Calculating Correlations and Sensitivity Coefficients

Click For Summary
In a numerical simulation with varying input parameters, the discussion focuses on estimating changes in the means of output parameters B and C due to small changes in output A, while accounting for their correlations. The suggestion is to rerun the experiment with slightly adjusted input parameters to obtain new outputs A', B', and C', allowing for the calculation of new means and standard deviations. The importance of clear correlations between data is emphasized, avoiding reliance on complex nested calculations. Sensitivity coefficients are considered but deemed potentially inappropriate for the desired analysis. The conversation highlights the need for practical methods to establish useful correlations in engineering data.
SFA10
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have a numerical simulation where I'm randomly varying an input parameter.

This results in variations in three output parameters: A, B and C. The output parameters can be assumed to have normal distributions, but are correlated to each other.

If I calculate the mean and standard deviation on the range of values of A, B and C is there any way I could estimate the change in the mean of B and C due to a small change in the mean of A, making some account of the correlations? I was thinking of an approach based on sensitivity coefficients, but I'm not sure that's appropriate.

Any help/advice would be very welcome! Thanks!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It sounds to me like the only way you could make a valuable correlation would be if you ran your experiment again with slightly tweaked input parameter, giving you new outputs A', B', C'. Then I'd calculate mean and SD and whatever else you think is good for the new data, and then see the changes between correlated outputs (i.e. A vs A').

I have no idea about the order of magnitude for the relationship of the correlation, or if one could exist, but as an engineer who has often been presented with data that is "supposed to be useful", this is how I would define useful, meaning that the correlation between data is clear and not based on nested calculations if possible.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 178 ·
6
Replies
178
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K