Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    or...
       
    Reply
    Re: Rejecting outliers
    From: Gary LaPook
    Date: 2011 Jan 8, 18:05 -0800
    I said in my previous post that a navigator might have determined several sigmas based on observing conditions so would have an appropriate sigma to apply to the current series of sights.

    As to your suggestion to use the sigma determined by the current series of sights, the sigma for my six shots was 0.77' so using my criteria for rejecting a sight of 2.866', which is 3.7 sigmas (of the current series), less than one in a thousand sights should exceed that error so my method might have been overly protective of the data. Of course there could be situations where it would be the other way around so then it might make sense to use the larger of the two sigmas for determining the cutoff value.

    gl

    --- On Sat, 1/8/11, George Huxtable <george{at}hux.me.uk> wrote:

    From: George Huxtable <george{at}hux.me.uk>
    Subject: [NavList] Re: Rejecting outliers
    To: NavList@fer3.com
    Date: Saturday, January 8, 2011, 6:10 AM

    I agree with (almost) every word from Gary LaPook in his thoughtful
    posting.

    He sets two standard deviations from the mean as the maximum acceptable
    before excluding an observation as an outlier in a set of five or six.
    Personally, I would set that threshold somewhat higher, to say 2.5 SD. And
    his data-set is so near to a straight-line that graphing a straight-line,
    then measuring offsets with dividers, though fine in principle, is somewhat
    crude, and I would prefer to calculate those offsets numerically. But
    really, there's little to separate us on those matters.

    But I think that there's a serious weakness in his adoption of a personal,
    historical, value for standard deviation of his measured altitudes of
    1.433', and using twice that value to set an acceptability threshold for a
    particlar day. That may indeed have been the standard devition of his
    altitude observations from GPS values over a long term, but those will not
    all have been measured under the same circumstances. Some may have been
    taken from smaller vessels in fair weather, others in rough conditions.
    Some may even have been taken on land. It may be fair to lump together the
    rough with the smooth, and arrive at a personal average, but then what
    needs to be considered are the circumstances of the moment, and how they
    differ from that average.

    So if most had been taken from the deck of a craft of a few (or a few tens
    of) tons, how should that apply to observations from a vessel of many
    thousands of tons, with or without sail propulsion? If some of them had
    been taken in stormy conditions, even aboard Royal Clipper, much greater
    scatter would be expected, and no doubt many, perhaps most, of the
    resulting observations would fail Gary's test and be excluded, even though
    they were not really outliers from the expected (wider)distribution.

    To which, Gary may well ask what value he should use instead. And I suggest
    his best measure of scatter is the standard deviation of his observations
    of that day, about their mean value, having corrected them for
    time-dependence. The trouble is that to get a decent figure for that
    scatter calls for a reasonable number of observations, to avoid the result
    being overdependent on chance. Six observations isn't really enough. Nine,
    as in Peter Fogg's example, is still somewhat short. The more, the better.

    But Gary's personal experience of his ability to measure altitudes, from
    the past, can not be dismissed, but used to inform the choice of a suitable
    value for the scatter pertaining to that day's conditions. There may,
    indeed, still be a bit of 'magic' left in the navigator's art, in the
    making of such decisions.

    George.

    contact George Huxtable, at george{at}hux.me.uk
    or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
    or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.




       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.
    Email:

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site