Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byRonaldo Burne Modified over 2 years ago

1
9th ITPA Confinement Database and Modelling Topical Physics Group meeting in St. Petersburg 1/13 A maximum likelihood analysis of the L-H transition DB Darren McDonald

2
9th ITPA Confinement Database and Modelling Topical Physics Group meeting in St. Petersburg 2/13 Is L-H scaling sensitive to error models + if so, is the appropriate one used? OLS fits are appropriate when 1.Errors in P >> than in other parameters 2.Relative errors same for all experiments 3.Logs of variables ≈ Normally distributed All are violated to some extent Use Maximum-Likelihood to test impact Introduction

3
9th ITPA Confinement Database and Modelling Topical Physics Group meeting in St. Petersburg 3/13 Maximum-Likelihood method Soln is one which makes data most likely For Likelihood is Problem is now Non-Linear, but has been solved by MINUIT package. Take IAE04R dataset.

4
9th ITPA Confinement Database and Modelling Topical Physics Group meeting in St. Petersburg 4/13 1.Errors in P >> than in other parameter 2.Relative errors same for all experiments 3.Logs of variables ≈ Normally distributed OLS model - assumptions

5
9th ITPA Confinement Database and Modelling Topical Physics Group meeting in St. Petersburg 5/13 OLS model - fits M-L model + i), ii) and iii) agrees with OLS Now relax assumptions in turn Statistical model c 1.10 2 cScS cBcB cncn 1. OLS7.70.800.650.44 2. M-L with i), ii) and iii)7.70.800.650.44 3. EVOR7.50.850.580.56 4. EVOR with mean errors 7.50.850.580.56 5. M-L with ii) and iii) only 7.50.850.580.56 6. M-L with iii) only7.70.970.320.88 7. OLS adjusted for log bias 7.60.800.650.44

6
9th ITPA Confinement Database and Modelling Topical Physics Group meeting in St. Petersburg 6/13 1.Errors in P >> than in other parameter Relax to include all errors 2.Relative errors same for all experiments 3.Logs of variables ≈ Normally distributed EVOR model - assumptions

7
9th ITPA Confinement Database and Modelling Topical Physics Group meeting in St. Petersburg 7/13 EVOR model - fits M-L model + ii) and iii) agrees with EVOR Two methods for averaging errors ≈ same answer Differ from OLS OLS biases result Statistical model c 1.10 2 cScS cBcB cncn 1. OLS7.70.800.650.44 2. M-L with i), ii) and iii)7.70.800.650.44 3. EVOR7.50.850.580.56 4. EVOR with mean errors 7.50.850.580.56 5. M-L with ii) and iii) only 7.50.850.580.56 6. M-L with iii) only7.70.970.320.88 7. OLS adjusted for log bias 7.60.800.650.44

8
9th ITPA Confinement Database and Modelling Topical Physics Group meeting in St. Petersburg 8/13 1.Errors in P >> than in other parameter Relax to include all errors 2.Relative errors same for all experiments Relax to allow machine-machine variation 3.Logs of variables ≈ Normally distributed Log M-L model - assumptions

9
9th ITPA Confinement Database and Modelling Topical Physics Group meeting in St. Petersburg 9/13 Log M-L model - fits M-L model iii) only differs from OLS and EVOR assumption ii) biases results Are we sure about tokamak error estimates? Easy to extend to point-point variation Statistical model c 1.10 2 cScS cBcB cncn 1. OLS7.70.800.650.44 2. M-L with i), ii) and iii)7.70.800.650.44 3. EVOR7.50.850.580.56 4. EVOR with mean errors 7.50.850.580.56 5. M-L with ii) and iii) only 7.50.850.580.56 6. M-L with iii) only7.70.970.320.88 7. OLS adjusted for log bias 7.60.800.650.44

10
9th ITPA Confinement Database and Modelling Topical Physics Group meeting in St. Petersburg 10/13 1.Errors in P >> than in other parameter Relax to include all errors 2.Relative errors same for all experiments Relax to allow machine-machine variation 3.Logs of variables ≈ Normally distributed Relax by using real variables M-L model - assumptions

11
9th ITPA Confinement Database and Modelling Topical Physics Group meeting in St. Petersburg 11/13 M-L model - fits M-L model differs again skewing of logs influences results Attempt to correct this in OLS method (7) failed Are we sure real errors are Normally distributed? Statistical model c 1.10 2 cScS cBcB cncn 1. OLS7.70.800.650.44 2. M-L with i), ii) and iii)7.70.800.650.44 3. EVOR7.50.850.580.56 4. EVOR with mean errors 7.50.850.580.56 5. M-L with ii) and iii) only 7.50.850.580.56 6. M-L with iii) only7.70.970.320.88 7. OLS adjusted for log bias 7.60.800.650.44 8. M-L,Errors on P only5.60.860.720.58 9. M-L6.00.960.450.80

12
9th ITPA Confinement Database and Modelling Topical Physics Group meeting in St. Petersburg 12/13 Consistency, errors and ITER All models differ by more than their errors M-L gives lowest χ 2 N for model, but still >>1 model still has missing features must improve before confidence can be placed in this method ITER prediction highest for M-L Statistical model c 1.10 2 cScS cBcB cncn χ2Nχ2N P ITER OLS7.7 ± 0.30.80 ± 0.010.65 ± 0.030.44 ± 0.037.4335.6 EVOR7.5 ± 0.30.85 ± 0.020.58 ± 0.030.56 ± 0.037.0943.4 M-L6.0 ± 0.30.96 ± 0.020.45 ± 0.040.80 ± 0.056.2659.0

13
9th ITPA Confinement Database and Modelling Topical Physics Group meeting in St. Petersburg 13/13 Conclusion M-L method shown consistent with OLS and EVOR where assumptions are the same All three assumptions looked at biased scaling χ 2 N >> 1 model has missing features must have refine error model to use method ITER prediction higher for M-L Prudent estimates may come from average of a set of error models

Similar presentations

Presentation is loading. Please wait....

OK

Regression with Panel Data

Regression with Panel Data

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on teachers day songs Ppt on operational research Ppt on human body Ppt on total internal reflection fiber Ppt on applied operational research pdf Seminar ppt on lasers in general surgery Ppt on steve jobs as entrepreneur Ppt on internet banking free download Ppt on column chromatography steps Ppt on review of literature in research