Question about errors, Hubble's constant

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the weighted average and uncertainty of Hubble's constant values with associated statistical and systematic errors. The context is within cosmology, focusing on error propagation and averaging techniques.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore methods for calculating weighted averages of Hubble's constant values with differing uncertainties. Questions arise regarding how to handle asymmetric uncertainties and the implications of assuming small correlations between systematic errors.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing various approaches to the problem, including the use of average uncertainties for weights and the implications of assumptions about correlations. There is no explicit consensus yet, but guidance on approximations and methods is being shared.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the lack of information regarding correlations between systematic uncertainties, which affects their calculations. Assumptions about these correlations are being discussed as part of the problem setup.

Matt atkinson
Messages
114
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


I am just looking through some old notes I have from for cosmology, and there's something cropped up that i can't seem to figure out:

Say I have two (or more) values for H_o each with errors such as:

H_{o_1}=70^{+a+b}_{-c-d}
and

H_{o_2}=69^{+e+f}_{-g-h}

How would I go about calculating the weighted averaged (a,c,e,g are statistical errors. The rest are systematic errors) and then uncerstainty on the weighted average when for instance a\neq c.

Homework Equations


All the formula i found are along the lines of:

\bar{x}=(\sum^{N}_{i=1}x_i/\sigma_i^2)/(\sum^{N}_{i=1}1/\sigma_i^2)

\sigma_{\bar{x}}=\sqrt{1/(\sum^{N}_{i=1}1/\sigma_i^2})

The Attempt at a Solution


I've attempted to workout the top uncertainty on it's own, and likewise with the bottom but that doesn't seem the right way to do it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To do it properly, you first have to know about the correlations between the systematic uncertainties. Then you can get the likelihood functions of the individual measurements, combine them, and then extract central value and uncertainties from that again.
If you just have access to the given numbers and expect that the correlation is small, the quick and dirty weighted average should give some reasonable approximation. The uncertainty of the weighted average follows from the usual uncertainty propagation.
 
Ah okay thank you, I have just been given numbers and no correlation and been told to make an assumption. So I should say that if i assume the correlation between systematic uncertainties is small.

So to work that out, let's say I have:

76.9^{+3.9+10}_{-3.4-8}
66^{+11+9}_{-10-8}
How would I go about using that in the formula I have above for the weighted average. for instance what would I use for \sigma_1 when its values for the upper and lower uncertainties differ.
 
I would probably use the average of the upwards and downwards uncertainty for the weights. If those the uncertainties are too asymmetric, this simplified approach will fail anyway.
 
Okay thankyou! ill give it a try now, i did have attempt at doing each on their own it gave a strange result so ill try taking the average.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K