How Do I Find the Best Fit for Parameters in Equations with Experimental Errors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hepth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Unknowns
AI Thread Summary
To find the best fit for parameters in equations with experimental errors, it's essential to define what "best" means in your context. A common approach is to use a least squares fit, which minimizes the differences between the observed and predicted values. If you have data for the known parameters, this can guide your fitting process. However, without data, you may need to make assumptions about its distribution to proceed. Providing detailed context about your specific problem will yield more effective advice.
Hepth
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
457
Reaction score
40
I have 3 equations with two unknowns of the form:

r_i == f_i (g,\beta)

Where g and \beta are the independent unknown variables and r_i are known experimentally, but have some error associated with them, say something like 4.3 \pm 0.3 and there are other errors associated with constants inside the f_i.

My question is how do I solve for the objectively "best" fit to those two parameters. I remember doing something like this back in prob/stats, I believe I do something like a \chi^2 fit but I can't find anything online about it that doesn't concern bins of data points, but rather continuous functions. (Or do I have to simulate data, then fit it)

Can anyone lead me in the right direction? I don't have any of my undergrad books with me.

The equations are all something like :
<br /> r_1 =\frac{\left(g^2 x+g^2y-\frac{\beta }{3}\right)^2}{g^2 }<br />
with some variations on the form. So nothing with unsolvable functions.

EDIT: Oh and I plan on using Mathematica to do this, but I'd rather understand the mathematics first.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hepth said:
My question is how do I solve for the objectively "best" fit to those two parameters. I remember doing something like this back in prob/stats,

There is no mathematical definition for "objectively best fit", so you have to supply the details. (You aren't alone. If you browse the posts in this section of the forum you find person after person asking for the "best" solution to problems. Most are not interested enough to supply a definition of "best" and a few seem downright offended to be asked for it.)

If you remember something from statistics, it probably involved data. Do you have the data that was used to supply the "known" parameters in these equations? If you don't have the data, do you know something about its distribution?

I can imagine a solution based on an arbitrary definition for "best fit" and imagining that you have data. You can define the best value of the unknowns as the one gives the best least squares fit of the equations when they are plotted versus the data that was used to estimate the constants in the equations. However, you'll get better advice if you use all the details of the real world problem that you are trying to solve, rather than solving some abstract carciature of it.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
26
Views
3K
Back
Top