Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “sampling bias”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records

Planning Bias: Planning as a Source of Sampling Bias

Many data-driven planning methods are trained on data generated by planners. It is well known that many statistical learning methods are sensitive to sampling bias, and yet there has been little or no attention to planning as a sampling method and its role in introducing sampling bias into planner-generated training data. Recently, it has been demonstrated that A**,* in the presence of problems with variable heuristic error, prefers some solutions over other equally cost-optimal solutions. But, as we discuss in this paper, mitigation may not be as simple as resolving arbitrary tie-breaking by sampling from ties uniformly at random. In this paper, we formalize an intuition of planning bias. We focus on problems which output a single solution. Diverse planning only complicates the problem by generalizing it to bias in the set of sets; we show how it is subject to bias in the single solution. We make some useful observations about deterministic algorithms in contrast to non-deterministic algorithms. We explain how information entropy may be a good way to measure planning bias, and discuss some issues in evaluating practical approaches to measurement. We address the intuition that uniform random tiebreaking should mitigate bias; and sketch a novel approach to constructing an appropriate random distribution for duplicate detection during forward search for unbiased A*. Finally, we suggest directions for future work.

Planning Scheduling Algorithms↗

An experimental verification of laser-velocimeter sampling bias and its correction

The existence of 'sampling bias' in individual-realization laser velocimeter measurements is experimentally verified and shown to be independent of sample rate. The experiments were performed in a simple two-stream mixing shear flow with the standard for comparison being laser-velocimeter results obtained under continuous-wave conditions. It is also demonstrated that the errors resulting from sampling bias can be removed by a proper interpretation of the sampling statistics. In addition, data obtained in a shock-induced separated flow and in the near-wake of airfoils are presented, both bias-corrected and uncorrected, to illustrate the effects of sampling bias in the extreme.

Johnson, D. A.↗

Estimating Sampling Biases and Measurement Uncertainties of AIRS-AMSU-A Temperature and Water Vapor Observations Using MERRA Reanalysis

We use MERRA (Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis for Research Applications) temperature and water vapor data to estimate the sampling biases of climatologies derived from the AIRS/AMSU-A (Atmospheric Infrared Sounder/Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit-A) suite of instruments. We separate the total sampling bias into temporal and instrumental components. The temporal component is caused by the AIRS/AMSU-A orbit and swath that are not able to sample all of time and space. The instrumental component is caused by scenes that prevent successful retrievals. The temporal sampling biases are generally smaller than the instrumental sampling biases except in regions with large diurnal variations, such as the boundary layer, where the temporal sampling biases of temperature can be +/- 2 K and water vapor can be 10% wet. The instrumental sampling biases are the main contributor to the total sampling biases and are mainly caused by clouds. They are up to 2 K cold and greater than 30% dry over mid-latitude storm tracks and tropical deep convective cloudy regions and up to 20% wet over stratus regions. However, other factors such as surface emissivity and temperature can also influence the instrumental sampling bias over deserts where the biases can be up to 1 K cold and 10% wet. Some instrumental sampling biases can vary seasonally and/or diurnally. We also estimate the combined measurement uncertainties of temperature and water vapor from AIRS/AMSU-A and MERRA by comparing similarly sampled climatologies from both data sets. The measurement differences are often larger than the sampling biases and have longitudinal variations.

MERRA↗

Investigation of Particle Sampling Bias in the Shear Flow Field Downstream of a Backward Facing Step

The flow field about a backward facing step was investigated to determine the characteristics of particle sampling bias in the various flow phenomena. The investigation used the calculation of the velocity:data rate correlation coefficient as a measure of statistical dependence and thus the degree of velocity bias. While the investigation found negligible dependence within the free stream region, increased dependence was found within the boundary and shear layers. Full classic correction techniques over-compensated the data since the dependence was weak, even in the boundary layer and shear regions. The paper emphasizes the necessity to determine the degree of particle sampling bias for each measurement ensemble and not use generalized assumptions to correct the data. Further, it recommends the calculation of the velocity:data rate correlation coefficient become a standard statistical calculation in the analysis of all laser velocimeter data.

Meyers, James F.↗

Sampling Biases of Space-Based Observations of XCO2 Associated With South American Biomass Burning Events During 2017-2020

- We examine time series of OCO-2 xCO 2 observations coincident with other remotely sensed and in-situ observations to better understand external sampling effects. - The OCO-2 Level 3 assimilation product fills in gaps where OCO-2 does not have observations. - Although the Level 3 clearly shows the increased CO 2 over the Amazon associated with the September 2017 biomass burning event, the total amount of CO 2 may be underestimated because of a sampling bias. - Since TCCON is also a remotely sensed product, it may suffer the same sampling biases associated with biomass burning events as OCO-2. - Aircraft data show that there is significant variation in xCO 2 with altitude. - The OCO-2 fused products created by kriging may be better than the assimilated product at detecting deviations from the average state.

OCO↗

Sampling Biases in MODIS and SeaWiFS Ocean Chlorophyll Data

Although modem ocean color sensors, such as MODIS and SeaWiFS are often considered global missions, in reality it takes many days, even months, to sample the ocean surface enough to provide complete global coverage. The irregular temporal sampling of ocean color sensors can produce biases in monthly and annual mean chlorophyll estimates. We quantified the biases due to sampling using data assimilation to create a "truth field", which we then sub-sampled using the observational patterns of MODIS and SeaWiFS. Monthly and annual mean chlorophyll estimates from these sub-sampled, incomplete daily fields were constructed and compared to monthly and annual means from the complete daily fields of the assimilation model, at a spatial resolution of 1.25deg longitude by 0.67deg latitude. The results showed that global annual mean biases were positive, reaching nearly 8% (MODIS) and >5% (SeaWiFS). For perspective the maximum interannual variability in the SeaWiFS chlorophyll record was about 3%. Annual mean sampling biases were low (<3%) in the midlatitudes (between -40deg and 40deg). Low interannual variability in the global annual mean sampling biases suggested that global scale trend analyses were valid. High latitude biases were much higher than the global annual means, up to 20% as a basin annual mean, and over 80% in some months. This was the result of the high solar zenith angle exclusion in the processing algorithms. Only data where the solar angle is <75deg are permitted, in contrast to the assimilation which samples regularly over the entire area and month. High solar zenith angles do not facilitate phytoplankton photosynthesis and consequently low chlorophyll concentrations occurring here are missed by the data sets. Ocean color sensors selectively sample in locations and times of favorable phytoplankton growth, producing overestimates of chlorophyll. The biases derived from lack of sampling in the high latitudes varied monthly, leading to artifacts in the apparent seasonal cycle from ocean color sensors. A false secondary peak in chlorophyll occurred in May-August, which resulted from lack of sampling in the Antarctic.

Gregg, Watson W.↗

Sampling Biases of Space-Based Observations of XCO 2 Associated With South American Biomass Burning Events

We examine time series of OCO-2 xCO2 observations from 2017-2020 coincident with other remotely sensed and in-situ observations to better understand external sampling effects associated with biomass burning events. The GES DISC will publish How-To documents as Jupyter Notebooks to describe how to aggregate OCO-2 Level 2 data and create similar time series.

Kristan Morgan↗

An Overview of Particle Sampling Bias

The complex relation between particle arrival statistics and the interarrival statistics is explored. It is known that the mean interarrival time given an initial velocity is generally not the inverse of the mean rate corresponding to that velocity. Necessary conditions for the measurement of the conditional rate are given.

