arxiv: 2604.18656 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · ⚛️ physics.hist-ph · hep-ph· physics.data-an

Recognition: unknown

It's all in your head -- fine-tuning arguments do not require aleatoric uncertainty

Andrew Fowlie

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 03:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.hist-ph hep-phphysics.data-an

keywords naturalnessfine-tuningBayesian statisticsOccam's razoraleatoric uncertaintymodel comparison

0 comments

The pith

Fine-tuning arguments follow from standard Bayesian statistics without any aleatoric uncertainty.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reviews the justifications for naturalness and Occam's razor that arise inside Bayesian inference. It shows that an automatic razor appears in the formalism and penalizes models whose predictions require precise adjustment of parameters to match data. Pedagogical calculations demonstrate this effect in concrete cases. The argument holds in deterministic settings and draws on perspectives from statistics, physics, and machine learning.

Core claim

In the Bayesian formalism an automatic Occam's razor emerges that disfavors unnatural models in which predictions must be fine-tuned to agree with observation. This razor supplies the justification for naturalness arguments and does not rely on aleatoric uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The automatic Occam's razor that appears in Bayesian model comparison when suitable priors are used.

If this is right

Naturalness becomes a derived consequence of Bayesian updating rather than an added principle.
The same penalty applies in purely deterministic theories without observational noise.
Pedagogical examples show explicit disfavoring of models requiring tuned parameter values.
The perspective unifies treatments of Occam's razor across physics, statistics, and machine learning.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Choice of prior can be viewed as the remaining degree of freedom that encodes physical naturalness intuitions.
Similar automatic penalties may operate in machine-learning regularization and could be tested by comparing evidence on overparameterized versus constrained networks.
The approach suggests that disputes over specific fine-tuning measures might be settled by checking which prior choice reproduces the observed data most economically.

Load-bearing premise

The standard Bayesian framework with suitable priors adequately captures the physical notion of fine-tuning and naturalness.

What would settle it

A concrete physical model that is fine-tuned yet receives higher Bayesian evidence than its natural alternative would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18656 by Andrew Fowlie.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: MacKay’s (1992a; 1992b) explanation of the automatic Occam’s razor: complicated models spread their predictions thinly. One might think that one has to build a prior over models which explicitly favours simpler models. But as we will see, Occam’s Razor is in fact embodied in the application of Bayesian theory. (Rasmussen and Ghahramani, 2000) In this setting of big data, we anticipate that complexity sho… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Partial Bayes factors, Eq. (19), for four data points comparing quadratic and cubic laws for an object’s trajectory. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Uncertainty in trajectory under quadratic and cubic laws. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Prior sensitivity of Bayes factor in favor of quadratic versus cubic law. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Predictions for the weak scale with (red) and without (blue) Planck-scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Predictions for the weak scale with no quadratic corrections and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Bayes factor in favour of model without quadratic corrections. In presence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Prompted by misconceptions in the recent literature, we review the justifications for naturalness arguments and Occam's razor found in Bayesian statistics. We discuss the automatic Occam's razor that emerges in Bayesian formalism, bringing together points of view from diverse fields, including statistics, social sciences, physics and machine learning. In pedagogical calculations, we demonstrate that this automatic razor disfavors unnatural models in which predictions must be fine-tuned to agree with observation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Bayesian model evidence gives an automatic penalty to fine-tuned models, but only once you accept the usual priors as reasonable.

read the letter

The main point is that standard Bayesian model comparison already disfavors models whose parameters must be tuned to a narrow range to match data, and this paper reviews the justification without adding extra uncertainty assumptions. It pulls together the automatic Occam's razor from the marginal likelihood across statistics, physics, and machine learning, then shows the effect in straightforward pedagogical calculations. That directly addresses recent misconceptions and makes the argument accessible for readers who have seen claims that naturalness needs special treatment. The examples are clear and stay within established results, which is the paper's real strength as a synthesis prompted by the literature. The soft spot is the dependence on prior choice. Broad or uniform priors naturally down-weight the fine-tuned regions, but the paper does not demonstrate that this holds for every reasonable prior or that the prior itself is fixed by physics rather than by the desire to recover the naturalness intuition. The stress-test concern lands here: without an independent argument for the prior, the disfavoring can look partly built in. Since the work is a review with illustrations rather than a new derivation, this remains a limitation rather than a fatal flaw. The paper is for people working on naturalness arguments in high-energy physics or philosophy of physics who want a consolidated Bayesian account. It shows clear engagement with the literature and would benefit from referee comments on the prior robustness section. I would send it for peer review.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reviews justifications for naturalness arguments and Occam's razor in Bayesian statistics, arguing that the automatic Occam's razor arising from the marginal likelihood (model evidence) disfavors models whose parameters must be fine-tuned to match observations. It synthesizes perspectives from statistics, social sciences, physics, and machine learning, and uses pedagogical calculations to demonstrate the effect without invoking aleatoric uncertainty.

Significance. If the pedagogical demonstrations hold under standard priors, the work provides a clear, interdisciplinary grounding for why fine-tuning arguments are natural consequences of Bayesian model selection rather than ad hoc additions. This could resolve recurring misconceptions in the physics literature and offers a useful teaching tool by showing the razor emerges automatically from the formalism.

minor comments (2)

Abstract: the phrase 'misconceptions in the recent literature' is vague; specifying one or two example papers or claims being addressed would help readers immediately see the target.
The manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement (perhaps in the introduction or conclusion) of the precise prior families used in the pedagogical calculations and a brief note on their independence from the naturalness conclusion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's positive evaluation of our manuscript and their recommendation for minor revision. The referee's summary correctly identifies the key contributions of our work in synthesizing Bayesian perspectives on Occam's razor and naturalness from multiple fields. With no major comments requiring specific responses, we will proceed with minor revisions aimed at improving the clarity of the pedagogical calculations and the overall exposition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation relies on standard Bayesian evidence and pedagogical examples from established formalism

full rationale

The paper reviews the automatic Occam's razor in Bayesian model selection, citing justifications from statistics, physics, and machine learning without reducing claims to self-defined quantities or fitted parameters within the work. Pedagogical calculations demonstrate disfavoring of fine-tuned models via standard marginal likelihoods, but no equations or steps equate the output prediction to an input fit by construction. No self-citation chains or uniqueness theorems from the author's prior work are invoked as load-bearing; the central claim remains an application of independent Bayesian principles to naturalness arguments. The derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks in Bayesian statistics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Bayesian probability updating and model comparison; no new free parameters, invented entities, or ad hoc axioms are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

standard math Bayesian updating and marginal likelihood for model comparison
Core of the automatic Occam's razor described in the abstract.
domain assumption Suitability of priors for capturing naturalness in physical models
Required for the demonstration that the razor disfavors fine-tuned models.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5359 in / 1150 out tokens · 26704 ms · 2026-05-10T03:34:30.750823+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

C., (2006)

Allanach B. C., (2006). Naturalness priors and fits to the constrained minimal supersymmetric standard model , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2006.02.052 Phys. Lett. B 635 123 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0601089 hep-ph/0601089 ]

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.02.052 2006
[2]

C., Cranmer K., Lester C

Allanach B. C., Cranmer K., Lester C. G. and Weber A. M., (2007). Natural priors, CMSSM fits and LHC weather forecasts , https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/08/023 JHEP 08 023 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0487 0705.0487 ]

work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/08/023 2007
[3]

Anderson G. W. and Castano D. J., (1995). Measures of fine tuning , https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(95)00051-L Phys. Lett. B 347 300 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9409419 hep-ph/9409419 ]

work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00051-l 1995
[4]

and Miller D

Athron P. and Miller D. J., (2007). A New Measure of Fine Tuning , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.075010 Phys. Rev. D 76 075010 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2241 0705.2241 ]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.075010 2007
[5]

and Kim D., (2017)

Athron P., Balazs C., Farmer B., Fowlie A., Harries D. and Kim D., (2017). Bayesian analysis and naturalness of (Next-to-)Minimal Supersymmetric Models , https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2017)160 JHEP 10 160 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.07895 1709.07895 ]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2017)160 2017
[6]

Why be Natural? , https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-019-00249-z Found

Bain J., (2019). Why be Natural? , https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-019-00249-z Found. Phys. 49 898–914

work page doi:10.1007/s10701-019-00249-z 2019
[7]

Neural Computation , volume =

Balasubramanian V., (1997). Statistical Inference, Occam's Razor, and Statistical Mechanics on the Space of Probability Distributions , https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.2.349 Neural Comput. 9 349 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9601030 cond-mat/9601030 ]

work page doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.2.349 1997
[8]

and White M., (2013)

Balazs C., Buckley A., Carter D., Farmer B. and White M., (2013). Should we still believe in constrained supersymmetry? , https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2563-y Eur. Phys. J. C 73 2563 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.1568 1205.1568 ]

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2563-y 2013
[9]

Barbieri, G

Barbieri R. and Giudice G. F., (1988). Upper Bounds on Supersymmetric Particle Masses , https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(88)90171-X Nucl. Phys. B 306 63

work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90171-x 1988
[10]

and Castellani E., (2019)

Borrelli A. and Castellani E., (2019). The Practice of Naturalness: A Historical-Philosophical Perspective , https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-019-00287-7 Found. Phys. 49 860–878

work page doi:10.1007/s10701-019-00287-7 2019
[11]

E., Casas J

Cabrera M. E., Casas J. A. and Ruiz de Austri R., (2009). Bayesian approach and Naturalness in MSSM analyses for the LHC , https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2009/03/075 JHEP 03 075 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0536 0812.0536 ]

work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/03/075 2009
[12]

E., Casas J

Cabrera M. E., Casas J. A. and Ruiz de Austri R., (2010). MSSM Forecast for the LHC , https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2010)043 JHEP 05 043 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4686 0911.4686 ]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2010)043 2010
[13]

and Strumia A., (1997)

Ciafaloni P. and Strumia A., (1997). Naturalness upper bounds on gauge mediated soft terms , https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00138-7 Nucl. Phys. B 494 41 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9611204 hep-ph/9611204 ]

work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(97)00138-7 1997
[14]

Clarke J. D. and Cox P., (2017). Naturalness made easy: two-loop naturalness bounds on minimal SM extensions , https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2017)129 JHEP 02 129 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07446 1607.07446 ]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2017)129 2017
[15]

D., (2008)

Cousins R. D., (2008). Comment on `Bayesian Analysis of Pentaquark Signals from CLAS Data', with Response to the Reply by Ireland and Protopopsecu , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.029101 Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 029101 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1330 0807.1330 ]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.029101 2008
[16]

Naturalness: past, present, and future , https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11928-7 Eur

Craig N., (2023). Naturalness: past, present, and future , https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11928-7 Eur. Phys. J. C 83 825 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.05708 2205.05708 ]

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11928-7 2023
[17]

What mad pursuit: A personal view of scientific discovery

Crick F., (1989). What mad pursuit: A personal view of scientific discovery . Basic Books

1989
[18]

and Casas J

de Carlos B. and Casas J. A., (1993). One loop analysis of the electroweak breaking in supersymmetric models and the fine tuning problem , https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(93)90940-J Phys. Lett. B 309 320 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9303291 hep-ph/9303291 ]

work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)90940-j 1993
[19]

Theory of probability: A critical introductory treatment

de Finetti B., (2017). Theory of probability: A critical introductory treatment . Wiley, 2nd edition, DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119286387

work page doi:10.1002/9781119286387 2017
[20]

