Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
IAEA Training Workshop Nuclear Structure and Decay Data Evaluation of Discrepant Data I Desmond MacMahon United Kingdom February – March 2006 ICTP February-March 2006 1 Evaluation of Discrepant Data What is the half-life of 137Cs? What is its uncertainty? Look at the published data from experimental measurements: ICTP February-March 2006 2 Measured Half-lives of Cs-137 Authors Measured half-lives in days Wiles & Tomlinson (1955a) Brown et al. (1955) Farrar et al. (1961) Fleishman et al. (1962) Gorbics et al. (1963) Rider et al. (1963) Lewis et al. (1965) Flynn et al. (1965) Flynn et al. (1965) Harbottle (1970) Emery et al. (1972) Dietz & Pachucki (1973) Corbett (1973) Gries & Steyn (1978) Houtermans et al. (1980) Martin & Taylor (1980) Gostely (1992) Unterweger (2002) Schrader (2004) t1/2 9715 10957 11103 10994 10840 10665 11220 10921 11286 11191 11023 11020.8 11034 10906 11009 10967.8 10940.8 11018.3 10970 146 146 146 256 18 110 47 183 256 157 37 4.1 29 33 11 4.5 6.9 9.5 20 ICTP February-March 2006 3 Half-life of Cs-137 12000 11500 Half-life (days) 11000 10500 Series1 10000 9500 9000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year of Publication ICTP February-March 2006 4 Half-life of Cs-137 11600 11400 Half-life (days) 11200 11000 Series1 10800 10600 10400 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year of publication ICTP February-March 2006 5 Evaluation of Discrepant Data The measured data range from 9715 days to 11286 days What value are we going to use for practical applications? x The simplest procedure is to take the unweighted mean: If xi, for i = 1 to N, are the individual values of the half-life, then the unweighted mean, xu, and its standard deviation, u, are given by: ICTP February-March 2006 6 Unweighted Mean xu u x i N x i xu 2 N N 1 ICTP February-March 2006 7 Unweighted Mean • This gives the result: 10936 75 days • However, the unweighted mean is influenced by outliers in the data, in particular the first, low value of 9715 days • Secondly, the unweighted mean takes no account of the fact that different authors made measurements of different precision, so we have lost some of the information content of the listed data ICTP February-March 2006 8 Weighted Mean We can take into account the authors’ quoted uncertainties, i, i = 1 to N, by weighting each value, using weights wi, to give the weighted mean, (xw) wi xw 1 2 i x w w i i i ICTP February-March 2006 9 Weighted Mean standard deviation of the weighted mean, w, is given by: The w And 1 wi for the half-life of Cs-137 the result is 10988 3 days ICTP February-March 2006 10 Weighted Mean This result has a small uncertainty, but how do we know how reliable it is? How do we know that all the data are consistent? We can look at the deviations of the individual data from the mean, compared to their individual uncertainties We can define a quantity ‘chi-squared’ ICTP February-March 2006 11 Weighted Mean This result has a small uncertainty, but how reliable is the value? How do we know that all the data are consistent? We can look at the deviations of the individual data from the mean, compared to their individual uncertainties We can define a quantity ‘chi-squared’ xi xw 2 2 i 2 i ICTP February-March 2006 12 The Weighted Mean We can also define a ‘total chi-squared’ ICTP February-March 2006 13 Weighted Mean We can also define a ‘total chi-squared’ 2 2 i i ‘Total chi-squared’ should be equal to the number of degrees of freedom, (i.e., to the number of data points minus one) in an ideal consistent data set ICTP February-March 2006 14 Weighted Mean So, we can define a ‘reduced chi-squared’: which 2 R 2 N 1 should be close to unity for a consistent data set ICTP February-March 2006 15 Weighted Mean the Cs-137 data under consideration, the ‘reduced chi-squared’ is 18.6, indicating significant inconsistencies in the data For Let us look at the data again Can we identify the more discrepant data? ICTP February-March 2006 16 Measured Half-lives of Cs-137 Authors Measured half-lives in days Wiles & Tomlinson (1955a) Brown et al. (1955) Farrar et al. (1961) Fleishman et al. (1962) Gorbics et al. (1963) Rider et al. (1963) Lewis et al. (1965) Flynn et al. (1965) Flynn et al. (1965) Harbottle (1970) Emery et al. (1972) Dietz & Pachucki (1973) Corbett (1973) Gries & Steyn (1978) Houtermans et al. (1980) Martin & Taylor (1980) Gostely (1992) Unterweger (2002) Schrader (2004) t1/2 9715 10957 11103 10994 10840 10665 11220 10921 11286 11191 11023 11020.8 11034 10906 11009 10967.8 10940.8 11018.3 10970 146 146 146 256 18 110 47 183 256 157 37 4.1 29 33 11 4.5 6.9 9.5 20 ICTP February-March 2006 17 Measured Half-lives of Cs-137 Authors Measured half-lives in days Wiles & Tomlinson (1955a) Brown et al. (1955) Farrar et al. (1961) Fleishman et al. (1962) Gorbics et al. (1963) Rider et al. (1963) Lewis et al. (1965) Flynn et al. (1965) Flynn et al. (1965) Harbottle (1970) Emery et al. (1972) Dietz & Pachucki (1973) Corbett (1973) Gries & Steyn (1978) Houtermans et al. (1980) Martin & Taylor (1980) Gostely (1992) Unterweger (2002) Schrader (2004) t1/2 9715 10957 11103 10994 10840 10665 11220 10921 11286 11191 11023 11020.8 11034 10906 11009 10967.8 10940.8 11018.3 10970 146 146 146 256 18 110 47 183 256 157 37 4.1 29 33 11 4.5 6.9 9.5 20 ICTP February-March 2006 18 Measured Half-lives of Cs-137 Authors Measured half-lives in days Wiles & Tomlinson (1955a) Brown et al. (1955) Farrar et al. (1961) Fleishman et al. (1962) Gorbics et al. (1963) Rider et al. (1963) Lewis et al. (1965) Flynn et al. (1965) Flynn et al. (1965) Harbottle (1970) Emery et al. (1972) Dietz & Pachucki (1973) Corbett (1973) Gries & Steyn (1978) Houtermans et al. (1980) Martin & Taylor (1980) Gostely (1992) Unterweger (2002) Schrader (2004) t1/2 9715 10957 11103 10994 10840 10665 11220 10921 11286 11191 11023 11020.8 11034 10906 11009 10967.8 10940.8 11018.3 10970 146 146 146 256 18 110 47 183 256 157 37 4.1 29 33 11 4.5 6.9 9.5 20 ICTP February-March 2006 19 Measured Half-lives of Cs-137 Authors Measured half-lives in days Wiles & Tomlinson (1955a) Brown et al. (1955) Farrar et al. (1961) Fleishman et al. (1962) Gorbics et al. (1963) Rider et al. (1963) Lewis et al. (1965) Flynn et al. (1965) Flynn et al. (1965) Harbottle (1970) Emery et al. (1972) Dietz & Pachucki (1973) Corbett (1973) Gries & Steyn (1978) Houtermans et al. (1980) Martin & Taylor (1980) Gostely (1992) Unterweger (2002) Schrader (2004) t1/2 9715 10957 11103 10994 10840 10665 11220 10921 11286 11191 11023 11020.8 11034 10906 11009 10967.8 10940.8 11018.3 10970 146 146 146 256 18 110 47 183 256 157 37 4.1 29 33 11 4.5 6.9 9.5 20 ICTP February-March 2006 20 Weighted Mean Highlighted values are the more discrepant Their values are far from the mean and their uncertainties are small In cases such as the Cs-137 half-life, the uncertainty, (w), ascribed to the weighted mean, is far too small One way of taking into account the inconsistencies is to multiply the uncertainty of the weighted mean by the Birge ratio:- ICTP February-March 2006 21 Weighted Mean Birge Ratio 2 N 1 2 R This approach would increase the uncertainty of the weighted mean from 3 days to 13 days for Cs-137, which would be more realistic ICTP February-March 2006 22 Limitation of Relative Statistical Weights (LRSW) This procedure has been adopted by the IAEA in the Coordinated Research Program on X- and gamma-ray standards A Relative Statistical Weight is defined as wi wi If the most precise value in a data set (value with the smallest uncertainty) has a relative weight greater than 0.5, its uncertainty is increased until the relative weight of this particular value has dropped to 0.5 ICTP February-March 2006 23 Limitation of Relative Statistical Weights (LRSW) Avoids any single value having too much influence in determining the weighted mean, although for Cs-137 there is no such value The LRSW procedure then compares the unweighted mean with the new weighted mean. If they overlap, i.e. xu xw the u w weighted mean is the adopted value ICTP February-March 2006 24 Limitation of Relative Statistical Weights (LRSW) If the weighted mean and the unweighted mean do not overlap the data are inconsistent, and the unweighted mean is adopted Whichever mean is adopted, the associated uncertainty is increased if necessary, to cover the most precise value in the data set ICTP February-March 2006 25 Limitation of Relative Statistical Weights (LRSW) In the case of Cs-137: Unweighted Weighted Mean: Mean: 10936 ± 75 days 10988 3 days These two means do overlap so the weighted mean is adopted. Most precise value in the data set is that of Dietz & Pachucki (1973): 11020.8 ± 4.1 days Uncertainty in the weighted mean is therefore increased to 33 days: 10988 ± 33 days. ICTP February-March 2006 26 Median Individual values in a data set are listed in order of magnitude If there is an odd number of values, the middle value is the median If there is an even number of values, the median is the average of the two middle values Median has the advantage that this approach is very insensitive to outliers ICTP February-March 2006 27 Median We now need some way of attributing an uncertainty to the median First have to determine the quantity ‘median of the absolute deviations’ or ‘MAD’ ~ } for i 1, 2, 3, ..... N MAD med { xi m ~ is the median value. where m ICTP February-March 2006 28 Median Uncertainty in the median can be expressed as: 1.9 MAD N 1 ICTP February-March 2006 29 Median Median is 10970 ± 23 days for the Cs-137 half data presented As for the unweighted mean, the median does not use the uncertainties assigned by the authors, so again some information is lost However, the median is much less influenced by outliers than is the unweighted mean ICTP February-March 2006 30 Evaluation of Discrepant Data So, in summary, we have: Unweighted Weighted Mean: Mean: 10936 ± 75 days 10988 ± 3 days LRSW: 10988 ± 33 days Median: 10970 ± 23 days ICTP February-March 2006 31 ICTP February-March 2006 32