JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCPNMR Archives


CCPNMR Archives

CCPNMR Archives


CCPNMR@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCPNMR Home

CCPNMR Home

CCPNMR  November 2009

CCPNMR November 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: fitting aspects

From:

Wayne Boucher <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CcpNmr software mailing list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:28:34 +0000

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (106 lines)

Hello,

A good question.

'covariance':

A reference for this is Numerical Recipes, chapter 15.5 (Nonlinear models) 
in the second edition (I think).

The standard Levenberg-Marquardt nonlinear fitting algorithm (which 
is what we use) provides an estimate of the so-called covariance matrix. 
This includes not only estimates of the variance (so also the standard 
deviation) of the parameters (along the diagonal) but also the 
cross-correlations.  The covariance estimate we use completely ignores the 
latter (so sort of assumes the parameter estimates are independent) and 
just uses the diagonal values.  Even if we didn't ignore the off-diagonal 
terms apparently this is only a valid estimate if the distributions are 
"normal" (gaussian).

'bootstrap':

A reference for this is:
    Bootstrap Methods for Standard Errors, Confidence Intervals and Other
    Measures of Statistical Accuracy
    B. Efron and R. Tibshirani
    Statistical Science, 1986, Vol. 1, No. 1, 54-77

What this does is repeatedly sample the data points (so, the (x,y) pairs) 
over and over again.  But with repeats allowed.  So if you have 4 data 
points, say, (x1, y1), (x2, y2), (x3, y3), (x4, y4) then the parameters 
themselves are estimated from fitting those.  But then you repeatedly 
sample those 4 points but allowing some of the values to be repeated (and 
so some ignored) and you fit that.  The standard deviation of the results 
of those fittings (for each parameter separately) is taken as an estimate 
of the error for that parameter.  The authors of this paper swear it's the 
way it should be done.  I don't know.

'jiggling':

No reference here because we made it up and I suspect it might well be 
dubious.  So here we repeatedly take samples of the data using normal 
distributions around x and around y (for each point) with standard 
deviation the estimates of the "noise" in x and y (respectively).  So the 
first sample would fit (x1+delta_x1, y1+delta_y1), (x2+delta_x2, 
y2+delta_y2), etc., where the deltas are sampled as described.  Then you 
do the next sampling, etc.  The error estimate is the standard deviation 
of each parameter.  I mean this just sounds dubious to me.  And it's 
pretty sensitive, we found.  So I'd ignore this definitely.


Now there is (at least) one other subtlety here, for all three methods, 
namely that the parameters that we are fitting are (quite often) not the 
parameters you are (directly) intersted in.  So you might be interested in 
some value v = f(p) where p are the parameters of the fit and f is some 
function.  If you have an estimate p0 for p then I would say it's probably 
ok (but not totally obvious) that you can take v0 = f(p0) as an estimate 
of v.  But with errors I don't really know whether there is an accepted 
way to go from an estimate of the error of p to the error of v.  You can 
try a Taylor series expansion but it's just not clear to me how valid that 
is.  (It might be ok, though.)

I hope that helps (a bit!).

Wayne

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Paul Driscoll wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In the data fitting area of Analysis we are offered error handling options of
> 'covariance','bootstrap' and 'jiggling'. Is there any description anywhere of
> the relative merits or de-merits of these different options? Is any of them
> similar or identical to using 'Monte Carlo' generation of data sets within the
> uncertainties of the measured values (such is often used in some other
> implementations and is a method that I intrinsically understand)?
>
> Specifically, if I am trying to extract K_D for a ligand binding series what is
> the best Analysis-based way of assessing the confidence limits on the fitted
> values? (i.e. ideally I don't want to have to go to another program to sort this
> out.)
>
> [BTW, if you Google 'jiggling' you quickly run into material that can get one
> fired from one's job; even 'jiggling fitting' does not help and I decided not to
> go further.]
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
>
> -- 
> Paul C. Driscoll
> Honorary Professor of Structural Biology
> Structural and Molecular Biology
> University College London
> Gower Street
> London WC1E 6BT, UK
> Tel.: 44-20 7679 7035
> Mobile: 07876 777937
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through UCL Biochemistry's Webmail:
> http://webmail.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/ (unsecured)
> https://webmail.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/ (secured)
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager