Although, now that I look at this, I realize that that's basically just calculating the MAD estimate of sigma in a different way. And look, there on the wiki page, it says the same thing. Well.
The point being, if you have values {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9000}, then the mean is going to be horribly skewed due to a contamination of just 11% of the data. Ditto with the regular standard deviation. However, using Qsigma (or the MAD estimate, since they're apparently equivalent) lets you have up to ~50% crap data (if you're lucky and have it equally bad in both directions. Otherwise just 25%) before the statistic starts to break down.
Anyway, here's a squirrel:
Walnuts! |
Deer probably isn't too happy about it either. |
Books! |
- You cannot buy pints of regular milk apparently.
- Little kid 8oz milk-boxes don't expect you to not use the straw.
- My mac&cheese did just need a bit more milk to smooth out.
- I cook everything en papillote now-a-days.
- High frequency trading will doom us all.
- Interesting. I never knew that about Cheesecake Factory. They still use too much salt, though.
- Sheldon Adelson is probably a crook. And he's using millions of dollars to try and elect Mitt Romney.
If your values are 1,2,..,8,9000, you've fucked something up big time and maybe you should stop being a scientist. :-P
ReplyDeleteNot everyone has perfect data. I can think of three ways you can get something like that right now:
ReplyDelete1) crosstalk artifact shifting light from a bright star to an empty region, but only in one image.
2) cosmic ray hitting the detector on a bias frame, making the value way out of range.
3) comparison of two fits, where one fit occasionally messes up and returns an invalid result.
Also: shouldn't you be asleep by now?
:-P