0% found this document useful (0 votes)
11 views1 page

Statistical Methods in Monte Carlo Analysis

This document discusses several statistical techniques for data analysis including: - Neyman-Pearson tests which are optimal for independent Poisson random variables but not always calculable. Approximations may be used instead. - Unfolding which compares data to theory by distorting theory predictions to match the detector response and comparing to data. - Multivariate analysis which compares multiple observables with each providing little separation power individually. More complex parameterizations like BDTs are used. - Supervised learning techniques like neural networks which are trained to minimize an error function between predictions and labels.

Uploaded by

Jordan Chizick
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
11 views1 page

Statistical Methods in Monte Carlo Analysis

This document discusses several statistical techniques for data analysis including: - Neyman-Pearson tests which are optimal for independent Poisson random variables but not always calculable. Approximations may be used instead. - Unfolding which compares data to theory by distorting theory predictions to match the detector response and comparing to data. - Multivariate analysis which compares multiple observables with each providing little separation power individually. More complex parameterizations like BDTs are used. - Supervised learning techniques like neural networks which are trained to minimize an error function between predictions and labels.

Uploaded by

Jordan Chizick
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

observed values x

expectation value of x
expectation value of y
background
assume bins independent Poisson RV

Neyman-Pearson test statistic optimal,


linear but not always calculable: for RV (n-
=>determine to maximise separation dim) with M bins => bins total
Fisher separation between and =>idea: make reasonable Ansatz, then use MC Why?
define separation:
optimal for Gaussian with common covariance
10 Unfolding compare data and theory
-usually theory->MC(detector distortion)->compare
with data much simpler
supervised learning: minimize error function
Multivariate Analysis +compare experiments directly
+compare theory later developed

NN formulation of problem:
s: activation function (eg. logistic sigmoid)
single layer perceptron limited resolution
+hidden layer =>multilayer perceptron efficiency
many observables with little separation power each background
+>1hidden layers=>DeepNN more general parametrization:
structure
neighboring layers only->feed-forward network
BDT performance quantified by purity
DT:
define Impurity gain: 2p(1-p) Gini
physically motivated, all events retained priors depend on production cross sections classifier
but (-) sensitive to statistical fluctuation test statistic to classify

set S: "sample space":


: definition by Kolmogorov's axioms in set theory
P>=0 positive definition
if A,B disjunct: P(A)+P(B) additive fixed: Poisson
P(S)=1 normalized Binomial
subjective probability: degree of belief sum of Poisson again Poisson

frequentist: relative frequency of outcomes


Central Limit Theorem
: Gauss
RV
Bayes Theorem function of RV is RV

posterior - likelihood - prior Chi-Square:


total probability:

1 Probability 2 Probability Distributions Uniform

Log-normal: y Gaussian, , multiply random


Independence
errors => CLT

Covariance Exponential
Correlation
pseudorandom: randomness tests
(linear) Correlation coefficient
like true random, but reproducible and repeat after uniformity
period uncorrelated (at all levels)
test:
x,y independent => e.g independent equidistribution
Student t distribution: measure sampling from updown tests
measurement
Gaussian pairwise, triplewise correlation
! not other way around: e.g.
Central Limit Theorem application:
n independent continuous RV with and Breit-Wigner: energy loss of charged particle analytically not solvable
exceptions: => is Gaussian RV error propagation breaks down
malicious PD (mean not well-defined) many free parameters+unknown correlations
with and between
one dominant factor
Landau-distribution (energy loss of charged particle)

1 Uncertainties
because of long tail moments undefined
Breit-Wigner (Cauchy) distribution

precision: reproducability Statistical Methods transformation method: r<-uniform=>x<-f(x)


equal probability: g(r)dr=f(x)dx
reduces with
accuracy: closeness to actual value
statistical <=> systematical 3 Monte Carlo method => solve F(x(r))=G(r)=r for x
not unique: 1-r also <-uniform

simulation: num calc with solution related to PD enhanced: enclose f with g: with RV x according to
integration: (especially higher dimensions superior) can be generated
combining measurements
generate x
acceptance-rejection method: generate u from uniform
if => if u<f(x) accept

generate x in interval
generate f in interval
Error propagation if accept
RV function of with unknown PD holds if second derivative small
only know and error: [Link] true Bayesian confidence intervals
=> determine E[y] and Var(y) [Link] false "coverage" probability:
Neyman-Pearson lemma frequency of true value within confidence interval
Orthogonal transformation choosing critical region overcoverage not maximally powerful
transform to with diagonal highest power with t such: undercoverage serious flaw
always possible with linear transformation Frequentist
=> diagonalize normally test statistic t: lower dim->reduce data
construct test statistic: Neyman construction for

get from MC
but see MVA
9 Prediction
Linear test statistics , Fisher discriminant
intervals and limits
significance of signal
P(observe n or more events from background alone)
4 Statistical Tests
each bin Poisson

P-value: observed result equally or less compatible with


Feldman-Cousins
RV (unlike ) which is specified before test Goodness-of-fit test
report upperlimit+centrallimit near physical boundary
("observed significance/confidence level") construct t(x) reflecting level of agreement with wthout flip-flopping
use Neyman with x in CI with greatest likelihood ratio
not probability for true, ( no RV) follows chi2 distribution with N-1 degrees of freedom
to give probability for H0 prior needs to be given (distribution free) (in general N-m m:parameters
(Bayesian) estimated from data)
near physical boundaries
P-Value: problem: low sensitivity->stronger limit for 0 events
Pearsons Square test interpretation of P-Value: probability of observing n_obs
level of agreement of two histograms (eg. data,theory) chi2 statistic: or more events under H_0 report observed value sensitivity: separation of signal and background
for poisson data N with mean vb=0.5 n_obs=5 give v_s=4.5±2.2 misleading, error on pretend to 0 in limit setting
CLs method
depends on binning!: low sensitivity=>no exclusion of model
large binning->info loss
but at least 5 entries per bin otherwise not distribution
free usual CLs method:
=>for small data samples: Kolmogorov-Smirnov (no overcoverage, flip-flopping
binning)

Likelihood function: ML estimators:


efficient
asymptotically unbiased
use asymptotic normality (->Gaussian for infinite sample
size)
examples
Gaussian
simple
5 Parameter estimation
Exponential unbinned data (no information loss)
consistent
invariant under variable transformation

analytic method sample: set of n independent observations of x


=> Random vector sample mean normal
insert in sampling distribution variance:

if analytic difficult: MC method methods for estimating MVB (minimum variance bound)
simulate experiments efficient RCF inequality:
compute ML estimates =minimum variance
use e.g. sampling variance for estimating

use RCF lower bound 6 Maximum Likelihood method terminology statistic: consistent: (minimum requirement)
if MC toilsome: graphical method
estimator
taylor logL
=> MSE (mean square error)

=> unbiased
N Gaussian RV: ML=chi^2 why?
combination of different experiments
if b=0 for all n

minimize even for non-Gaussian asymptotically unbiased

connection to chi2?
Least Squares method b=0 for

if (1) (independent) Gaussian sampling distribution is PD of estimator


combining measurements, goodness of fit... (2) linear in
(3) functional form of hypothesis correct goodness-of-fit
=>chi2 distributed with N-m(#parameters) DoF as in chi2 =likelihood?
note: underestimated errors can worsen chi2

with binned data


Bayesian
extended ML:
knowledge contained in
if number of observations is Poisson with mean :
connection with Bayesian =>report mode
if prior uniform ML=Bayesian
1. : +info, reduce (Bayesian postulate) problem with uniform prior:
2. : same normalization (usually not a problem)
transformation of variables! Bayesian not invariant in
general

ML with binned data


very large data loglikelihood difficult to compute
histogram as measurement of N dim random vector
according to multinomial distribution

You might also like