Naturalness Under Stress , https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102014-022053 Ann

Dine M., (2015). Naturalness Under Stress , https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102014-022053 Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65 43 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.01035 1501.01035 ]

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102014-022053 2015
[21]

Epistemic probability and naturalness in global fits of supersymmetric models

Farmer B., (2015). Epistemic probability and naturalness in global fits of supersymmetric models . PhD thesis, Monash U., URL https://inspirehep.net/files/23cbbe0e5a78044fc7574bd420b78d80

2015
[22]

L., (2013)

Feng J. L., (2013). Naturalness and the Status of Supersymmetry , https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102010-130447 Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63 351 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6587 1302.6587 ]

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102010-130447 2013
[23]

Quantified naturalness from Bayesian statistics , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.125029 Phys

Fichet S., (2012). Quantified naturalness from Bayesian statistics , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.125029 Phys. Rev. D 86 125029 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4940 1204.4940 ]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.125029 2012
[24]

Naturalness and the Forward-Looking Justification of Scientific Principles , https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.5 Philos

Fischer E., (2023). Naturalness and the Forward-Looking Justification of Scientific Principles , https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.5 Philos. Sci. 90 1050–1059

work page doi:10.1017/psa.2023.5 2023
[25]

Guiding principles in physics , https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00625-1 Eur

Fischer E., (2024). Guiding principles in physics , https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00625-1 Eur. J. For Philos. Sci. 14

work page doi:10.1007/s13194-024-00625-1 2024
[26]

Bayesian Approach to Investigating Supersymmetric Models

Fowlie A., (2013). Bayesian Approach to Investigating Supersymmetric Models . PhD thesis, Sheffield U., URL https://inspirehep.net/files/9827c4908285c6dae055d91d3eef1af8

2013
[27]

CMSSM, naturalness and the ``fine-tuning price'' of the Very Large Hadron Collider , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.015010 Phys

Fowlie A., (2014 a ). CMSSM, naturalness and the ``fine-tuning price'' of the Very Large Hadron Collider , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.015010 Phys. Rev. D 90 015010 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3407 1403.3407 ]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.015010 2014
[28]

Is the CNMSSM more credible than the CMSSM? , https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3105-y Eur

Fowlie A., (2014 b ). Is the CNMSSM more credible than the CMSSM? , https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3105-y Eur. Phys. J. C 74 3105 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.7534 1407.7534 ]

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3105-y 2014
[29]

The Bayes factor surface for searches for new physics , https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12792-9 Eur

Fowlie A., (2024). The Bayes factor surface for searches for new physics , https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12792-9 Eur. Phys. J. C 84 426 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11710 2401.11710 ]

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12792-9 2024
[30]

and Herrera G., (2025)

Fowlie A. and Herrera G., (2025). Precise interpretations of traditional fine-tuning measures , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.015020 Phys. Rev. D 111 015020 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.03533 2406.03533 ]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.015020 2025
[31]

and Raidal M., (2016)

Fowlie A., Balazs C., White G., Marzola L. and Raidal M., (2016). Naturalness of the relaxion mechanism , https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2016)100 JHEP 08 100 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03889 1602.03889 ]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2016)100 2016
[32]

and Purves A., (2018)

Fundira P. and Purves A., (2018). Bayesian naturalness, simplicity, and testability applied to the B - L MSSM GUT , https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X1841004X Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33 1841004 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.07835 1708.07835 ]

work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x1841004x 2018
[33]

Gaillard M. K. and Lee B. W., (1974). Rare Decay Modes of the K-Mesons in Gauge Theories , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.10.897 Phys. Rev. D 10 897

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.10.897 1974
[34]

Ockham's Razor , https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-7058/4/5/26 Phys

Garrett A., (1991 a ). Ockham's Razor , https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-7058/4/5/26 Phys. World 4 39

work page doi:10.1088/2058-7058/4/5/26 1991
[35]

