Random errors description

The flowsheet shown in the introduction and that used in connection with a simulation (Section 1.4) provide insights into the pervasiveness of errors at the source, random errors are experienced as an inherent feature of every measurement process. The standard deviation is commonly substituted for a more detailed description of the error distribution (see also Section 1.2), as this suffices in most cases. Systematic errors due to interference or faulty interpretation cannot be detected by statistical methods alone control experiments are necessary. One or more such primary results must usually be inserted into a more or less complex system of equations to obtain the final result (for examples, see Refs. 23, 91-94, 104, 105, 142. The question that imposes itself at this point is how reliable is the final result Two different mechanisms of action must be discussed ... 

The ultimate goal of multivariate calibration is the indirect determination of a property of interest (y) by measuring predictor variables (X) only. Therefore, an adequate description of the calibration data is not sufficient the model should be generalizable to future observations. The optimum extent to which this is possible has to be assessed carefully when the calibration model chosen is too simple (underfitting) systematic errors are introduced, when it is too complex (oveifitting) large random errors may result (c/. Section 10.3.4). 

We chose the number of PCs in the PCR calibration model rather casually. It is, however, one of the most consequential decisions to be made during modelling. One should take great care not to overfit, i.e. using too many PCs. When all PCs are used one can fit exactly all measured X-contents in the calibration set. Perfect as it may look, it is disastrous for future prediction. All random errors in the calibration set and all interfering phenomena have been described exactly for the calibration set and have become part of the predictive model. However, all one needs is a description of the systematic variation in the calibration data, not the... 

Conclusions should always be tempered by the possible importance of untested or uncontrolled variables, and by the risks assumed in the testing protocol. The problem of outlying values and their effects needs to be considered also. Retrospective correlations of historical data are frequently employed with no consideration of weighting for unbalanced distributions, with the result that one often ends up with merely a mathematical description of random error. Finally, as noted above, there is the danger of comparisons at fixed points, or at fixed sets of... 

The objective of any review of experimental values is to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the results. The description of a procedure for the selection of the evaluated values (EvV) of electron affinities is one of the objectives of this book. The most recent precise values are taken as the EvV. However, this is not always valid. It is better to obtain estimates of the bias and random errors in the values and to compare their accuracy and precision. The reported values of a property are collected and examined in terms of the random errors. If the values agree within the error, the weighted average value is the most appropriate value. If the values do not agree within the random errors, then systematic errors must be investigated. In order to evaluate bias errors, at least two different procedures for measuring the same quantity must be available. 

In most cases, however, the compounds are different to each other and there is a spread in their properties. The average values will not give a sufficient description of the data. If the compounds are different to each other, the distribution of the data points will have an extension in the descriptor space. This extension will be outside the range of random error variation around the average point. 

The other property of a set of univariate data that must be specified to give an adequate summary description is the dispersion, the extent of the spread (scatter) of the n values around the mean reflecting the extent of random error, i.e., the precision. The simplest parameter describing the dispersion is the range, the difference ( hnax min) between maximum and minimum values. Obviously this parameter is extremely susceptible to distortion from extreme values (possible outUers). The most commonly used measure of dispersion is the standard deviation of the data set s defined as follows ... 

Description Bias is the total systematic error of a measurement result (in contrast to random error). 

Definition Measured quantity value minus a reference quantity value [25]. Description Error is the sum of systematic and random error. 

When experimental data is to be fit with a mathematical model, it is necessary to allow for the facd that the data has errors. The engineer is interested in finding the parameters in the model as well as the uncertainty in their determination. In the simplest case, the model is a hn-ear equation with only two parameters, and they are found by a least-squares minimization of the errors in fitting the data. Multiple regression is just hnear least squares applied with more terms. Nonlinear regression allows the parameters of the model to enter in a nonlinear fashion. The following description of maximum likehhood apphes to both linear and nonlinear least squares (Ref. 231). If each measurement point Uj has a measurement error Ayi that is independently random and distributed with a normal distribution about the true model y x) with standard deviation <7, then the probability of a data set is... 

The guidelines provide variant descriptions of the meaning of the term linearity . One definition is, ... ability (within a given range) to obtain test results which are directly proportional to the concentration (amount) of analyte in the sample [12], This is an extremely strict definition, one which in practice would be unattainable when noise and error are taken into account. Figure 63-la schematically illustrates the problem. While there is a line that meets the criterion that test results are directly proportional to the concentration of analyte in the sample , none of the data points fall on that line, therefore in the strictest sense of the phrase, none of the data representing the test results can be said to be proportional to the analyte concentration. In the face of nonlinearity of response, there are systematic departures from the line as well as random departures, but in neither case is any data point strictly proportional to the concentration. 

An early theory for description of the random sampling error in well mixed particulate materials with particle-size-dependent composition is described by BENEDETTI-PICH-LER [1956],... 

It is important to emphasize that all pharmacokinetic, fixed effect and random parameters, i.e. 0, co2, and a2, are fitted in one step as mean values with standard error by NONMEM. A covariance matrix of the random effects can be calculated. For a detailed description of the procedure see Grasela and Sheiner (1991) and Sheiner and Grasela (1991). 

The direction of the deviations between the theoretical and experimental data. Are the deviations randomly distributed, sometimes above and sometimes below the curve, or are they clustered, above the curve in one region and below in another If the deviations are not randomly distributed, this indicates that the theoretical curve is not a satisfactory fit to the experimental data. One reason for this is that the model is wrong and is not an adequate description of the situation another is that systematic errors have been made in carrying out the experiment. 

---