5
$\begingroup$

I have several nonlinear curves of the transmission spectrum of a semiconductor. I got a fit to each of the curve. To get the chi squared for each my teacher gave me the formula $$\chi^2=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{(T_{exp}-T_{fit})^2}{N\sigma^2_{exp}} $$ where $$\sigma_{exp}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\sigma_{i}}{N}.$$ However, reading some statisics book I haven't seen this formula anywhere and have only seen $$\chi^2=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{(T_{exp}-T_{fit})^2}{\sigma^2_{i}}.$$ Can someone explain the top, or is the formula just wrong?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Pull the $1/N$ out of the summation. Then you see it's just a scaling-by-N factor. $\endgroup$ Oct 8, 2013 at 12:02
  • $\begingroup$ That wouldn't be the same you would get $$\chi^2=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{N(T_{exp}-T_{fit})^2}{\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sigma_{i}} $$. $\endgroup$ Oct 8, 2013 at 12:46
  • $\begingroup$ Edit: Denominator should be squared. $\endgroup$ Oct 8, 2013 at 13:02
  • $\begingroup$ $$\chi^2=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{(T_{exp}-T_{fit})^2}{\sigma^2_{exp}}$$ $\endgroup$ Oct 8, 2013 at 13:22
  • $\begingroup$ What exactly do you mean by $\sigma_i$ in the expression for $\sigma_{exp}$? Regardless, this formula is unlikely to be a good estimate of the standard deviation of the residuals. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Oct 8, 2013 at 17:20

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

Let's unpack the formula. Ignoring the controversial factor of $1/N$, it is a sum of expressions of the form

$$\frac{(T_{exp}-T_{fit})^2}{\sigma^2_{exp}}.$$

These are squares of ratios. The numerators, $T_{exp}-T_{fit},$ are the residuals: they (additively) compare the observed values (presumably $T_{exp}$) to the fitted values $T_{fit}$. This makes sense when the hypothesized explanation for any differences between the fit and the observations is some random, uncorrelated additive variation.

The denominators, $\sigma_{exp},$ are estimates of the expected amount of variation (based on the fit). In some circumstances they vary from point to point; in other situations they are taken as constant. No matter: the point is that the ratio

$$\frac{T_{exp}-T_{fit}}{\sigma_{exp}}$$

re-expresses each residual as a multiple of the expected amount of variation. (Notice that it is unitless.) Intuitively, then, these ratios ought to be around $\pm 1$ in size, although we would hope many of them would be closer to $0$. If we make a number of statistical assumptions, have sufficient amounts of data, perform least-squares or maximum likelihood fitting, and invoke the Central Limit Theorem, we may justify considering these ratios as being approximately, sort of, perhaps, Normally distributed.

The sum, then--without the offending factor of $1/N$ that would turn it into a mere average--looks like the sum of squares of uncorrelated standard Normal variables. This is the definition of $\chi^2$. That is, when all these assumptions hold, we may interpret the sum

$$\sum_i\frac{(T_{exp}(i)-T_{fit}(i))^2}{\sigma^2_{exp}(i)} = \sum_i\left(\frac{T_{exp}(i)-T_{fit}(i)}{\sigma_{exp}(i)}\right)^2$$

(where the index $i$ is used to enumerate the observations) as if it were a single random draw from a $\chi^2$ distribution. Actually that's not quite right, because these residuals are correlated. They are connected by virtue of the common underlying fit, which typically relies on estimates of a small number of parameters, say $p$ of them. Because of this, the sum--qua random variable--actually behaves more like a sum of $N-p$ squared standard Normal variates. This value, $N-p$, is the number of "degrees of freedom."

Were we to divide the sum by $N$, we would obtain a scaled $\chi^2$ distribution. There's nothing wrong about this, but it isn't too helpful, either: tables and software compute values of $\chi^2$ distributions, not values divided by $N$. After all, $N$ isn't even directly relevant: only $N-p$ matters in calculating $\chi^2$. Leaving out the $1/N$ factor therefore makes the calculation depend only on one number, the degrees of freedom, rather than a pair of numbers. That--the second version in the question--is the one to use.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.