xmath39 is already greater than 3 at @xmath96 , and continues to grow as @xmath0 increases ; it is not clear whether the difference approaches a finite value as @xmath97 . in any case , the limits for @xmath44 exactly are all smaller than the corresponding limits for @xmath39 , as expected . the main quantity of interest in this subsection is the frequentist coverage probability @xmath19 as a function of @xmath9  ( for fixed @xmath73  and @xmath6 ) . because both the main and the subsidiary measurements involve observing a discrete number of events , the function @xmath45 will have many discontinuities . on the other hand , @xmath98 will be continuous ( for fixed @xmath9 ) . the explanation of this effect is as follows :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ the measured data are @xmath0 events in the main measurement and @xmath82 events in the subsidiary measurement . for each observed outcome @xmath99 there is a limit @xmath100 . this limit includes the effect of marginalization over @xmath5 . all @xmath99 with @xmath101 and @xmath102 are possible , and the probability @xmath17 of observing @xmath99 can be calculated as the product of two poissons . ( it will depend on @xmath9 , @xmath73 ,  ) if we look at all the possible limits we can obtain , @xmath103 and sort them in increasing @xmath29 , the @xmath29 are countably infinite in number and dense in the same way that rational numbers are dense in the reals .    to compute the coverage as a function of @xmath9 , we simply add up all the probabilities of obtaining @xmath99 with @xmath104 : @xmath105 this sum is over a countably infinite number of terms . if we increase @xmath106 slightly to @xmath107 and recalculate the coverage , we have to drop all the terms @xmath108 from the previous sum ( the @xmath109 for each term also changes continuously with @xmath106 , but this is no problem ) . if there are @xmath110 such terms , there are @xmath111 discontinuities in the coverage in the interval @xmath112 $ ] , since @xmath109 for each of these is finite , and we lose them one by one as we sweep across the interval @xmath112 $ ] . but it seems that , in general , we can always find a solution to @xmath113 for finite @xmath114 by going out to larger and larger @xmath0 and @xmath82 . so , although the discontinuity may be tiny , we can always find a finite discontinuity in any finite interval of @xmath106 . on the other hand , if we keep @xmath106 fixed and vary @xmath115 , we always sum over the same set of @xmath99 , since the definition of @xmath116 does not involve @xmath73 , and @xmath109 is continuous in @xmath73 . so the coverage is continuous as a function of @xmath73  for @xmath9fixed . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    plotting a curve that is discontinuous at every point is somewhat problematical . the solution adopted here is to plot the coverage as straight line segments between the discontinuities , ignoring any discontinuities with @xmath117 . figure  [ l100 ] shows @xmath45 for the case @xmath90 , @xmath118 , nominal 10% uncertainty of the subsidiary measurement of @xmath5 , and @xmath43 . we observe that @xmath119 in this range , and it is not clear numerically whether @xmath120 as @xmath121 . the same conclusions hold for fig . [ l25 ] , which illustrates the same situation with a 20% nominal uncertainty for the @xmath5-measurement . figure  [ ecov ] shows @xmath98 for @xmath90 , @xmath122 , @xmath40 , and @xmath43continuous as advertised . the shape of the curve is quite similar to that of figs . [ l100 ] and [ l25 ] , so it seems that the coverage probability ( with @xmath6 fixed ) is approximately a function of just the product of @xmath73  and @xmath9 . this approximate rule is likely to fail in the limit as @xmath123 and @xmath121 , for example , but it seems to hold when @xmath73  and @xmath9  are at least of the same order of magnitude .    when @xmath124 is small , of order 1 or less , the coverage is @xmath125100% , as in the simple case of fig . [ fig : bayes ] . otherwise , the behavior of coverage in figs .  [ l100][ecov ] is superior to that of fig . [ fig : bayes ] , which has a much larger amplitude of oscillation . another frequentist quantity that characterizes the performance of a limit scheme is the sensitivity , defined as the mean of @xmath29 . figure  [ sens ] shows the sensitivity as a function of @xmath9  for the case of fig . [ l100 ] ; @xmath126 is observed to be nearly linearly dependent on @xmath9 . there is one complication here : when the subsidiary measurement observes @xmath127 events , and the prior for @xmath3 is flat , @xmath128 . since the poisson probability of obtaining @xmath127 is always finite , @xmath129 is consequently infinite . so we must exclude the @xmath127 case from the definition of @xmath129 . ( in fig . [ sens ] the probability of obtaining @xmath127 is @xmath130 . ) a weakness of the bayesian approach is that there is no universally accepted method to obtain a unique `` non - informative '' or `` objective '' prior p.d.f . reference  @xcite , for example , states :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ put bluntly : data can not ever speak entirely for themselves ; every prior specification has _ some _ informative posterior or predictive implications ; and `` vague '' is itself much too vague an idea to be useful . there is no `` objective '' prior that represents ignorance . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    nevertheless , ref .  @xcite does derive a @xmath131 `` reference prior '' for the simple poisson case , which is claimed to have `` a minimal effect , relative to the data , on the final inference '' . this is to be considered a `` _ default _ option when there are insufficient resources for detailed elicitation of actual prior knowledge '' . reference  @xcite attempts to discover the optimal form for prior ignorance by considering the behavior of the prior under reparameterizations . for the case in question , the form @xmath37 clearly has the best properties in this respect . we are using an flat ( @xmath132 ) prior for this study , which seems to be the most popular choice , but the appendix works out the form of the posterior using an @xmath133 prior , so we can briefly here summarize the results for the @xmath37 and @xmath131 cases :    the @xmath37 prior leads to an unnormalizable posterior for all observed @xmath0 when @xmath134 . the posterior becomes a @xmath135-function at @xmath87 , @xmath136 for any @xmath27 , and the coverage is consequently zero for all @xmath137 . this clearly is a disaster .    the @xmath131 prior results in a posterior p.d.f . qualitatively similar in shape to those of fig  [ pdfs ] , except that the p.d.f.is always infinite at @xmath87 . for @xmath138 , this produces an extremely thin `` spike '' at @xmath87 , which has a negligible contribution to the integral of the posterior p.d.f . a more significant difference ( for frequentists ) between the @xmath131 and the @xmath132 case is that the coverage probability is significantly reduced : for the case of fig . [ l100 ] the @xmath131 prior pushes the minimum coverage down to @xmath1250.87 . so the @xmath131 prior leads to violation of the frequentist coverage requirement ; it undercovers for some values of @xmath9 . one might also seek to further improve the coverage properties by adopting an intermediate prior . for example , an @xmath139 prior would reduce the level of overcoverage obtained with the @xmath132 prior . how acceptable this approach would be within the bayesian statistical community is an interesting question . it should be noted that all the prior p.d.f.s considered in this note are `` improper priors''they can not be correctly normalized : in the case of the @xmath132 and @xmath131 priors , the integral from 0 to any value @xmath140 is finite , while the integral from @xmath140 to infinity is infinite . the corresponding integrals of the @xmath37 prior are infinite on both sides for all @xmath141 . improper priors are dangerous but often useful ; `` improper posteriors '' are generally pathological . extra care must be taken when employing improper priors to verify the normalizability of the resulting posterior  when using a numerical method to obtain the posterior , it is very easy to miss the fact that its integral is infinite . we summarize here the restrictions forced on the priors for @xmath3 and @xmath5see the appendix for the analytical causes . the discussion below assumes @xmath134 . the prior for @xmath3 being of the form @xmath133 , we must require @xmath142 , as discussed above . as specified in this note , the prior for @xmath5 , being taken from the posterior from the subsidiary measurement with a flat prior , has been given no freedom . should the subsidiary measurement observe @xmath127 events , the posterior for @xmath3 is not normalizable when @xmath143 : @xmath128 when @xmath127 and @xmath143 . this behavior is due to a well known effect : the @xmath5 prior becomes @xmath144 when @xmath127 , which remains finite as @xmath145 . all such cases is the standard example . ] yield @xmath128 when @xmath143 ; any positive @xmath146 cuts off the posterior at large @xmath3 sufficiently rapidly to render it normalizable . from this point of view , a @xmath131 prior may seem preferable , but on the other hand , having @xmath128 when @xmath127 seems intuitively reasonable . ( in general , we have @xmath128 for @xmath147 , but @xmath148 are not popular choices . )    there is another approach possible to the gamma prior for @xmath5 : we may simply specify by fiat the form of the prior as @xmath149 where @xmath150 is no longer required to be an integer . in practice , one then might obtain @xmath150 and @xmath80 from a subsidiary measurement whose result is approximated by the gamma distribution . in such cases , one must require @xmath151 to keep the posterior normalizable . note that in this form , @xmath152 is the mean of the @xmath5 prior , @xmath153 is the mode , and @xmath154 is the variance . the subsidiary measurement is often analysed by other experimenters , who chose statistics to quote for their central value and uncertainty ( omitting additional likelihood information ) . it is then important to obtain @xmath150 and @xmath80 in a consistent way from the information supplied by the subsidiary measurement . if @xmath5 , for example , were estimated by a maximum likelihood method , one would identify the estimate with @xmath153 rather than @xmath152 . results have been presented on the performance of a purely bayesian approach to the issue of setting upper limits on the rate of a process , when @xmath0 events have been observed in a situation where the expected background is @xmath6 and where the efficiency / acceptance factor @xmath155 has been determined in a subsidiary experiment . we find that this approach , when using a flat prior for the rate , results in modest overcoverage . plots of the expected sensitivity of such a measurement and of the coverage of the upper limits are given . it will be interesting to compare these with the corresponding plots for other methods of extracting upper limits , to be given in future notes . reference  @xcite provides the limit calculating software associated with this study in the form of c  functions . here we present the details of the analytical calculation of the posterior p.d.f .  for @xmath3 . for generality , we work through the calculation with a @xmath133 prior ; a flat prior is then the special case @xmath156 . we measure @xmath0 events from a process with poisson rate @xmath157 , and we want the bayesian posterior for @xmath3 , given improper prior @xmath133 . we compute the posterior for fixed @xmath5 and @xmath6 in this subsection ; the calculation with our prior for @xmath5 follows in the next subsection . we have @xmath158 where all factors not depending on @xmath3 have already been absorbed into the normalization constant @xmath159 , which is defined by @xmath160 where we have performed the indicated change of variable . expanding @xmath161 in powers of @xmath162 using the binomial theorem , we get @xmath163 recognizing this as of the general hypergeometric form , we write it as @xmath164\ ] ] to make the hypergeometric nature more explicit . using the modern notation@xcite for the falling factorial @xmath165 this is expressed as @xmath166 where @xmath111 is the notation of @xcite . ( @xmath111 , a confluent hypergeometric function , is often written @xmath167 , and the relation given here is only valid for integer @xmath101 . ) note that @xmath168 is a polynomial of order @xmath0 in @xmath6 ( for @xmath0 a non - negative integer ) , and is related to the laguerre polynomials . when @xmath156 , we get @xmath169 , which is related to the incomplete gamma function . when @xmath170 , we get @xmath171 , which is infinite , so we require that @xmath142 .    