In astrophysical (inverse) regression problems it is an important task to decide whether a given parametric model describes the observational data sufficiently well or whether a non-parametric modelling becomes necessary. However, in contrast to common practice this cannot be decided by solely comparing the quality of fit due to possible over-fitting by the non-parametric method. Therefore, in this paper we present a resampling algorithm which allows to decide whether deviations between a parametric and a non-parametric model are systematic or due to noise. The algorithm is based on a statistical comparison of the corresponding residuals, under the assumption of the parametric model as well as under violation of this assumption. This yields a graphical tool for a robust decision making of parametric versus non-parametric modelling. Moreover, our approach can be used for the selection of the most proper model among several competitors (model selection). The methods are illustrated by the problem of recovering the luminosity density in the Milky Way [MW] from near-infrared [NIR] surface brightness data of the DIRBE experiment on board of the COBE satellite. Among the parametric models investigated one with 4-armed spiral structure performs best. In this model the Sagittarius-Carina arm and its counter-arm are significantly weaker than the other pair of arms. Furthermore, we find statistical evidence for an improvement over a range of parametric models with different spiral structure morphologies by a non-parametric model of Bissantz & Gerhard (2002).

A common problem in physics is to fit regression data by a parametric class of functions, and to decide whether a certain functional form allows for a good fit of the data. Common goodness of fit methods are based on the calculation of the distribution of certain statistical quantities under the assumption that the model under consideration {\it holds true}. This proceeding bears methodological flaws, e.g. a good ``fit'' - albeit the model is wrong - might be due to over-fitting, or to the fact that the chosen statistical criterion is not powerful enough against the present particular deviation between model and true regression function. This causes particular difficulties when models with different numbers of parameters are to be compared. Therefore the number of parameters is often penalised additionally. We provide a methodology which circumvents these problems to some extent. It is based on the consideration of the error distribution of the goodness of fit criterion under a broad range of possible models - and not only under the assumption that a given model holds true. We present a graphical method to decide for the most evident model from a range of parametric models of the data. The method allows to quantify statistical evidence {\it for} the model (up to some distance between model and true regression function) and not only {\it absence of evidence} against, as common goodness of fit methods do. Finally we apply our method to the problem of recovering the luminosity density of the Milky Way from a de-reddened {\it COBE/DIRBE} L-band map. We present statistical evidence for flaring of the stellar disc inside the solar circle.

The assumption that a parametric class of functions fits the data structure sufficiently well is common in fitting curves and surfaces to regression data. One then derives a parameter estimate resulting from a least squares fit, say, and in a second step various kinds of chi^2 goodness of fit measures, to assess whether the deviation between data and estimated surface is due to random noise and not to systematic departures from the model. In this paper we show that commonly-used chi^2-measures are invalid in regression models, particularly when inhomogeneous noise is present. Instead we present a bootstrap algorithm which is applicable in problems described by noisy versions of Fredholm integral equations. of the first kind. We apply the suggested method to the problem of recovering the luminosity density in the Milky Way from data of the DIRBE experiment on board the COBE satellite.