Estimate the mean number of decays

  • Thread starter Thread starter aaaa202
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Estimate Mean
AI Thread Summary
To estimate the mean number of decays from a dataset of approximately 3000 measurements, the arithmetic mean is suggested as a straightforward estimator. However, there is uncertainty regarding its effectiveness compared to fitting a Poisson distribution and deriving the mean from the fit coefficients. The discussion highlights the importance of considering the practical implications of estimation errors, as different errors may have varying costs in real-world applications. Additionally, a Bayesian perspective raises questions about the assumptions regarding the prior distribution of decay rates. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the need to balance mathematical rigor with practical utility in estimating means from Poisson-distributed data.
aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


I am given a table of ~3000 measurements for the number of decays from some radioactive substance within some period T. I want to estimate the mean number of decays per period.

Homework Equations


Poisson distribution
How to calculate mean.

The Attempt at a Solution


My intuition tells me that the best estimator is simply the to take the arithmetic mean of the dataset. However, given that the data should follow a poisson distribution I am not sure. When is the arithmetic mean the best estimator, and if this is indeed the case, why is it superior to for example fitting to a poisson distribution and then reading of the mean from the fit coefficients?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aaaa202 said:
My intuition tells me that the best estimator is simply the to take the arithmetic mean of the dataset.
My experience is practical (radioactive waste management) and my intuition is the same as yours.
I'll be interested to see if our intuition is correct.
 
The search for leased biased estimators is fascinating math, but ignores the real world fact that you need to take into account how the answer will be used. An error one way may be more expensive than the same magnitude of error the other.
Also, taking a Bayesian view, I feel the attempt assumes some property of the a priori distribution of rates, symmetric perhaps.
Anyway, start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_of_an_estimator#Estimating_a_Poisson_probability
 
  • Like
Likes BvU
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Back
Top