A quick t-test on these differences gives the same results.... no significant difference.
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]> wrote: > Then i subtracted error means between two methods (+ sign means > smaller error for MR version, -sign means smaller error for R > sequential version): > > -2.490580e-06 6.065328e-03 1.954353e-03 1.557188e-03 3.680165e-03 > 9.346332e-04 -6.052074e-04 2.622627e-03 -6.930656e-04 2.608697e-03 > -1.218882e-03 1.042435e-03 1.473642e-03 8.322338e-03 6.035364e-03 > -6.508083e-03 6.390501e-03 -8.441491e-03 1.169098e-02 -5.618290e-04 > -1.061915e-02 -7.908856e-03 2.295738e-03 2.397220e-04 -9.223938e-03 > -3.254358e-03 4.996947e-03 -5.478588e-04 -4.909232e-03 -3.874268e-03 > > 95% confidence interval for the error mean measurements of MR version is, > +/-: > > 5.754773e-06 9.002358e-03 9.890168e-03 1.057098e-02 7.995073e-03 > 9.310558e-03 > 1.002221e-02 5.687491e-03 7.069399e-03 8.315481e-03 9.091700e-03 > 1.286121e-02 > 1.265919e-02 1.859940e-02 1.523656e-02 1.398035e-02 9.846969e-03 > 3.852648e-02 > 1.943268e-02 2.668289e-02 2.574338e-02 2.376454e-02 1.330533e-02 > 1.425717e-02 > 2.280331e-02 2.086706e-02 2.326773e-02 2.981179e-02 2.949766e-02 > 2.059868e-02 > > which seems to be consistently greater than difference in the errors. > Also, we see intermittent pattern of one method taking precision edge > over another. > > This basically tells me there's no statistically difference in > precision between sequential and MR version errors with the same > parameters. >
