Concept

Fitting — where it appears

Choosing a parameter to make a model agree with data, and reporting what it came out as. A fit is a measurement only if the fitted value could have come out somewhere else, which is why the range of the data matters as much as its quantity.

Named by 11 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The uninformative sample does not say so — it says something else. Above: how many junctions of a given asymmetry it takes to distinguish an exponent of 3 from an exponent of 2, at 2% measurement error on each radius. An even fork needs one; a junction whose small daughter is a twentieth of the large one needs 2195. Below: 50 junctions from each end of the range, on a synthetic tree built at exactly 3. The even forks return 3.01; the twigs return 1.69, with an interval no wider — because 47% of them measure as a parent thinner than its own larger daughter, and dropping those keeps only the half where the noise ran the right way.

Which junctions say anything

Da Vinci's rule and Murray's law differ by 12% at an even fork and by a tenth of a per cent at a twig. So one even fork settles which is right, and two thousand twigs do not — a factor of two thousand across a tree, decided entirely by the shape of the junction and not by how carefully it is measured.

branching · Exponent
The uninformative sample does not say so — it says something else. Above: how many junctions of a given asymmetry it takes to distinguish an exponent of 3 from an exponent of 2, at 2% measurement error on each radius. An even fork needs one; a junction whose small daughter is a twentieth of the large one needs 2195. Below: 50 junctions from each end of the range, on a synthetic tree built at exactly 3. The even forks return 3.01; the twigs return 1.69, with an interval no wider — because 47% of them measure as a parent thinner than its own larger daughter, and dropping those keeps only the half where the noise ran the right way.

A sample that is confidently wrong

Fifty lopsided junctions from a tree built at an exponent of exactly 3 return 1.7, with an interval that excludes 3 and excludes 2 as well. The sample carrying almost no information does not give a wide answer — it gives a narrow wrong one, and the cause is a selection nobody applies on purpose.

branching · Exponent
A tree built at an exponent of 3, measured band by band. Six bands of daughter ratio, 300 junctions in each, all from trees built at an exponent of exactly 3 with the same 2% measurement error. The median implied exponent falls from 3.00 at an even fork to 1.58 at a twig, and the share of junctions that have any exponent at all falls from 100% to 53% over the same range. The rule across the top is a single fit over 200 junctions spanning the whole range: 2.85. A mixed sample is safe because least squares already weights by leverage — 42% of it sits in the most symmetric band and 0.06% in the twigs. The sample that is not safe is the one a person can reach.

The band decides the answer

A fit over a whole tree's junctions returns the exponent the tree was built at, even though most of its junctions are from bands that on their own return 1.6. Least squares is already weighting by leverage. The dangerous sample is not the mixed one — it is the one a person can reach.

branching · Exponent
Between 3% and 5% of radius error, no sample size answers — 50 junctions among them. One row per error level. The pale bar is the sample sizes whose interval is narrow enough to state a claim from — half-width under ±0.25 and excluding 2 — and it starts where precision arrives. The second bar is the sample sizes whose interval still contains the 3 the tree was built at, and it ends where the displacement overtakes the width. Where the two overlap there is a usable window; at 5%, 7%, 10% they do not overlap at all, so below 50 junctions the answer is too wide to state and above 30 it no longer contains the truth.

The window that closes

The spread of a fitted branching exponent falls as the reciprocal root of the sample and its displacement does not fall at all, so there is a count past which every further junction buys confidence and no accuracy. Between three and five per cent of radius error the count arrives before the answer does, and no sample size both states a claim and contains the truth.

branching · Exponent error
Murray's law and Da Vinci's become one measurement at 12% of radius error on the informative band. Two trees measured the same way: 50 junctions of daughter ratio 0.6–1, 300 replicate samples at each of 15 error levels, one tree built at exactly 3 and one at exactly 2. Each shaded band is the central 90% of the recovered exponents. Both run downward, but the tree at 3 runs down faster — -113σ² against -29σ² — so the two close on each other.  At 11% they are still apart; at 12% the bands overlap and one study's answer could have come from either tree; at 20.5% the means cross, and above it a tree built at 3 measures lower than a tree built at 2.

Where three and two become one

Two trees, one built to obey Murray's law and one to obey Da Vinci's, are measured through the same fifty junctions with the same instrument. At twelve per cent of error on each radius the two answers overlap, and above twenty and a half the tree built at three measures lower than the tree built at two.

branching · Exponent error
One exponent fitted to an organ that has 4 of them. Each dot is one step between consecutive rings, reporting 2 ln φ / ln(s′/s) — the exponent that step would have if the organ had one. They run from 1.980 to 1.697. The line is what a single fit returns, 1.891, which is their harmonic mean of 1.880 and sits below their plain average of 1.887.

