Propagation of error with sliding window of measurement

DethLark
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hello, I don't seem to know how to ask google this question so I thought I'd see if I could get an answer from here.

Say I have 400 measurements of some variable. I take a sliding window of 50 events and take the standard deviation of each set of 50 events. That would be 350 measurements. Now I want to take the first and second 175 events, take the average of each, and subtract them.

Normally to propagate the error on this final measurement you would, for each side, find the error of each standard deviation std/sqrt(2*(50-1)) then take use sqrt(sum of the squares)/175 to find the error on the average std.dev. for each side. Then use sqrt(sum of the squares) of these two errors for the final error on the subtraction of the averages.

The problem with this is that each measurement of the std.dev shares 49 events with the previous so this method would overestimate the final error. What to do?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why do you want to compare the floating-average values? Can you compare the original values?

If all values are expected to follow the same distribution, you can calculate the uncertainty for each measurement (out of 400), find a big expression for your final result, and calculate its uncertainty based on the uncertainties of each measurement. I would expect that this formula can be simplified a lot, but I don't know how the final result would look like. In the best case, it does not depend directly on the original 400 values, but just on your 350 values.
 
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.
Back
Top