our posterior probability density for fixed @xmath5 is then given by @xmath172      the subsidiary measurement observes an integer number of events @xmath82 , poisson distributed as : @xmath173 where @xmath80 is a real number ( connecting the subsidiary measurement to the main measurement ) whose uncertainty is negligible , so @xmath80 can safely be treated as a fixed constant . @xmath80 might be thought of , for example , as based on a cross section that is exactly calculable by theory . there is negligible ( i.e.  zero ) background in the subsidiary measurement . the prior for @xmath5 is specified to be flat . the bayesian posterior p.d.f .  for @xmath5 is then @xmath174 ( or @xmath175 instead of @xmath176 in the denominator if you prefer ) . this is known as a gamma distribution . the mean and rms of this posterior p.d.f . summarize the result of the subsidiary measurement as : @xmath177 note that the observed data quantity in the subsidiary measurement is an integer @xmath82 , while the quantity being measured by the subsidiary measurement is a positive real number @xmath5 . next we compute the joint posterior @xmath178 using the @xmath133 prior for @xmath3 and our gamma distribution prior ( i.e.  the posterior derived from the subsidiary measurement ) for @xmath179 @xmath180 where it is convenient to write @xmath150 for @xmath181 . we have for the joint posterior p.d.f . @xmath182 where @xmath183 we calculated @xmath159 above , so we have @xmath184 @xmath185 @xmath186 the marginalized posterior for @xmath3 can then be expressed as @xmath187ds= { s^{\alpha-1}\kappa^{\mu-\alpha}\mathcal{i}_\epsilon\over \gamma(\mu-\alpha)\gamma(\alpha+n)m(-n,1-n-\alpha , b)}ds\ ] ] where the integral @xmath188 is given by @xmath189 the same procedure that was used for the normalization integral can be applied here , producing @xmath190 @xmath191^k\ ] ] @xmath192 @xmath193 which has a particularly simple form when the background term is zero : @xmath194 a beta distribution of the 2nd kind . note that we must require @xmath195 to obtain a normalizable posterior . our posterior p.d.f .  for @xmath3 with @xmath5 ( and @xmath6 ) fixed is recovered exactly by taking the limit of @xmath196 as @xmath197 . this means that the limit of @xmath198 as @xmath197 is identical to the value of @xmath198 when @xmath5 is known exactly . this property may seem obvious , but it is violated by some frequentist methods of setting limits , so it is worth mentioning . we need to integrate @xmath196 up to some limit @xmath29 , which can be done analytically as follows . @xmath199 where the substitution @xmath200 has been performed . re - expanding the polynomial @xmath111 and integrating term by term yields @xmath201 where @xmath202 is the standard notation for the incomplete beta function @xmath203 which also satisfies the following recursion : @xmath204      using the same technique as above , we can calculate the @xmath205th moment of the posterior p.d.f .  as @xmath206 where we utilize the rising factorial notation@xcite @xmath207    the expression for the mean of the posterior when @xmath156 can be simplified using the identity @xmath208 obtaining @xmath209 note that the 2nd term is very small when @xmath138 . the recurrence relation@xcite @xmath210 leads to a recurrence relation between moments @xmath211 the special case @xmath156 then yields @xmath212\ ] ] which leads to this approximation for the variance of the posterior @xmath213      here we very briefly consider the case where the background parameter @xmath6 also acquires an uncertainty . this case is more general than the fixed @xmath6 case that is the main subject of this note : the fixed @xmath6 case will be the subject of additional studies employing various popular frequentist techniques , with the goal of comparing their performance . we judge the more general case considered in this subsection to be more complicated than necessary for the purpose of comparing the various methods , but it is instructive to document the fact that the bayesian method can easily handle the more general case . we assume a 2nd subsidiary measurement observing @xmath214 events ( poisson , as was the case for @xmath5 ) , which , when combined with a flat prior for @xmath6 , results in a gamma posterior for @xmath6 of the form @xmath215 where @xmath216 is a calibration constant ( analogous to @xmath80 in the subsidiary measurement for  @xmath5 ) . the posterior for @xmath6 becomes the prior for @xmath6 in the measurement of @xmath3 . after determining the joint posterior @xmath217 by using our priors for @xmath3 , @xmath5 and @xmath6 , we marginalize with respect to @xmath5 and @xmath6 , resulting in @xmath218 where we write @xmath219 for convenience , and @xmath220 is the hypergeometric function@xcite . as long as @xmath0 is a non - negative integer and @xmath142 , @xmath221 is a polynomial of order @xmath0 in @xmath222 ( closely related to jacobi polynomials ) . this marginalized posterior for @xmath3 can then be integrated , with the result @xmath223    these two equations closely resemble the main results of sections [ postpdf ] and [ intpostpdf ] : to recover the fixed @xmath6 results , simply substitute @xmath224 for @xmath225 above , and take the limit @xmath226 . in this appendix we prove that bayesian credible intervals have average frequentist coverage , where the average is calculated with respect to the prior density . we start from the bayesian posterior density : @xmath227 for a given observed value of @xmath0 , a credibility-@xmath27 bayesian interval for @xmath3 is any interval @xmath228 $ ] that encloses a fraction @xmath27 of the total area under the posterior density . such an interval must therefore satisfy : @xmath229 or , using the definition of the posterior density : @xmath230 now for coverage . given a true value @xmath231 of @xmath3 , the coverage @xmath232 of @xmath233 $ ] is the frequentist probability that @xmath231 is included in that interval . we can write this as : @xmath234                              s_\mathrm{l}(n)\le s\le s_\mathrm{u}(n ) } }    p(n\,|\,s_\mathrm{t } ) . \label{eq : acbci2}\ ] ] next we calculate the average coverage @xmath235 , weighted by the prior @xmath22 :    @xmath236\\[6 mm ]          & \;=\ ;   \int_{0}^{\infty}\sum_{\substack{\text{all $ n$ such that:}\\[1 mm ]                                                    s_\mathrm{l}(n)\le s\le s_\mathrm{u}(n ) } }                   p(n\,|\,s)\,\pi(s)\ , ds ,                & & \text{using equation ( \protect\ref{eq : acbci2 } ) , } \displaybreak[0]\\[6 mm ]          & \;=\ ;   \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\;\int_{s_\mathrm{l}(n)}^{s_\mathrm{u}(n)}\ ! p(n\,|\,s)\,\pi(s)\,ds ,                & & \text{interchanging integral and sum,\protect\footnotemark}\displaybreak[0]\\[6 mm ]          & \;=\ ;   \beta\ ; \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\;\int_{0}^{\infty}\ ! p(n\,|\,s)\,\pi(s)\,ds ,                & & \text{using equation ( \protect\ref{eq : acbci1 } ) , } \displaybreak[0]\\[6 mm ]          & \;=\ ;   \beta\ ; \int_{0}^{\infty}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty } p(n\,|\,s)\,\pi(s)\,ds ,                & & \text{interchanging sum and integral,}\displaybreak[0]\\[6 mm ]          & \;=\ ;   \beta\ ; \int_{0}^{\infty}\!\pi(s)\ , ds ,                & & \text{by the normalization of } p(n\,|\,s ) , \displaybreak[0]\\[6 mm ]          & \;=\ ;   \beta ,                & & \text{by the normalization of } \pi(s ) .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    this completes the proof . we have assumed here that the prior @xmath22 is proper and normalized to 1 , but the proof can be generalized to improper priors such as those we considered in this note . a constant prior for example , can be regarded as the limit for @xmath237 of the proper prior : @xmath238 where @xmath239 is @xmath240 if @xmath241 and @xmath242 otherwise . we then _ define _ the average coverage for the constant prior as the limit : @xmath243 the previous proof can now be applied to the argument of the limit and leads to the same result . the average coverage theorem remains valid when @xmath3 is multidimensional , for example when it consists of a parameter of interest and one or more nuisance parameters . in that case one needs to average the coverage over _ all _ the parameters . m.  j.  bayarri and j.  o.  berger , `` the interplay of bayesian and frequentist analysis '' , statistical science 19 , p 58 ( 2004 ) , + projecteuclid.org/dienst/ui/1.0/summarize/euclid.ss/1089808273 , + www.isds.duke.edu/~berger/papers/interplay.html . peter clifford , `` interval estimation as viewed from the world of mathematical statistics '' , cern yellow report cern 2000 - 005 , p 157 ( 2000 ) , _ proceedings of the workshop on confidence limits at cern , 1718 january 2000 _ , edited by l.  lyons , y.  perrin , and f.  james , + doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2000/2000-005/p157.pdf . giovanni punzi , `` a stronger classical definition of confidence limits '' , hep - ex/9912048 , www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/9912048 . gnter zech , `` confronting classical and bayesian confidence limits to examples '' , cern yellow report cern 2000 - 005 , p 141 ( 2000 ) , _ proceedings of the workshop on confidence limits at cern , 1718 january 2000 _ , edited by l.  lyons , y.  perrin , and f.  james , doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2000/2000-005/p141.pdf . d.  karlen , `` credibility of confidence intervals '' , in _ proceedings of the conference on advanced techniques in particle physics , durham , 1822 march 2002 _ , edited by m.  whalley and l.  lyons , p 53 , ( 2002 ) , + www.ippp.dur.ac.uk/workshops/02/statistics/proceedings/karlen.pdf . gary feldman , `` multiple measurements and parameters in the unified approach '' , _ fermilab workshop on confidence limits 2728 march , 2000 _ , p 11 , + conferences.fnal.gov/cl2k/copies/feldman2.pdf , + huhepl.harvard.edu/~feldman/cl2k.pdf . joel heinrich , `` user guide to bayesian - limit software package '' , cdf internal note 7232 , ( 2004 ) , + www-cdf.fnal.gov/publications/cdf7232_blimitguide.pdf ; + cdf statistics committee software page , + www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/statistics/statistics_software.html . r.  l.  graham , d.  e.  knuth , and o.  patashnik , `` concrete mathematics : a foundation for computer science '' , 2nd ed . , ( addison - wesley , reading , ma , 1994 ) ; planetmath mathematics encyclopedia , + planetmath.org/encyclopedia/fallingfactorial.html . m.  abramowitz and i.a . stegun , editors , `` handbook of mathematical functions '' , ( united states department of commerce , national bureau of standards , washington , d.c . 1964 ; and dover publications , new york , 1968 ) , chapter 13 .    m.  abramowitz and i.a . stegun , ibid . , chapter 15 ; william h. press , et al . ,  `` numerical recipes '' , 2nd edition , ( cambridge university press , cambridge , 1992 ) ,  5.14 and  6.12 , lib-www.lanl.gov/numerical/bookcpdf/c5-14.pdf , + lib-www.lanl.gov/numerical/bookcpdf/c6-12.pdf .     for bayes 90% limits , for the simple case of no background and no uncertainty on @xmath244 . the dotted line at @xmath245 is given to show that the coverage never falls below 90% ( in this simple case ) . ]         vs @xmath3 for @xmath246 , 3 , 5 , 10 . in each case , @xmath43 and @xmath39 ( i.e.  @xmath40 and @xmath82=99).,title="fig:",width=302]-0.2 in   vs @xmath3 for @xmath246 , 3 , 5 , 10 . in each case , @xmath43 and @xmath39 ( i.e.  @xmath40 and @xmath82=99).,title="fig:",width=302 ] +   vs @xmath3 for @xmath246 , 3 , 5 , 10 . in each case , @xmath43 and @xmath39 ( i.e.  @xmath40 and @xmath82=99).,title="fig:",width=302]-0.2 in   vs @xmath3 for @xmath246 , 3 , 5 , 10 . in each case , @xmath43 and @xmath39 ( i.e.  @xmath40 and @xmath82=99).,title="fig:",width=302 ] +
Abstract:

Answer: we address the common problem of calculating intervals in the presence of systematic uncertainties . we aim to investigate several approaches , but here describe just a bayesian technique for setting upper limits . the particular example we study is that of inferring the rate of a poisson process when there are uncertainties on the acceptance and the background . limit calculating software associated with this work is available in the form of c  functions .