What one exponent reports

Fit a single shape exponent to an organ that has four of them and it returns a real quantity — the harmonic mean of what its individual steps report. Harmonic means sit below arithmetic ones, so the fit understates, systematically, in a known direction, and invisibly.

cylinder · Fitted exponent
Adding error to carry a fitted exponent back to none, at 12%. At 12% of error on every radius each replicate is refitted with more error added at four levels, and the dots are the means over 300 replicates, the tree at 3 above and the tree at 2 below. Uncorrected they read 2.035 and 1.676. Carried back to no error through the mean points, the tree at 3 reads 2.695 by a quadratic curve, 2.380 by a linear curve, 2.914 by a rational curve; the tree at 2 reads 1.961 by a quadratic one, 1.877 by a linear one, 1.982 by a rational one. The curve carried back is a choice the method does not make.

A correction that keeps the overlap

The duel between a tree built at Murray's exponent and one built at Da Vinci's ended by saying the displacement is the geometry, and that no better estimator removes it. Correcting every replicate by simulation-extrapolation removes 92 per cent of the tree at three's displacement at five per cent of error and 68 per cent at twelve, and the error at which the two means cross leaves the measured range altogether. It pays in spread — the corrected readings are twice as wide at twelve per cent — so the error at which the two trees' intervals overlap does not move. Of the duel's two numbers, the inversion was the estimator's and the overlap is the question's.

branching · Exponent error
What the exchange misses one divergence step by, against the surviving hop. Each mark is one wrecked cut. Across: the angle from an organ to the one its surviving lag places above it, on the control. Down: how much the exchanged pair's size falls short of one divergence step. The relationship is a straight line through the origin with a slope of about 0.2, and its sign is right on every row of the census — the four surviving lags give hops on both sides of zero and the residual follows each of them. The honest limit is the four: the hop hardly moves inside a lag, so the line rests on 11 distinct positions and not on 17.

A fifth of the hop

The exchanged pair misses one divergence step by up to twelve per cent, and the miss is not scatter: every row keeping a lag of 5 or 7 overshoots and every row keeping a 4 or an 8 falls short. Subtract a fifth of the surviving hop's own angle and the worst row is four per cent.

mechanism · Damage shape
Two ways of predicting how wide a band is. A band ends where the settled divergence has moved 0.05° from its value at the handover, so the width should follow from how fast the divergence changes there. Reading that rate as the rung's average slope predicts widths that are wrong by factors of 0.20 to 5.92 — wrong in both directions, so no constant rescues it. Reading it as a curvature about a stationary point gives 0.41 to 1.08, with five of the six inside a third. The difference between the two is the difference between a curve and its average, and a band is exactly where the two are least alike.

How wide a band should be

A band ends where the divergence has slid a twentieth of a degree, so its width should follow from how fast the divergence slides. Predicted from the rung's slope that is wrong by factors of 0.20 to 5.92; predicted from a stationary point it is 0.41 to 1.08, and the outlier is the rung that has no stationary point.

cylinder · Rung interior
A period fitted to the speckle, at every period it could have. Each mark is one candidate period, drawn at the share of rises it gets right when it is given its best phase and its best family in each residue class — the most generous reading of periodic there is. The flat rule is what saying nothing gets: name the commonest family and stop. The best period scores 76 per cent against 76 for no period at all, a gain of 0 points over 123 rises, so the alternation the coarse design reported is not a period being sampled badly.

The alternation is not a period

Nine sampled rises gave 8, 4, 8, 4 at one offset of one band, and a period was the obvious thing to look for. At full resolution it is thirteen islands one to three rises wide, with gaps of 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 31, 44 and 48 — and a fitted period buys exactly nothing.

cylinder · Rung interior
g005 at offset 6, read against two levels. One wrecked cut's four residue classes, drawn twice. On the left the level is the median of the four class means, which falls on the class at -5.5 degrees sitting on its own; three classes are then exceptions and the row is set aside as having no balanced pair, summing to -173.6 degrees. On the right the level is the pair of classes that agree, at -138.6 degrees; two classes are then exceptions, they are adjacent and equal and opposite at 133.1 and 134.2 degrees, and the row is an exchange. The exchange table goes from 20 rows to 21.

The twenty-first row

Recomputing the level moves one row out of the set the exchange sets aside and into the exchange itself. Its hop is four times larger than any the correction was fitted over, and the correction fails on it in the one way it had never failed.

mechanism · Damage shape

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Honest limitsBranching exponentDa Vinci's ruleMeasurementMurray's lawResidualBiasClaim testingDiscriminationIdentifiabilityMeasurement errorNegative result

All concepts