Overdispersion, the spread of equivalent-dose estimates beyond their measurement uncertainties, is the most reported and least interpretable number in luminescence dating: grain response, beta-dose heterogeneity, incomplete bleaching, mixing, fading, saturation, and understated errors produce the same value. Rebuilt from its physics as a variance budget, it yields four findings. Correlated intrinsic and dose-rate variance cannot be resolved from one dose distribution without an independent constraint. A boundary-calibrated test improves routine practice, but the detectable overdispersion falls only as \(n-1/4\) with grain count n : most published datasets cannot resolve a modest real dispersion, and a realistic instrumental floor nearly doubles the limit. Log-dose skewness separates added-dose from loss mechanisms, yet co-acting mechanisms and a natively skewed dose-rate field mimic either, so shape statistics are prompts, not classifiers. Multi-grain averaging divides the diagnosable dispersion by an effective grain number, about eight for fifty bright-dominated grains, but leaves additive bias in place: a clean aliquot is not a clean sample. Read without these limits, a dispersion value credits an age to a mechanism the data cannot support; which mechanism acted is a measurement question, not a computational one. The framework matches reference software to 0.01 percentage points on published quartz datasets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eren Şahi̇ner (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: