Re: Comparison of Monte Carlo simulations vs. covariance matrix. -- August 29, 2014 - 16:34

Do you mean terrible or double?

Best
Troels

2014-08-29 16:15 GMT+02:00 Edward d'Auvergne <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi Troels,
>
> I really cannot follow and judge how the techniques compare.  I must
> be getting old.  So to remedy this, I have created the
> test_suite/shared_data/dispersion/Kjaergaard_et_al_2013/exp_error_analysis/
> directory (r25437,
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.nmr.relax.scm/23187).  This
> contains 3 scripts for comparing R2eff and I0 parameters for the 2
> parameter exponential curve-fitting:
>
> 1)  A simple script to perform Monte Carlo simulation error analysis.
> This is run with 10,000 simulations to act as the gold standard.
>
> 2)  A simple script to perform covariance matrix error analysis.
>
> 3)  A simple script to generate 2D Grace plots to visualise the
> differences.  Now I can see how good the covariance matrix technique
> is :)
>
> Could you please check and see if I have used the
> relax_disp.r2eff_err_estimate user function correctly?  The Grace
> plots show that the error estimates are currently terrible.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Edward
>
> _______________________________________________
> relax (http://www.nmr-relax.com)
>
> This is the relax-devel mailing list
> relax-devel@xxxxxxx
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, get a password
> reminder, or change your subscription options,
> visit the list information page at
> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/relax-devel