Abstract: In this paper we give sufficient conditions to ensure uniqueness of limit cycles for a class of planar vector fields. We also exhibit a class of examples with exactly one limit cycle.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is how to correctly handle the impact of measurement uncertainties of individual celestial bodies on the inference of the entire celestial body population when analyzing astronomical survey data. Specifically, the article discusses that when analyzing astronomical survey data, due to the measurement uncertainties of each celestial body (such as uncertainties in properties like distance and brightness), unknown "incidental parameters" need to be introduced. As the sample size increases, the number of these parameters also increases, causing the traditional maximum - likelihood estimation method to fail.
### Core of the problem
1. **Impact of measurement uncertainties**: Measurement uncertainties can distort the observed distribution of celestial bodies, resulting in biases when making inferences based on these observational data.
2. **Limitations of traditional methods**: Existing non - Bayesian methods (such as ignoring uncertainties or using heuristic parameter integration) can lead to incorrect inferences, and these errors become more serious as the sample size increases.
3. **Advantages of Bayesian methods**: Through marginalization in the Bayesian method, these uncertainties can be correctly handled, enabling reliable inferences to be made at any sample size.
### Specific background and examples
The article takes the survey of Trans - Neptunian Objects (TNOs) outside the solar system as an example to illustrate how to handle these uncertainties. The observational data of TNOs usually includes their apparent magnitude, and these data have significant measurement uncertainties. Especially for darker TNOs, this uncertainty is greater.
### Solutions
- **Bayesian method**: By introducing unknown parameters and marginalizing them, measurement uncertainties can be effectively handled. This method can not only provide more accurate inferences but also avoid the biases that may occur in traditional methods.
- **Simulation verification**: The author verifies the effectiveness of the Bayesian method through simple simulation experiments and shows the deficiencies of traditional methods in handling uncertainties.
### Key formulas
The key formulas mentioned in the article include:
- **Poisson point process model**:
\[
L(\theta)=(\omega \delta m)^N \exp\left[-\omega \int dm \Theta(m_{th} - m)\sigma(m)\right]\prod_{i = 1}^N\sigma(m_i)
\]
where $\Theta(m_{th}-m)$ is a Heaviside function, restricting the integration range to $m < m_{th}$.
- **Likelihood function considering detection efficiency and measurement uncertainties**:
\[
L(\theta)=\exp\left[-\omega \int dm \eta(m)\sigma(m)\right]\prod_i\int dm \ell_i(m)\sigma(m)
\]
- **Likelihood function of the B04 method (incorrect)**:
\[
L_B=\exp\left[-\omega \int dm \eta(m)\sigma(m)\right]\prod_i\int dm \eta(m)\ell_i(m)\sigma(m)
\]
- **Likelihood function ignoring uncertainties**:
\[
L'_B=\exp\left[-\omega \int dm \eta(m)\sigma(m)\right]\prod_i\sigma(\hat{m}_i)
\]
Through these formulas, the article shows in detail the superiority of the Bayesian method in handling measurement uncertainties and points out the defects of traditional methods.