Separating background data from expected data

  • Thread starter Thread starter majormuss
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Data
majormuss
Messages
124
Reaction score
4
Hi all,
I was hoping if someone can tell me what's the best way to separate background from expected. I have attached a picture of a representative graph. The data points are not real but the behavior is similar to what I expect to get from my research. The data I expect is supposed to be approximately constant across the graph and the background is more variable. Hence, the background in my picture will probably be the peaks. However, I am not sure what statistical method to use or which would be best suited for my research.
 

Attachments

  • 1212.jpg
    1212.jpg
    3.5 KB · Views: 384
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You will need more information about the background. Some estimate for the shape, the magnitude or something else.
 
mfb said:
You will need more information about the background. Some estimate for the shape, the magnitude or something else.
I have made changes to my question. The background are the peaks and the expected data is approximately flat.
 
Which peaks? Looks like random fluctuations to me.

Do you expect a constant signal plus random fluctuations around this signal, centered at the signal or at some other value? Then your best estimate for the signal is the average of all those points, minus the offset if the background has one.
The description is still very vague.
 
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