Estimating the standard deviation

Niles
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0
Hi

Say I have a linear problem Mp = d, where d is our data, p our parameters and M our "observation matrix" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_problem#Linear_inverse_problems). So what we are dealing with is an overdetermined problem.

Now, I have read an example where we have a vector of data d whose standard deviation we don't know. Then we try and estimate it, and the estimate is given by

<br /> \sigma ^2 _{estimate} = \frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_i {\left( {d_i - \left( {Mp} \right)_i } \right)^2 } <br />

My question is: How can they estimate the standard deviation like this? Usually we would use the mean, but they use (Mp)i, and I can't quite see why this yields an estimate.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Niles said:
How can they estimate the standard deviation like this? Usually we would use the mean,

Suppose you are doing linear regression and the fitted equation is y = Ax + B. If you assume the random variable y_observed has mean Ax + B at each x value and also that the distribution of errors about the mean is the same at each x value, then you can estimate the standard deviation of y_observed by using the quantities ( y_observed - Ax)^2 since Ax is the mean value of y at that particular value of x.

The example may assume that the p vector is fitted well enough so that {(MP)}_i is the mean value of d_i and that the distribution of errors from the mean is identical for all i.
 
Ah, I see. Thanks for taking the time to help me!
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Back
Top