Errors and Numerical Integration

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on estimating the error in the area under an experimental peak using numerical integration when each data point has an associated error in the y-values. Two primary methods are proposed: one involves adding the errors to the data points to calculate a maximum area and then estimating the error based on the difference from the actual area, adjusted by a factor of 0.687 for standard deviation. The second method questions whether it is valid to numerically integrate the error bars directly. Additionally, the discussion highlights the distinction between random and systematic errors and their impact on the standard deviation of the integrated area.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of numerical integration techniques
  • Familiarity with error propagation methods
  • Knowledge of statistical concepts such as standard deviation and variance
  • Experience with data analysis in experimental contexts
NEXT STEPS
  • Research error propagation in numerical integration
  • Learn about the impact of systematic vs. random errors on data analysis
  • Explore advanced numerical integration methods, such as Simpson's Rule or Trapezoidal Rule
  • Study statistical methods for combining variances in datasets
USEFUL FOR

Researchers, data analysts, and scientists involved in experimental data analysis, particularly those working with numerical integration and error estimation in their datasets.

bobjones21
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Wasn't sure where to ask this but here goes:

Suppose one needs to work out the area under an experimental peak using numerical integration and every data point has an error in y. How do you go about providing a sensbile error on the integrated area?

My current thinking is that the error in numerical integration is much less than the error on the data points, and the error can be estimated by either:

Adding the errors to the data points and numerically integrating a max area, and then take 2*(maxarea - area) as the error but since it is unlikely all data points are at the maxium error multiply this by 0.687 (1 standard deviation).

Alternatively can you just numerically integrate the error bars?

Anyone know what the proper way of doing this is?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bobjones21 said:
Wasn't sure where to ask this but here goes:

Suppose one needs to work out the area under an experimental peak using numerical integration and every data point has an error in y. How do you go about providing a sensbile error on the integrated area?

My current thinking is that the error in numerical integration is much less than the error on the data points, and the error can be estimated by either:

Adding the errors to the data points and numerically integrating a max area, and then take 2*(maxarea - area) as the error but since it is unlikely all data points are at the maxium error multiply this by 0.687 (1 standard deviation).

Alternatively can you just numerically integrate the error bars?

Anyone know what the proper way of doing this is?

If the individual sample errors are random then the standard deviation of the sum of n samples goes as sqrt(n) times the standard deviation of a single sample.

If the individual sample errors are systematic then the standard deviation of the sum of n samples goes as n times the standard deviation of a single sample.

I fail to see a motivation for multiplying by 0.687.
 
It's often easier to work with variances than standard deviations. If the errors are independent, you add up all the variances to get the variance in the integrated area. If the errors are not independent, it's tricky.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K