Simple error propagation calculation
$begingroup$
I have two elevation models that I subtract from each other, to find out how the topography changed over time. For the elevation models I have given the RMSE error of the horizontal and vertical uncertainty/error.
I want to calculate the error of the resulting elevation model, that represents the differences between the two models.
I know that I have to calculate a error propagation, but I am very unsure how to do it. The method does not need to be very exact or complex, I need a simple method to state that the resulting elevation model has an error of round about xy.
The first model has a resolution of 0.05 m with an error of 0.03 m horizontally and 0.05 m vertically. The second model has a resolution of 1.0 m and an error of 0.15 m horizontally and 0.10 m vertically.
So I would say, I have four variables:
- Variable 1: 0.05 m +/- 0.03 m
- Variable 2: 0.05 m +/- 0.05 m
- Variable 3: 1.00 m +/- 0.15 m
- Variable 4: 1.00 m +/- 0.10 m
Is this correct?
How can I further calculate the error?
EDIT:
I am not sure about the output variable but I think I would have two output variables.
Variable 1: output resulting from Variable 1 and Variable 3. Maybe something like XX m +/- XX m or a percentage value.
Variable 2: output resulting from Variable 2 and Variable 4
statistics error-propagation
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have two elevation models that I subtract from each other, to find out how the topography changed over time. For the elevation models I have given the RMSE error of the horizontal and vertical uncertainty/error.
I want to calculate the error of the resulting elevation model, that represents the differences between the two models.
I know that I have to calculate a error propagation, but I am very unsure how to do it. The method does not need to be very exact or complex, I need a simple method to state that the resulting elevation model has an error of round about xy.
The first model has a resolution of 0.05 m with an error of 0.03 m horizontally and 0.05 m vertically. The second model has a resolution of 1.0 m and an error of 0.15 m horizontally and 0.10 m vertically.
So I would say, I have four variables:
- Variable 1: 0.05 m +/- 0.03 m
- Variable 2: 0.05 m +/- 0.05 m
- Variable 3: 1.00 m +/- 0.15 m
- Variable 4: 1.00 m +/- 0.10 m
Is this correct?
How can I further calculate the error?
EDIT:
I am not sure about the output variable but I think I would have two output variables.
Variable 1: output resulting from Variable 1 and Variable 3. Maybe something like XX m +/- XX m or a percentage value.
Variable 2: output resulting from Variable 2 and Variable 4
statistics error-propagation
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can you express your output variable in terms of input variables$(1,2,3,4)$ ?
$endgroup$
– Sauhard Sharma
Dec 13 '18 at 16:39
$begingroup$
I tried to, see EDIT of my question.
$endgroup$
– the_chimp
Dec 14 '18 at 6:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have two elevation models that I subtract from each other, to find out how the topography changed over time. For the elevation models I have given the RMSE error of the horizontal and vertical uncertainty/error.
I want to calculate the error of the resulting elevation model, that represents the differences between the two models.
I know that I have to calculate a error propagation, but I am very unsure how to do it. The method does not need to be very exact or complex, I need a simple method to state that the resulting elevation model has an error of round about xy.
The first model has a resolution of 0.05 m with an error of 0.03 m horizontally and 0.05 m vertically. The second model has a resolution of 1.0 m and an error of 0.15 m horizontally and 0.10 m vertically.
So I would say, I have four variables:
- Variable 1: 0.05 m +/- 0.03 m
- Variable 2: 0.05 m +/- 0.05 m
- Variable 3: 1.00 m +/- 0.15 m
- Variable 4: 1.00 m +/- 0.10 m
Is this correct?
How can I further calculate the error?
EDIT:
I am not sure about the output variable but I think I would have two output variables.
Variable 1: output resulting from Variable 1 and Variable 3. Maybe something like XX m +/- XX m or a percentage value.
Variable 2: output resulting from Variable 2 and Variable 4
statistics error-propagation
$endgroup$
I have two elevation models that I subtract from each other, to find out how the topography changed over time. For the elevation models I have given the RMSE error of the horizontal and vertical uncertainty/error.
I want to calculate the error of the resulting elevation model, that represents the differences between the two models.
I know that I have to calculate a error propagation, but I am very unsure how to do it. The method does not need to be very exact or complex, I need a simple method to state that the resulting elevation model has an error of round about xy.
The first model has a resolution of 0.05 m with an error of 0.03 m horizontally and 0.05 m vertically. The second model has a resolution of 1.0 m and an error of 0.15 m horizontally and 0.10 m vertically.
So I would say, I have four variables:
- Variable 1: 0.05 m +/- 0.03 m
- Variable 2: 0.05 m +/- 0.05 m
- Variable 3: 1.00 m +/- 0.15 m
- Variable 4: 1.00 m +/- 0.10 m
Is this correct?
How can I further calculate the error?
EDIT:
I am not sure about the output variable but I think I would have two output variables.
Variable 1: output resulting from Variable 1 and Variable 3. Maybe something like XX m +/- XX m or a percentage value.
Variable 2: output resulting from Variable 2 and Variable 4
statistics error-propagation
statistics error-propagation
edited Dec 14 '18 at 6:01
the_chimp
asked Dec 13 '18 at 16:32
the_chimpthe_chimp
1062
1062
$begingroup$
Can you express your output variable in terms of input variables$(1,2,3,4)$ ?
$endgroup$
– Sauhard Sharma
Dec 13 '18 at 16:39
$begingroup$
I tried to, see EDIT of my question.
$endgroup$
– the_chimp
Dec 14 '18 at 6:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can you express your output variable in terms of input variables$(1,2,3,4)$ ?
$endgroup$
– Sauhard Sharma
Dec 13 '18 at 16:39
$begingroup$
I tried to, see EDIT of my question.
$endgroup$
– the_chimp
Dec 14 '18 at 6:02
$begingroup$
Can you express your output variable in terms of input variables$(1,2,3,4)$ ?
$endgroup$
– Sauhard Sharma
Dec 13 '18 at 16:39
$begingroup$
Can you express your output variable in terms of input variables$(1,2,3,4)$ ?
$endgroup$
– Sauhard Sharma
Dec 13 '18 at 16:39
$begingroup$
I tried to, see EDIT of my question.
$endgroup$
– the_chimp
Dec 14 '18 at 6:02
$begingroup$
I tried to, see EDIT of my question.
$endgroup$
– the_chimp
Dec 14 '18 at 6:02
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here is what I would do.
First, convert everything into the vertical error. If your terrain has slope about $s$ near the point $(x,y)$, then the vertical RMS error corresponding to the horizontal error $h$ is about $sh/sqrt 2$. The slope factor should be clear: if you move one unit horizontally, then you move at most $s$ units vertically. The $sqrt 2$ comes from the fact that you, most likely, moved not straight in the direction of the steepest descent, but somewhat sideways as well. So, if your horizontal error is 0.03m and the slope around $(x,y)$ is, say 1:2 (which is already quite a lot unless you are in the mountains), then the corresponding vertical error is just about 0.01m. (I approximated $sqrt 2$ by $3/2$ to do the calculations in the head) Then, assuming that your original vertical and horizontal errors were independent, you can find the total vertical RMS error as the square root of the sum of squares: $sqrt{0.05^2+0.01^2}approx 0.051m$.
Similarly (for the same 1:2 slope estimate and the second mesh), you get approximately about $sqrt{0.10^2+0.05^2}approx 0.11m$.
As you can see, if your terrain is reasonably flat, the horizontal errors can essentially be neglected, but if the slopes are more like 2:1, they may provide the leading contributions.
The interpolation between the nodes (which you'll, probably, have to do since your meshes are of different sizes) doesn't make the errors any worse and the RMS error of the difference is just the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual RMS errors, as usual. So in the example case you get the final answer of about 0.125m.
This is done under the standard assumptions that your measurements are the exact values contaminated with mean zero noise and the noise measurements at different nodes are independent.
I hope it makes sense.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3038253%2fsimple-error-propagation-calculation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here is what I would do.
First, convert everything into the vertical error. If your terrain has slope about $s$ near the point $(x,y)$, then the vertical RMS error corresponding to the horizontal error $h$ is about $sh/sqrt 2$. The slope factor should be clear: if you move one unit horizontally, then you move at most $s$ units vertically. The $sqrt 2$ comes from the fact that you, most likely, moved not straight in the direction of the steepest descent, but somewhat sideways as well. So, if your horizontal error is 0.03m and the slope around $(x,y)$ is, say 1:2 (which is already quite a lot unless you are in the mountains), then the corresponding vertical error is just about 0.01m. (I approximated $sqrt 2$ by $3/2$ to do the calculations in the head) Then, assuming that your original vertical and horizontal errors were independent, you can find the total vertical RMS error as the square root of the sum of squares: $sqrt{0.05^2+0.01^2}approx 0.051m$.
Similarly (for the same 1:2 slope estimate and the second mesh), you get approximately about $sqrt{0.10^2+0.05^2}approx 0.11m$.
As you can see, if your terrain is reasonably flat, the horizontal errors can essentially be neglected, but if the slopes are more like 2:1, they may provide the leading contributions.
The interpolation between the nodes (which you'll, probably, have to do since your meshes are of different sizes) doesn't make the errors any worse and the RMS error of the difference is just the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual RMS errors, as usual. So in the example case you get the final answer of about 0.125m.
This is done under the standard assumptions that your measurements are the exact values contaminated with mean zero noise and the noise measurements at different nodes are independent.
I hope it makes sense.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is what I would do.
First, convert everything into the vertical error. If your terrain has slope about $s$ near the point $(x,y)$, then the vertical RMS error corresponding to the horizontal error $h$ is about $sh/sqrt 2$. The slope factor should be clear: if you move one unit horizontally, then you move at most $s$ units vertically. The $sqrt 2$ comes from the fact that you, most likely, moved not straight in the direction of the steepest descent, but somewhat sideways as well. So, if your horizontal error is 0.03m and the slope around $(x,y)$ is, say 1:2 (which is already quite a lot unless you are in the mountains), then the corresponding vertical error is just about 0.01m. (I approximated $sqrt 2$ by $3/2$ to do the calculations in the head) Then, assuming that your original vertical and horizontal errors were independent, you can find the total vertical RMS error as the square root of the sum of squares: $sqrt{0.05^2+0.01^2}approx 0.051m$.
Similarly (for the same 1:2 slope estimate and the second mesh), you get approximately about $sqrt{0.10^2+0.05^2}approx 0.11m$.
As you can see, if your terrain is reasonably flat, the horizontal errors can essentially be neglected, but if the slopes are more like 2:1, they may provide the leading contributions.
The interpolation between the nodes (which you'll, probably, have to do since your meshes are of different sizes) doesn't make the errors any worse and the RMS error of the difference is just the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual RMS errors, as usual. So in the example case you get the final answer of about 0.125m.
This is done under the standard assumptions that your measurements are the exact values contaminated with mean zero noise and the noise measurements at different nodes are independent.
I hope it makes sense.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is what I would do.
First, convert everything into the vertical error. If your terrain has slope about $s$ near the point $(x,y)$, then the vertical RMS error corresponding to the horizontal error $h$ is about $sh/sqrt 2$. The slope factor should be clear: if you move one unit horizontally, then you move at most $s$ units vertically. The $sqrt 2$ comes from the fact that you, most likely, moved not straight in the direction of the steepest descent, but somewhat sideways as well. So, if your horizontal error is 0.03m and the slope around $(x,y)$ is, say 1:2 (which is already quite a lot unless you are in the mountains), then the corresponding vertical error is just about 0.01m. (I approximated $sqrt 2$ by $3/2$ to do the calculations in the head) Then, assuming that your original vertical and horizontal errors were independent, you can find the total vertical RMS error as the square root of the sum of squares: $sqrt{0.05^2+0.01^2}approx 0.051m$.
Similarly (for the same 1:2 slope estimate and the second mesh), you get approximately about $sqrt{0.10^2+0.05^2}approx 0.11m$.
As you can see, if your terrain is reasonably flat, the horizontal errors can essentially be neglected, but if the slopes are more like 2:1, they may provide the leading contributions.
The interpolation between the nodes (which you'll, probably, have to do since your meshes are of different sizes) doesn't make the errors any worse and the RMS error of the difference is just the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual RMS errors, as usual. So in the example case you get the final answer of about 0.125m.
This is done under the standard assumptions that your measurements are the exact values contaminated with mean zero noise and the noise measurements at different nodes are independent.
I hope it makes sense.
$endgroup$
Here is what I would do.
First, convert everything into the vertical error. If your terrain has slope about $s$ near the point $(x,y)$, then the vertical RMS error corresponding to the horizontal error $h$ is about $sh/sqrt 2$. The slope factor should be clear: if you move one unit horizontally, then you move at most $s$ units vertically. The $sqrt 2$ comes from the fact that you, most likely, moved not straight in the direction of the steepest descent, but somewhat sideways as well. So, if your horizontal error is 0.03m and the slope around $(x,y)$ is, say 1:2 (which is already quite a lot unless you are in the mountains), then the corresponding vertical error is just about 0.01m. (I approximated $sqrt 2$ by $3/2$ to do the calculations in the head) Then, assuming that your original vertical and horizontal errors were independent, you can find the total vertical RMS error as the square root of the sum of squares: $sqrt{0.05^2+0.01^2}approx 0.051m$.
Similarly (for the same 1:2 slope estimate and the second mesh), you get approximately about $sqrt{0.10^2+0.05^2}approx 0.11m$.
As you can see, if your terrain is reasonably flat, the horizontal errors can essentially be neglected, but if the slopes are more like 2:1, they may provide the leading contributions.
The interpolation between the nodes (which you'll, probably, have to do since your meshes are of different sizes) doesn't make the errors any worse and the RMS error of the difference is just the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual RMS errors, as usual. So in the example case you get the final answer of about 0.125m.
This is done under the standard assumptions that your measurements are the exact values contaminated with mean zero noise and the noise measurements at different nodes are independent.
I hope it makes sense.
answered Dec 14 '18 at 7:50
fedjafedja
9,43511627
9,43511627
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3038253%2fsimple-error-propagation-calculation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Can you express your output variable in terms of input variables$(1,2,3,4)$ ?
$endgroup$
– Sauhard Sharma
Dec 13 '18 at 16:39
$begingroup$
I tried to, see EDIT of my question.
$endgroup$
– the_chimp
Dec 14 '18 at 6:02