Combining loosely correlated data set

  • Thread starter Thread starter RobbieM.
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Data Set
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding a suitable statistical model to analyze experimental data comparing simulated nuclide concentrations in spent nuclear fuel. The user seeks to calculate the ratio of measured to calculated values (M/C) but is concerned about the validity of treating the data as normally distributed due to varying dependencies. They are considering using mean deviation about the mean to account for experimental uncertainty. A key point raised is the importance of clearly defining the goal of the analysis, as different approaches may yield varying bounds on model performance. The conversation emphasizes the need for a robust method to collapse the data set while accurately reflecting the experimental uncertainties and conditions.
RobbieM.
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I need some help finding an appropriate statistics model for some experimental data. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

I am trying to compare simulated results from a code that models nuclide concentrations in spent nuclear fuel to experimental data. These concentrations have complicated dependencies on starting concentrations, reactor conditions, fuel design, etc.

I have a set of experimental data (and associated standard error) representing fuel from a wide variety of the conditions listed above.

For each experimental data point I have a simulated result. The simulated result has no given error.

I am taking the ratio of measured value to calculated value (M/C) for a variety of nuclides to determine how well the simulation works and to conservatively correct future calculated values. If the simulation were perfect (and the measurements were perfect), all of the M/C values would be 1.0. However, I don't think I can really combine the data points as if each point were a measurement of the same value... because each is based on a different set of dependencies.

Previous work has treated the data as normally distributed... but I think that is a flawed approach. So how can I collapse my data set into a single value that will bound some known percentage of results and account for the experimental uncertainty? At this point I am considering using mean deviation about the mean, using experimental data points plus their respective error.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
RobbieM. said:
So how can I collapse my data set into a single value that will bound some known percentage of results and account for the experimental uncertainty?

Your goal isn't clear. For example, if I have a model that works well on one set of similar conditions and works badly on another set of conditions, the principle of "under promise, over perform" might lead me to publish the "bound" of some percentage based on results where the model works badly. On the other hand, if I assume a person picks a set of conditions "at random" (in a manner to be specified) from the possible sets of conditions, then I can ask for a bound on how the model deviates from experiment in such a scenario.
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top