A Combining separate upper & lower limits into a total?

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Anchovy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits
AI Thread Summary
Combining upper and lower limits from two separate experiments is not valid by simply summing the individual upper limits, as this would yield a weaker limit. Correlations and systematic errors between the experiments must be considered for a proper analysis. If the data comes from a single Monte Carlo simulation, the situation becomes more complex due to inherent correlations. Understanding the systematic errors is crucial for accurate results. Overall, additional information is necessary to make valid conclusions about combined limits.
Anchovy
Messages
99
Reaction score
2
If the results of two separate experiments to measure the same quantity are stated in terms of upper and lower limits at the same confidence level, is it valid to say that the overall upper limit (at the same C.L.) is just the sum of the two individual upper limits? Or is something more complicated necessary here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Anchovy said:
is it valid to say that the overall upper limit (at the same C.L.) is just the sum of the two individual upper limits?
No, definitely not. That would be a weaker limit with more data!

In general, there might also be correlations and systematics that are the same in both experiments. You need to have more information to do a proper analysis.
 
Orodruin said:
No, definitely not. That would be a weaker limit with more data!

In general, there might also be correlations and systematics that are the same in both experiments. You need to have more information to do a proper analysis.

Ah, I see. Do things become much simpler if it's not actually two different experiments, but rather it's one Monte Carlo simulation, counting the same thing happening two different ways?
 
You would still need to know a lot more about the actual simulation in order to make a statement. In particular about the systematic errors going in.
 
Orodruin said:
You would still need to know a lot more about the actual simulation in order to make a statement. In particular about the systematic errors going in.

OK, thanks.
 
I think just addining them will result to taking them 100% correlated, in contrast to adding them in quadrature... but as already pointed out, without knowing information on systematics, it will not give you the right result...
 
Anchovy said:
Ah, I see. Do things become much simpler if it's not actually two different experiments, but rather it's one Monte Carlo simulation, counting the same thing happening two different ways?
That probably makes it more complicated, as the two values are now certainly correlated.
 

Similar threads

I New Upper Bound of Neutrino Mass
Replies
11
Views
2K
I Advantage of having more measurements
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
Confidence limits for the inverse of an estimated value
Replies
38
Views
10K
I How do Tensors "work" in relation to linear algebraic objects?
Replies
7
Views
264
I Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester in multi-world interpretation
Replies
21
Views
4K
Correct Form of Likelihood Function for Data w/ Upper/Lower Bound
Replies
8
Views
4K
A The Blessings of Dimensionality and Hilbert's 6th Problem
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Birth and death process and Little's law
Replies
6
Views
1K
A little help understanding 3 phase waveforms and summation
Replies
5
Views
2K
Upper & Lower Bounds Real Zeros-Polynomial Division, Proofs?
Replies
4
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top