|Chronology||Current Month||Current Thread||Current Date|
|[Year List] [Month List (current year)]||[Date Index] [Thread Index]||[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]||[Date Prev] [Date Next]|
- Paul NordI was hoping for some feedback on this analysis.
Specifically, what did you think of my conclusion: "All of these models
generate curves which are very close to the data. While the errors seem
very large, they are actually a better representation of the true
uncertainty in applying this model to this data. Many least-squares fitting
functions will give uncertainties which give too much confidence in the
model predictions." Paul On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 3:07 PMTue, Oct 12 at 1:35
- Paul Nord <Paul.Nord@valpo.edu
- > wrote:
- > I did a thing:
- > <https://sites.google.com/valpo.edu/double-exponential-decay/ >
- > Surprisingly, the resulting uncertainties are bad while the fit
- > quite good. I've read that this sort of analysis gives a better
- > of the true uncertainty than one often gets with least squares
- > Plotting a selection of 1000 models generated from this analysis
- > they all lie very close to the mean. The assumptions of this model
- > constrain the model parameters given the particular data collected.
- > > Said again: any of the terms in this model can be adjusted about
- > can still get a similar and reasonable fit. You just need the right
- > tweaking of the other parameters.
- > > Bad model assumptions here almost certainly include:
- > A) The background rate is constant
- > B) The stability of the detector > > Paul
- > __________ Forum for Physics Educators Physemail@example.com
- John Denker via Phys-l <firstname.lastname@example.org
UnsubscribeTo:email@example.comCc:John DenkerTue, Oct 12 at 2:41 PMOn10/12/21 11:34 AM, Paul Nord wrote:
I was hoping for some feedback on this analysis. Specifically, whatdid
you think of my conclusion:representation
"All of these models generate curves which are very close to the data.
While the errors seem very large, they are actually a better
of the true uncertainty in applying this model to this data. Manymuch
least-squares fitting functions will give uncertainties which give too
confidence in the model predictions."
I have been following this with interest.
Here's why this is important: AFAICT there are very few examples of
assignments where students are expected to measure the uncertainty
of the actual data set
In contrast, there are eleventy squillion assigments where they
are required to calculate a predicted uncertainty, but then don't
check it against experiment, which is IMHO insane.
So my zeroth-order feedback is: You're on the right track.
AFAICT you are making solid progress in an important direction.
I'll help if I can.
At the next level of detail, I don't know enough to say anything
definite about the conclusion quoted above. However I will say:
-- As a rule of thumb, it's true that:
a) most least-squares routines are trash, even when applied to
b) applying least squares to Poisson data is begging for trouble.
c) when there are 5 fitting parameters, it's likely that there are
correlations, whereupon the whole notion of "error bars" becomes
problematic (to put it politely).
-- If you post the raw data somewhere (google docs or whatever) I might
find time to take a whack at it with my tools. No promises.
I assume each row in the data set is of the form
bin start time, bin end time, counts in the bin
or something like that. Time-stamped events would be better, but I
can cope with binned data if necessary.
I expect John was looking for the data set which you provided at
and which to the jaundiced eye seems to be gardened at two time stamps:
2.5 and 3 minutes.
| t | count |
| | 0.5 | 87 |
| | 1 | 164 |
| | 1.5 | 259 |
| | 2 | 331 |
| | 3.5 | 494 |
| | 4 | 551 |
| | 4.5 | 604 |
| | 5 | 659 |
| | 5.5 | 714 |
| | 6 | 766 |
| | 6.5 | 825 |
| | 7 | 875 |
| | 7.5 | 924 |
| | 8 | 971 |
| | 8.5 | 1007 |
| | 9 | 1054 |
| | 9.5 | 1100 |
| | 10 | 1143 |
| | 10.5 | 1179 |
| | 11 | 1221 |
| | 11.5 | 1260 |
| | 12 | 1305 |
| | 12.5 | 1346 |
| | 13 | 1388 |
| | 13.5 | 1418 |
| | 14 | 1456 |
| | 14.5 | 1490 |
| | 192.3833333 | 11184 |
| | 196.8333333 | 11407 |
| | 307.15 | 16679 |
| | 312.1833333 | 16919 |
| | 916.6666667 | 40583 |
| | 918.6666667 | 40660 |
| | 1086.633333 | 46063 |
| | 1089.583333 | 46138 |
| | 1271.666667 | 51484 |
| | 1273.666667 | 51538 |
| | 1446.666667 | 56114 |
| | 1448.666667 | 56166 |
| | 1629.1 | 60640 |
| | 1631.85 | 60697 |
| | 1747.716667 | 63394 |
| | 1748.716667 | 63414 |
I want to begin by congratulating you on finding a tool which offers the
desired Bayesian probabilities for the parameters in question.
I spent some time in modeling your data with count = D0 (1 - exp (- t/tau)
) + BG*t and then with count = D1(1 - exp( -t/tau1) + D2(1 - exp(-t/tau2)
+ BG*tusing a non linear regression app (NLREG) with lightly constrained
bounds for tau1 and tau2. ( then converting to 1/2 life = ln(2)*tau as
I found judicious bounds could elliminate failures to converge on an
explanatory parameter set due to correlation of terms, and it was not
difficult to arrive atparameters which could explain 99.99% of data
variance but which were far from your values and far from the published
values.This is of course the usual fate of curve fitting to exponentials.
It was amusing to see that if I set the time for a zero count at -11 min
for zero counts.my estimation of the longer mean life time looked more
respectable This is just gardening the data, of course!
I expect to expend more effort in processing your dataset. It was not
clear if this set is synthetic, or in fact, the data from experimental
Forum for Physics Educators