Table : Data used in section 4 to infer reactivity ratios and the respective errors. Hereby, A denotes an individual copolymerization data set. B and C refer to the same data set, but the respective reference monomer is switched. To analyze the data we assume constant relative errors of 5% on the dependent variable (F i ). For the independent variable ( f i ) 0% is assumed for the analysis to be compared to van Herk et al. and 1% for the analysis and comparison of Scott et al. This difference in error structure in the independent variable is reasoned in the respective model assumptions (see table ). In table the results of the analysis via the approach presented in this work are summarized. First, it is noteworthy that our results agree with those found by both van Herk and Scott . Case A serves merely as a consistency check, since the method used in agrees with the one presented here if the errors of the dependent variable vanish. In particular, they also take into account the full shape of the posterior distribution. The agreement of the results for the cases B and C, where EVM was used, is an excellent demonstration that our code works as it should. In figure the best fit curves together with the data are shown. Since there is no correlation between the different data points it is clear by eye that the curves are a good fit to the data.