I Is there a term for this type of unknown experimental interference?

.Scott
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
3,759
Reaction score
1,837
TL;DR Summary
Term for unknown alternate causes in experiments.
You collect 200 data points, 100 with input ##A## and 100 with input ##A'##.
For all 100 ##A## you get output ##C## and for all 100 ##A'## you get ##C'##.
That's way more than 5 standard deviations, so you're ready to publish...

But not really.

Because what matters is not just that input ##A## is well-correlated to ##C## but that there is no ##B## that is also correlated to ##C##.
In the simplest (and probably worse) case, we may have collected all of the results from ##A## before any of the results from ##A'## - so there was a particular time when ##C## outputs ended and ##C'## outputs started. That would create many potential ##B##s: Room temperature or humidity were rising or falling; the experimenter was getting tired or more practiced; the apparatus broke or was wearing out.

So you are not ready to tout your 5 standard deviations until you run the experiment in a manner that reduces the likelihood that there could be such an unknown alternate cause. Is there a common (or otherwise better) term for such "unknown alternate causes"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe "confounders"
 
  • Like
Likes .Scott
Dale said:
Maybe "confounders"
Yes, excellent! And I had run into that term before.
Thanks!
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top