Difference between revisions of "Talk:Closed Form Precision"

From ShotStat
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "For the most part the discussion of the Bessel, Gaussian and Rayleigh correction factors is off the deep end. All elementary text books would use (n-1) as the divisor when cal...")
 
Line 5: Line 5:
 
I must admit a bit of curiosity here. I don't know if the Student's T test has the Gaussian correction built into the tables or not. For small samples (2-5 degrees of freedom) the confidence interval is so large that it wouldn't make a lot of difference, and when doing various error combining to get an "effective" number for the degrees of freedom then having factor built in might mess things up. I looked and can't find the answer readily available. I'll try to remember to ask the question on the math stats forum.  
 
I must admit a bit of curiosity here. I don't know if the Student's T test has the Gaussian correction built into the tables or not. For small samples (2-5 degrees of freedom) the confidence interval is so large that it wouldn't make a lot of difference, and when doing various error combining to get an "effective" number for the degrees of freedom then having factor built in might mess things up. I looked and can't find the answer readily available. I'll try to remember to ask the question on the math stats forum.  
  
The discussion about the ''unbiased Rayleigh estimator'' is just wrong. I'll admit another limit on my knowledge here. You could calculate <math>\sigma_{RSD}</math> from either the experimental <math>\bar{r)</math> or <math>s_r</math>. It seems some combination of the two would give the "best" result. I don't have a clue how to do that error combination. I do know that in general the measurement of <math>\bar{r)</math> would have a greater relative precision (as % error) than <math>s_r</math>. In fact the ratio of the two estimates could be used as a test for outliers. The standard deviation is more sensitive to an outlier than the mean.  
+
The discussion about the ''unbiased Rayleigh estimator'' is just wrong. I'll admit another limit on my knowledge here. You could calculate <math>\sigma_{RSD}</math> from either the experimental <math>\bar{r}</math> or <math>s_r</math>. It seems some combination of the two would give the "best" result. I don't have a clue how to do that error combination. I do know that in general the measurement of <math>\bar{r}</math> would have a greater relative precision (as % error) than <math>s_r</math>. In fact the ratio of the two estimates could be used as a test for outliers. The standard deviation is more sensitive to an outlier than the mean.  
 +
 
 +
In the section on ''Mean Radius'' the use of the phrase ''Mean Diameter'' seems out of whack. Using a "diameter" as a radius is just confusing for no good reason. Seems like you should just use 2''r''. 
  
 
[[User:Herb|Herb]] ([[User talk:Herb|talk]]) 16:36, 24 May 2015 (EDT)
 
[[User:Herb|Herb]] ([[User talk:Herb|talk]]) 16:36, 24 May 2015 (EDT)
  
 
----
 
----

Revision as of 17:05, 24 May 2015

For the most part the discussion of the Bessel, Gaussian and Rayleigh correction factors is off the deep end. All elementary text books would use (n-1) as the divisor when calculating the standard deviation, but few would name it. The Gaussian correction is small compared to the overall size of the confidence interval with small samples. For measures like group size it is also unnecessary. For small samples the distribution is significantly skewed so you should use tables based on Monte Carlo results which would have the correction factor "built in." By the time you get enough data for group size measurements to be really be normally distributed the Gaussian correction factor is then totally negligible.

The fact that most of the measures are really skewed distributions deserves more serious discussion.

I must admit a bit of curiosity here. I don't know if the Student's T test has the Gaussian correction built into the tables or not. For small samples (2-5 degrees of freedom) the confidence interval is so large that it wouldn't make a lot of difference, and when doing various error combining to get an "effective" number for the degrees of freedom then having factor built in might mess things up. I looked and can't find the answer readily available. I'll try to remember to ask the question on the math stats forum.

The discussion about the unbiased Rayleigh estimator is just wrong. I'll admit another limit on my knowledge here. You could calculate \(\sigma_{RSD}\) from either the experimental \(\bar{r}\) or \(s_r\). It seems some combination of the two would give the "best" result. I don't have a clue how to do that error combination. I do know that in general the measurement of \(\bar{r}\) would have a greater relative precision (as % error) than \(s_r\). In fact the ratio of the two estimates could be used as a test for outliers. The standard deviation is more sensitive to an outlier than the mean.

In the section on Mean Radius the use of the phrase Mean Diameter seems out of whack. Using a "diameter" as a radius is just confusing for no good reason. Seems like you should just use 2r.

Herb (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2015 (EDT)