Ockham's Razor , in Grandy W

Garrett A. Ockham's Razor , in Grandy W. T. and Schick L. H., editors, Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods , pp. 357--364. Springer, Dordrecht, 1991 b . ISBN 978-94-011-3460-6

1991
[36]

Bayes, Jeffreys, Prior Distributions and the Philosophy of Statistics , https://doi.org/10.1214/09-sts284d Stat

Gelman A., (2009). Bayes, Jeffreys, Prior Distributions and the Philosophy of Statistics , https://doi.org/10.1214/09-sts284d Stat. Sci. 24 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.2968 1001.2968 ]

work page doi:10.1214/09-sts284d 2009
[37]

and Rubin D

Gelman A. and Rubin D. B., (1995). Avoiding Model Selection in Bayesian Social Research , https://doi.org/10.2307/271064 Sociological Methodology 25 165

work page doi:10.2307/271064 1995
[38]

Giudice G. F. Naturally Speaking: The Naturalness Criterion and Physics at the LHC , in Kane G. and Pierce A., editors, Perspectives on LHC Physics , pp. 155--178. World Scientific, January 2008, [ https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2562 0801.2562 ]. ISBN 9789812779762

work page arXiv 2008
[39]

and Strumia A., (1999)

Giusti L., Romanino A. and Strumia A., (1999). Natural ranges of supersymmetric signals , https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00153-4 Nucl. Phys. B 550 3 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9811386 hep-ph/9811386 ]

work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(99)00153-4 1999
[40]

J., (1968)

Good I. J., (1968). Corroboration, Explanation, Evolving Probability, Simplicity and a Sharpened Razor , http://www.jstor.org/stable/686791 Br. J. Philos. Sci. 19 123

1968
[41]

J., (1977)

Good I. J., (1977). Explicativity: a mathematical theory of explanation with statistical applications , https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1977.0069 Proc. R. Soc. London. A. Math. Phys. Sci. 354 303–330

work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1977.0069 1977
[42]

Bayesian logical data analysis for the physical sciences

Gregory P., (2005). Bayesian logical data analysis for the physical sciences. Cambridge University Press

2005
[43]

Which fine-tuning arguments are fine? , https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-012-9629-9 Found

Grinbaum A., (2012). Which fine-tuning arguments are fine? , https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-012-9629-9 Found. Phys. 42 615 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.4055 0903.4055 ]

work page doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9629-9 2012
[44]

F., (1988)

Gull S. F., (1988). Bayesian Inductive Inference and Maximum Entropy , in Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods , p. 53–74. Springer, DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3049-0_4, URL https://bayes.wustl.edu/sfg/why.pdf

work page doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3049-0_4 1988
[45]

T., Handley W

Hergt L. T., Handley W. J., Hobson M. P. and Lasenby A. N., (2021). Bayesian evidence for the tensor-to-scalar ratio r and neutrino masses m_ : Effects of uniform vs logarithmic priors , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.123511 Phys. Rev. D 103 123511 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.11511 2102.11511 ]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.123511 2021
[46]

Hossenfelder S., (2019). Screams for explanation: finetuning and naturalness in the foundations of physics , https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02377-5 Synthese 198 3727–3745 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.02176 1801.02176 ]

work page doi:10.1007/s11229-019-02377-5 2019
[47]

Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots

Jaynes E. T., (1979). Review of Inference, Method, and Decision: Towards a Bayesian Philosophy of Science by R.D. Rosenkrantz , https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10481677 J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 74 740

work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1979.10481677 1979
[48]

Jefferys W. H. and Berger J. O., (1991). Sharpening Occam's Razor on a Bayesian strop , https://www.stat.purdue.edu/docs/research/tech-reports/1991/tr91-44c.pdf Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 23 1259

1991
[49]

Jefferys W. H. and Berger J. O., (1992 a ). The application of robust Bayesian analysis to hypothesis testing and Occam's razor , https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02589047 J. Ital. Stat. Soc. 1 17

work page doi:10.1007/bf02589047 1992
[50]