Meyers, James F.↗

Measurements of the properties of solar wind plasma relevant to studies of its coronal sources

Interplanetary measurements of the speeds, densities, abundances, and charge states of solar wind ions are diagnostic of conditions in the source region of the solar wind. The absolute values of the mass, momentum, and energy fluxes in the solar wind are not known to an accuracy of 20%. The principal limitations on the absolute accuracies of observations of solar wind protons and alpha particles arise from uncertain instrument calibrations, from the methods used to reduce the data, and from sampling biases. Sampling biases are very important in studies of alpha particles. Instrumental resolution and measurement ambiguities are additional major problems for the observation of ions heavier than helium. Progress in overcoming some of these measurement inadequacies is reviewed.

Neugebauer, M.↗

Jovian winds from Voyager 2. Part II - Analysis of eddy transports

Previous Voyager 1 and 2 Jovian circulation measurements exhibit a large positive correlation between eddy momentum transports and the meridional shear of the zonal wind component, implying a very large rate of conversion of eddy kinetic energy of the zonal jets. Examination of the vectors mainly responsible for the correlation in our recent Voyager 2 global measurements indicates that it is probably caused by a biased sampling of prominent cloud features associated with circulating eddies. Intensive diagnostic measurements with more nearly uniform spatial sampling show no significant correlation in regions where our original measurements showed strong correlations. If the sampling bias mechanism is fully accounted for in all Jovian circulation measurements, the estimated eddy-to-mean-flow kinetic energy conversion rate may be reduced significantly.

Sromovsky, L. A.↗

Eight Year Climatologies from Observational (AIRS) and Model (MERRA) Data

We examine climatologies derived from eight years of temperature, water vapor, cloud, and trace gas observations made by the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument flying on the Aqua satellite and compare them to similar climatologies constructed with data from a global assimilation model, the Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA). We use the AIRS climatologies to examine anomalies and trends in the AIRS data record. Since sampling can be an issue for infrared satellites in low earth orbit, we also use the MERRA data to examine the AIRS sampling biases. By sampling the MERRA data at the AIRS space-time locations both with and without the AIRS quality control we estimate the sampling bias of the AIRS climatology and the atmospheric conditions where AIRS has a lower sampling rate. While the AIRS temperature and water vapor sampling biases are small at low latitudes, they can be more than a few degrees in temperature or 10 percent in water vapor at higher latitudes. The largest sampling biases are over desert. The AIRS and MERRA data are available from the Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC). The AIRS climatologies we used are available for analysis with the GIOVANNI data exploration tool. (see, http://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov).

Hearty, Thomas↗

Assessing Risk Due to Small Sample Size in Probability of Detection Analysis Using Tolerance Intervals

Small sample size (e.g.6-30) poses risk in results of probability of detection (POD) analysis using tolerance intervals. This method is also called as the limited sample or LS POD. The analysis is performed either during NDE procedure qualification or for assessment of reliability of an NDE procedure. The risk is primarily due to sampling error. Smaller samples are not likely to be random to the population or representative of the population. The small samples are likely to be biased. Biased samples have smaller standard deviation compared to the population. POD analysis with small biased sample can lead to overestimation of POD. Many sampling schemes are available in statistics to mitigate sampling risk. Primary objective of POD analysis is to determine a decision threshold from signal response measurements of a sample such that it is less than or equal to population decision threshold for 90% POD. Sampling error implies that this NDE reliability condition is violated. One of sampling types is called a representative sample. Representative samples reduce variance in POD estimates but also reduce magnitude of the error. Sampling sensitivity analysis for some sampling types is performed here using repetitive random sampling or Monte Carlo method. Six sampling types are considered for comparison. Some of the sampling types are similar to drawing a representative sample. LS POD model assumes random sampling. Therefore, random sampling is used as a basis for comparison with each sampling type. The sampling types used in the analysis are, A. Nominal and worst-case sampling, B. Worst-case sampling, C. Nominal case sampling, D. Random sampling, E. Random target, and sub-target sampling. F. Nominal target and sub-target sampling. Results of Monte Carlo simulation indicate that type F sampling can mitigate sampling risk and is also more practical to implement. Type A sampling may also mitigate the sampling risk, but it may be less practical to implement.

Ajay M Koshti↗

NASA GRC and MSFC Space-Plasma Arc Testing Procedures

Tests of arcing and current collection in simulated space plasma conditions have been performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, for over 30 years and at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, for almost as long. During this period, proper test conditions for accurate and meaningful space simulation have been worked out, comparisons with actual space performance in spaceflight tests and with real operational satellites have been made, and NASA has achieved our own internal standards for test protocols. It is the purpose of this paper to communicate the test conditions, test procedures, and types of analysis used at NASA GRC and MSFC to the space environmental testing community at large, to help with international space-plasma arcing-testing standardization. Discussed herein are neutral gas conditions, plasma densities and uniformity, vacuum chamber sizes, sample sizes and Debye lengths, biasing samples versus self-generated voltages, floating samples versus grounded samples, test electrical conditions, arc detection, preventing sustained discharges during testing, real samples versus idealized samples, validity of LEO tests for GEO samples, extracting arc threshold information from arc rate versus voltage tests, snapover, current collection, and glows at positive sample bias, Kapton pyrolysis, thresholds for trigger arcs, sustained arcs, dielectric breakdown and Paschen discharge, tether arcing and testing in very dense plasmas (i.e. thruster plumes), arc mitigation strategies, charging mitigation strategies, models, and analysis of test results. Finally, the necessity of testing will be emphasized, not to the exclusion of modeling, but as part of a complete strategy for determining when and if arcs will occur, and preventing them from occurring in space.

Ferguson, Dale C.↗

Sampling of Space-Based Observations of XCO2 Associated With Biomass Burning Events

- The OCO-2 Level 3 assimilation product fills in gaps where OCO-2 does not have observations. - Although the Level 3 clearly shows the increased CO2 over the Amazon associated with the September 2017 biomass burning event, the total amount of CO2 may be underestimated because of a sampling bias. - The TCCON observations match fairly well with the OCO-2 observations and can be used to estimate the accuracy of the OCO observations and the temporal sampling bias. However, since it is a remotely sensed product, it may suffer the same sampling biases associated with biomass burning events as OCO-2. - Although aircraft data show that there is a significant variation in xCO2 with altitude, they suggest the OCO-2 fused products created by kriging may be better than the assimilated product at detecting large deviations from the average state on daily and regional scales.

Thomas J. Hearty, III↗

Biases in Total Precipitable Water Vapor Climatologies from Atmospheric Infrared Sounder and Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer

We examine differences in total precipitable water vapor (PWV) from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) and the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) experiments sharing the Aqua spacecraft platform. Both systems provide estimates of PWV over water surfaces. We compare AIRS and AMSR-E PWV to constrain AIRS retrieval uncertainties as functions of AIRS retrieved infrared cloud fraction. PWV differences between the two instruments vary only weakly with infrared cloud fraction up to about 70%. Maps of AIRS-AMSR-E PWV differences vary with location and season. Observational biases, when both instruments observe identical scenes, are generally less than 5%. Exceptions are in cold air outbreaks where AIRS is biased moist by 10-20% or 10-60% (depending on retrieval processing) and at high latitudes in winter where AIRS is dry by 5-10%. Sampling biases, from different sampling characteristics of AIRS and AMSR-E, vary in sign and magnitude. AIRS sampling is dry by up to 30% in most high-latitude regions but moist by 5-15% in subtropical stratus cloud belts. Over the northwest Pacific, AIRS samples conditions more moist than AMSR-E by a much as 60%. We hypothesize that both wet and dry sampling biases are due to the effects of clouds on the AIRS retrieval methodology. The sign and magnitude of these biases depend upon the types of cloud present and on the relationship between clouds and PWV. These results for PWV imply that climatologies of height-resolved water vapor from AIRS must take into consideration local meteorological processes affecting AIRS sampling.

Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS)↗

NASA GRC and MSFC Space-Plasma Arc Testing Procedures

Tests of arcing and current collection in simulated space plasma conditions have been performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, for over 30 years and at the Marshall Space flight Center (MSFC) for almost as long. During this period, proper test conditions for accurate and meaningful space simulation have been worked out, comparisons with actual space performance in spaceflight tests and with real operational satellites have been made, and NASA has achieved our own internal standards for test protocols. It is the purpose of this paper to communicate the test conditions, test procedures, and types of analysis used at NASA GRC and MSFC to the space environmental testing community at large, to help with international space-plasma arcing testing standardization. To be discussed are: 1. Neutral pressures, neutral gases, and vacuum chamber sizes. 2. Electron and ion densities, plasma uniformity, sample sizes, and Debye lengths. 3. Biasing samples versus self-generated voltages. Floating samples versus grounded. 4. Power supplies and current limits. Isolation of samples from power supplies during arcs. Arc circuits. Capacitance during biased arc-threshold tests. Capacitance during sustained arcing and damage tests. Arc detection. Preventing sustained discharges during testing. 5. Real array or structure samples versus idealized samples. 6. Validity of LEO tests for GEO samples. 7. Extracting arc threshold information from arc rate versus voltage tests. 8 . Snapover and current collection at positive sample bias. Glows at positive bias. Kapton pyrolization. 9. Trigger arc thresholds. Sustained arc thresholds. Paschen discharge during sustained arcing. 10. Testing for Paschen discharge thresholds. Testing for dielectric breakdown thresholds. Testing for tether arcing. 11. Testing in very dense plasmas (ie thruster plumes). 12. Arc mitigation strategies. Charging mitigation strategies. Models. 13. Analysis of test results. Finally, the necessity of testing will be emphasized, not to the exclusion of modeling, but as part of a complete strategy for determining when and if arcs will occur, and preventing them from occurring in space.

Ferguson, Dale C.a↗

NASA GRC and MSFC Space-Plasma Arc Testing Procedures

Tests of arcing and current collection in simulated space plasma conditions have been performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, for over 30 years and at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, for almost as long. During this period, proper test conditions for accurate and meaningful space simulation have been worked out, comparisons with actual space performance in spaceflight tests and with real operational satellites have been made, and NASA has achieved our own internal standards for test protocols. It is the purpose of this paper to communicate the test conditions, test procedures, and types of analysis used at NASA GRC and MSFC to the space environmental testing community at large, to help with international space-plasma arcing-testing standardization. To be discussed are: 1.Neutral pressures, neutral gases, and vacuum chamber sizes. 2. Electron and ion densities, plasma uniformity, sample sizes, and Debuy lengths. 3. Biasing samples versus self-generated voltages. Floating samples versus grounded. 4. Power supplies and current limits. Isolation of samples from power supplies during arcs. 5. Arc circuits. Capacitance during biased arc-threshold tests. Capacitance during sustained arcing and damage tests. Arc detection. Prevention sustained discharges during testing. 6. Real array or structure samples versus idealized samples. 7. Validity of LEO tests for GEO samples. 8. Extracting arc threshold information from arc rate versus voltage tests. 9. Snapover and current collection at positive sample bias. Glows at positive bias. Kapon (R) pyrolisis. 10. Trigger arc thresholds. Sustained arc thresholds. Paschen discharge during sustained arcing. 11. Testing for Paschen discharge threshold. Testing for dielectric breakdown thresholds. Testing for tether arcing. 12. Testing in very dense plasmas (ie thruster plumes). 13. Arc mitigation strategies. Charging mitigation strategies. Models. 14. Analysis of test results. Finally, the necessity of testing will be emphasized, not to the exclusion of modeling, but as part of a complete strategy for determining when and if arcs will occur, and preventing them from occurring in space.

Ferguson, Dale C.↗