On a curious bias arising when the $\sqrt{\chi^2/\nu}$ scaling prescription is first applied to a sub-sample of the individual results
As it is well known, the standard deviation of a weighted average depends only on the individual standard deviations, but not on the dispersion of the values around the mean. This property leads sometimes to the embarrassing situation in which the combined result 'looks' somehow at odds wi...
Gespeichert in:
1. Verfasser: | |
---|---|
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | As it is well known, the standard deviation of a weighted average depends
only on the individual standard deviations, but not on the dispersion of the
values around the mean. This property leads sometimes to the embarrassing
situation in which the combined result 'looks' somehow at odds with the
individual ones. A practical way to cure the problem is to enlarge the
resulting standard deviation by the $\sqrt{\chi^2/\nu}$ scaling, a prescription
employed with arbitrary criteria on when to apply it and which individual
results to use in the combination. But the `apparent' discrepancy between the
combined result and the individual ones often remains. Moreover this rule does
not affect the resulting `best value', even if the pattern of the individual
results is highly skewed. In addition to these reasons of dissatisfaction,
shared by many practitioners, the method causes another issue, recently noted
on the published measurements of the charged kaon mass. It happens in fact
that, if the prescription is applied twice, i.e. first to a sub-sample of the
individual results and subsequently to the entire sample, then a bias on the
result of the overall combination is introduced. The reason is that the
prescription does not guaranty statistical sufficiency, whose importance is
reminded in this script, written with a didactic spirit, with some historical
notes and with a language to which most physicists are accustomed. The
conclusion contains general remarks on the effective presentation of the
experimental findings and a pertinent puzzle is proposed in the Appendix. |
---|---|
DOI: | 10.48550/arxiv.2001.07562 |