Jefferys W. H. and Berger J. O., (1992 b ). Ockham's Razor and Bayesian Analysis , http://www.jstor.org/stable/29774559 Am. Sci. 80 64

work page arXiv 1992
[51]

The Theory of Probability

Jeffreys H., (1961). The Theory of Probability . Oxford University Press, 3rd edition

1961
[52]

Kass R. E. and Raftery A. E., (1995). Bayes factors , https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90 773

work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 1995
[53]

and Hutchison E., (2014)

Kim D., Athron P., Bal \'a zs C., Farmer B. and Hutchison E., (2014). Bayesian naturalness of the CMSSM and CNMSSM , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.055008 Phys. Rev. D 90 055008 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4150 1312.4150 ]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.055008 2014
[54]

New Approaches to the Hierarchy Problem and their Signatures from Microscopic to Cosmic Scales

Koren S., (2020). New Approaches to the Hierarchy Problem and their Signatures from Microscopic to Cosmic Scales . PhD thesis, UC, Santa Barbara (main), https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.11870 2009.11870

work page arXiv 2020
[55]

Lindley D. V. and Phillips L. D., (1976). Inference for a Bernoulli Process (a Bayesian View) , https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1976.10479154 Am. Stat. 30 112–119

work page doi:10.1080/00031305.1976.10479154 1976
[56]

V., (2006)

Lindley D. V., (2006). Understanding uncertainty . Wiley, 11th edition, DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/0470055480

work page doi:10.1002/0470055480 2006
[57]

J., (1990)

Loredo T. J., (1990). From Laplace to Supernova SN 1987A: Bayesian Inference in Astrophysics , in Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods , p. 81–142. Springer, DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0683-9_6, URL https://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/ loredo/bayes/L90-LaplaceToSN1987A-scan.pdf

work page doi:10.1007/978-94-009-0683-9_6 1990
[58]

and Wilson A

Lotfi S., Izmailov P., Benton G., Goldblum M. and Wilson A. G., (2022). B ayesian Model Selection, the Marginal Likelihood, and Generalization , in Chaudhuri K., Jegelka S., Song L., Szepesvari C., Niu G. and Sabato S., editors, Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 162 of Proc. Mach. Learn. Res., pp. 14223--14247. ...

2022
[59]

MacKay D. J. C., (1991). Bayesian Model Comparison and Backprop Nets , in Moody J., Hanson S. and Lippmann R., editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 4. Morgan-Kaufmann, URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/1991/file/c3c59e5f8b3e9753913f4d435b53c308-Paper.pdf

1991
[60]

MacKay D. J. C., (1992 a ). Bayesian Interpolation , https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1992.4.3.415 Neural Comput. 4 415

work page doi:10.1162/neco.1992.4.3.415 1992
[61]

MacKay D. J. C., (1992 b ). Bayesian methods for adaptive models . PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology, URL https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechETD:etd-01042007-131447, DOI https://doi.org/10.7907/H3A1-WM07

work page doi:10.7907/h3a1-wm07 1992
[62]

MacKay D. J. C., (1992 c ). A Practical Bayesian Framework for Backpropagation Networks , https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1992.4.3.448 Neural Comput. 4 448

work page doi:10.1162/neco.1992.4.3.448 1992
[63]

MacKay D. J. C., (1992 d ). Information-Based Objective Functions for Active Data Selection , https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1992.4.4.590 Neural Comput. 4 590

work page doi:10.1162/neco.1992.4.4.590 1992
[64]

MacKay D. J. C., (1992 e ). The Evidence Framework Applied to Classification Networks , https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1992.4.5.720 Neural Comput. 4 720

work page doi:10.1162/neco.1992.4.5.720 1992
[65]

MacKay D. J. C., (2003). Information theory, inference and learning algorithms . Cambridge University Press, URL http://www.inference.org.uk/mackay/itila/book.html

