Papers › Information Gain as a Tool for Assessing Biosignature Missions
Information Gain as a Tool for Assessing Biosignature Missions
Benjamin Fields, Sohom Gupta, McCullen Sandora
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
We propose the mathematical notion of information gain as a way of quantitatively assessing the value of biosignature missions. This makes it simple to determine how mission value depends on design parameters, prior knowledge, and input assumptions. We demonstrate the utility of this framework by applying it to a plethora of case examples: the minimal number of samples needed to determine a trend in the occurrence rate of a signal as a function of an environmental variable, and how much cost should be allocated to each class of object; the relative impact of false positives and false negatives, with applications to Enceladus data and how best to combine two signals; the optimum tradeoff between resolution and coverage in the search for lurkers or other spatially restricted signals, with application to our current state of knowledge for solar system bodies; the best way to deduce a habitability boundary; the optimal amount of money to spend on different mission aspects; when to include an additional instrument on a mission; the optimal mission lifetime; and when to follow/challenge the predictions of a habitability model. In each case, we generate concrete, quantitative recommendations for optimising mission design, mission selection, and/or target selection.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections