4 ms·
I guess you could statistically impute that data. But it is the long tail of unlikely readings which are generally interesting, and imputation will not find tho
by ImaCake 6y ago
I guess you could statistically impute that data. But it is the long tail of unlikely readings which are generally interesting, and imputation will not find those.
- SiempreViernes 6y agoImputing makes little sense when you are trying to _measure_ though.
- weego 6y agoThis is a logic flaw I see everywhere. Making a proposition for what might have been there is not a useful scientific instrument. And especially not when unseen anomalies are an integral part of pushing your field forward. If you're inferring what might have been there you're explicitly filling in based only on what you already know.
- oasisbob 6y agoI agree, but isn't filing in what you already know a common technique when presenting things for human consumption? I'm thinking scanning microscopy, SEM, STM, etc. The image implies that all the data is from the same instant, when it's not. Normally that's OK, but it's not always.
- Balgair 6y agoSEM fills in data?
- Balgair 6y agoUnfortunately, the 'glow' is from the optics, not the CCD (you'd see streaks or 'boxing' that way). You can't statistically impute the optics, as these issues are based on physics. A good starter article here; http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys312/workshops/w10c/telescopes/telescopes.html http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys312/workshops/w10c/telescop...
- ImaCake 6y agoThanks, that was a fun read. I think I have a better grasp of why you can't impute this now.