2003
[66]

P., (1998)

Martin S. P., (1998). A Supersymmetry primer , https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812839657_0001 Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 18 1 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9709356 hep-ph/9709356 ]

work page doi:10.1142/9789812839657_0001 1998
[67]

Razor sharp: The role of Occam's razor in science , https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15086 Ann

McFadden J., (2023). Razor sharp: The role of Occam's razor in science , https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15086 Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 1530 8

work page doi:10.1111/nyas.15086 2023
[68]

T., (2019)

Murnane D. T., (2019). The landscape of composite Higgs models . PhD thesis, Adelaide U., URL https://inspirehep.net/files/0b2115b02a6b9fdbf42d1355dc7772e2

2019
[69]

and Ghahramani Z

Murray I. and Ghahramani Z. A note on the evidence and B ayesian O ccam's razor , . Technical Report GCNU-TR 2005-003, Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, University College London, 2005, URL https://mlg.eng.cam.ac.uk/zoubin/papers/05occam/occam.pdf

2005
[70]

M., (1996)

Neal R. M., (1996). Bayesian Learning for Neural Networks . PhD thesis, Toronto U., URL https://www.cs.toronto.edu/pub/radford/thesis.pdf

1996
[71]

Dicing with the Unknown , https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2004.00050.x Significance 1 132–133

O'Hagan T., (2004). Dicing with the Unknown , https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2004.00050.x Significance 1 132–133

work page doi:10.1111/j.1740-9713.2004.00050.x 2004
[72]

E., (2025)

Peskin M. E., (2025). What is the Hierarchy Problem? , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.116971 Nucl. Phys. B 1018 116971 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.00694 2505.00694 ]

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.116971 2025
[73]

and Ghahramani Z., (2000)

Rasmussen C. and Ghahramani Z., (2000). Occam's Razor , in Leen T., Dietterich T. and Tresp V., editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 13. MIT Press, URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2000/file/0950ca92a4dcf426067cfd2246bb5ff3-Paper.pdf

2000
[74]

Theory in particle physics: Theological speculation versus practical knowledge , Phys

Richter B., (2006). Theory in particle physics: Theological speculation versus practical knowledge , Phys. Today 59 8

2006
[75]

P., (2016)

Robert C. P., (2016). The expected demise of the Bayes factor , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2015.08.002 J. Math. Psychol. 72 33–37 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.08292 1506.08292 ]

work page doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2015.08.002 2016
[76]

Harold jeffreys’s theory of probability revis- ited,

Robert C. P., Chopin N. and Rousseau J., (2009). Harold Jeffreys’s Theory of Probability Revisited , https://doi.org/10.1214/09-sts284 Stat. Sci. 24 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3173 0804.3173 ]

work page doi:10.1214/09-sts284 2009
[77]

D., (1977)

Rosenkrantz R. D., (1977). Simplicity , in Inference, Method and Decision: Towards a Bayesian Philosophy of Science , pp. 93--117. Springer, DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1237-9_5

work page doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1237-9_5 1977
[78]

Frontiers Beyond the Standard Model: Reflections and Impressionistic Portrait of the conferernce , https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732312300431 Mod

Shifman M., (2012). Frontiers Beyond the Standard Model: Reflections and Impressionistic Portrait of the conferernce , https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732312300431 Mod. Phys. Lett. A 27 1230043 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0004 1211.0004 ]

work page doi:10.1142/s0217732312300431 2012
[79]

and Skilling J., (2006)

Sivia D. and Skilling J., (2006). Data analysis: a Bayesian tutorial. Oxford University Press

2006
[80]

Smith A. F. M. and Spiegelhalter D. J., (1980). Bayes Factors and Choice Criteria for Linear Models , http://www.jstor.org/stable/2984964 J. R. Stat. Soc. B 42 213

work page arXiv 1980

Showing first 80 references.