Timeline for Does it make sense to consider ratio of pair correlation functions of two point patterns?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 9, 2020 at 21:05 | comment | added | Ege Rubak | If you do simulation envelopes as suggested no ratios are involved. I think estimated ratios of pcfs are bound to be numerically very unstable (in particular at short ranges), so I would be hesitant to rely on these. | |
| Feb 9, 2020 at 0:37 | comment | added | NamelessGods | My thought is that the ratio between the pcf of data and model is a new ''pcf'' taking the model as a reference where the standard pcf is taking Poisson process as base reference. I just want to make sure my understanding is correct regarding this. | |
| Feb 9, 2020 at 0:29 | comment | added | NamelessGods | Thanks for the reply. That is what I plan to do, although my apology for not emphasize on generating several simulation based on fitted model. However, I do have some question on interpreting the differences. For example, if I take the ratio between the pair correlation function of data and model, and I find that the ratio is say 1.3 at $r = 0.5$ distance, does this have the interpretation that the data is 1.3 times more likely in terms of probability to have two points at $r = 0.5$ distance compared to the model? Thanks again! | |
| Feb 8, 2020 at 22:34 | history | answered | Ege Rubak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |