Error distribution solutions method

Section 4.2.2 shows how to use the scaling method to obtain the error function solution for the one-dimensional diffusion of a step function in an infinite medium given by Eq. 4.31. The same solution can be obtained by superposing the onedimensional diffusion from a distribution of instantaneous local sources arrayed to simulate the initial step function. The boundary and initial conditions are... 

For more complex models or for input distributions for which exact analytical methods are not applicable, approximate methods might be appropriate. Many approximation methods are based on Taylor series expansion solutions, in which the series is truncated depending on the desired amount of solution accuracy and whether one wishes to consider covariance among the input distributions (Hahn Shapiro, 1967). These methods often go by names such as generation of system moments , statistical error propagation , delta method and first-order methods , as discussed by Cullen Frey (1999). 

In essence, this principle is the well-known Method of Maximum Likelihood (MML). The PDF written as a function of measurements P(f(a) F) is called Likelihood Function. The MML is one of the strategic principles of statistical estimation that provides statistically the best solution in many senses [27]. For example, the asymptotical error distribution (for infinite number of f realizations) of MML estimates a have the smallest possible variances of a,. 

The least-squares method chooses values for the bj s of Eq. (3), which are imbiased estimates of the p s of Eq. (2). The least-squares estimates are universally minimum variance imbiased estimates for normally distributed residual errors and are minimum variance among all linear estimates (linear combinations of the observed T s), regardless of the residual error distribution shape (see Eisenhart 1964). The bj s (as well as the T s) are linear combinations of the observed T s. The least-squares method determines the weight given to each Y value. The derivations of the least-squares solution and/or associated equations used later in this chapter are shown in other sources (see Additional Reading). In essence, the bjS are chosen to minimize the numerator of Eq. (5)—the sum of squares of e s of Eq. (4)—hence least squares. ... 

More simple solutions are found for special cases. Already in 1933 Kratky [248] has presented a method for the case in which the observed orientation distribution has its maximum on the equator. In 1979 the problem treated by Kratky has been revisited by Leadbetter and Norris [254], They present a different solution which is frequently applied in studies of liquid-crystalline polymers. Burger and Ru-land [255] pinpoint the error in the deduction of Leadbetter and... 

In the virial methods, therefore, the activity coefficients account implicitly for the reduction in the free ion s activity due to the formation of whatever ion pairs and complex species are not included in the formulation. As such, they describe not only the factors traditionally accounted for by activity coefficient models, such as the effects of electrostatic interaction and ion hydration, but also the distribution of species in solution. There is no provision in the method for separating the traditional part of the coefficients from the portion attributable to speciation. For this reason, the coefficients differ (even in the absence of error) in meaning and value from activity coefficients given by other methods. It might be more accurate and less confusing to refer to the virial methods as activity models rather than as activity coefficient models. 

In this way and by numerical evaluation, Driessens (2) proved that the experimental activities could be explained on the basis of substitutional disorder, according to Equation (27), within the limits of experimental error. It seems, therefore, that measurements of distribution coefficients and the resulting activities calculated by the method of Kirgintsev and Trushnikova (16) do not distinguish between the regular character of solid solutions and the possibility of substitional disorder. However, the latter can be discerned by X-ray or neutron diffraction or by NMR or magnetic measurements. It can be shown that substitutional disorder always results in negative values of the interaction parameter W due to the fact that... 

The mathematical basis for the exponential series method is Eq. (5.3), the use of which has recently been criticized by Phillips and Lyke.(19) Based on their analysis of the one-sided Laplace transform of model excited-state distribution functions, it is concluded that a small, finite series of decay constants cannot be used to represent a continuous distribution. Livesey and Brouchon(20) described a method of analysis using pulse fluorometry which determines a distribution using a maximum entropy method. Similarly to Phillips and Lyke, they viewed the determination of the distribution function as a problem related to the inversion of the Laplace transform of the distribution function convoluted with the excitation pulse. Since Laplace transform inversion is very sensitive to errors in experimental data,(21) physically and nonphysically realistic distributions can result from the same data. The latter technique provides for the exclusion of nonrealistic trial solutions and the determination of a physically realistic solution. These authors noted that this technique should be easily extendable to data from phase-modulation fluorometry. 

The joint solution is p = 3.2301 and a = 2.9354. It might not seem obvious, but we can also derive asymptotic standard errors for these estimates by constructing them as method of moments estimators. Observe, first, that the two estimates are based on moment estimators of the probabilities. Let x, denote one of the 500 observations drawn from the normal distribution. Then, the two proportions are obtained as follows Let z,(2.1) = l[x, < 2.1] and z,(3.6) = l[x, < 3.6] be indicator functions. Then, the proportion of 35% has been... 

DPCM and IEF are exact (and therefore equivalent) as long as the solute charge lies completely inside the cavity, whereas COSMO is only asymptotically exact in the limit of large dielectric constants. If there is some escaped charge, i.e. if some part of the charge distribution is supported outside the cavity, all these methods are approximations. The error generated by the fact that, in QM calculations, the electronic tail of the solute necessarily spreads outside the cavity, is discussed in Section 1.2.4. 

In its current formulation the ASEP/MD method introduces a dual representation of the solute molecule. At each cycle of the ASEP/MD calculation, the solute charge distribution is updated using quantum mechanics but during the molecular dynamics simulations the solute charge distribution is represented by a set of fixed point charges. The use of an inadequate set of charges in the solute description can introduce errors into the estimation of the solvent structure, and hence of the solute s properties... 

Multiple Pass Analysis. Pike and coworkers (13) have provided a method to increase the resolution of the ordinary least squares algorithm somewhat. It was noted that any reasonable set of assumed particle sizes constitutes a basis set for the inversion (within experimental error). Thus, the data can be analyzed a number of times with a different basis set each time, and the results combined. A statistically more-probable solution results from an average of the several equally-likely solutions. Although this "multiple pass analysis".helps locate the peaks of the distribution with better resolution and provides a smoother presentation of the result, it can still only provide limited resolution without the use of a non-negatively constrained least squares technique. We have shown, however, that the combination of both the non-negatively constrained calculation and the multiple pass analysis gives the advantages of both. 

This equation is quite accurate in comparison with group contributing methods [40] or other predictive LSER methods [41]. For compounds where the solvatochromic parameters are known, the mean absolute error in log Dy is about 0.16. It is usually less than 0.3 if solvatochromic parameters of the solute and solvent must be estimated according to empirical rules [42], In contrast to the prediction of gas-liquid distribution coefficients, which is usually easier, the LSER method allows a robust estimation of liquid-liquid distribution coefficients. However, these equations always involve empirical terms, despite their being physico-chemically founded thermodynamic models. However, this is considered due to the fundamental character of the solvatochromic scales. 

---