On the long-run success rate of coverage intervals

Lira, Ignacio

doi:10.1088/0026-1394/45/4/n02

Cited by 20 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There exists a long debate on the interpretation of the results of GUM-S1 in similar cases [14][15][16][17]. This paper does not try to find a definite answer to this discussion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Uncertainty of the variation in length of gauge blocks by mechanical comparison: a worked example

Matus¹

2012

Meas. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a study on the determination of the measurement uncertainty for a relatively simple and widespread calibration task. The measurement of a special form deviation of gauge blocks using the so-called five-point technique is discussed in detail. It is shown that the mainstream treatment of the measurement uncertainty (i.e. propagation of uncertainties) cannot be applied to this problem for principal reasons; the use of supplement 1 of the GUM (Monte Carlo method) is mandatory. The proposed model equation is probably the simplest ‘real world’ example where the use of supplement 1 of the GUM not only gives better results, but gives results at all. The model is simple enough to serve as a didactical example. Explicit analytical expressions for the probability density functions, expectation values, uncertainties and coverage intervals are given which is helpful for the validation of dedicated software products. Eventually a complete avoidance of the standardized form parameters in calibration certificates is proposed. The statement of ‘corner-deviations’ would be much more useful, especially for the evaluation of key comparisons.

show abstract

“…There exists a long debate on the interpretation of the results of GUM-S1 in similar cases [14][15][16][17]. This paper does not try to find a definite answer to this discussion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Uncertainty of the variation in length of gauge blocks by mechanical comparison: a worked example

Matus¹

2012

Meas. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is in line with the observation of the preceding section that different arguments of the delta function expressing the same measurement model correspond to distinct change-of-variable operations. When proper care is exercised to establish the argument of the delta function in the manner required to bring about the change of variables intended, the delta function approach can be employed as a symbolic notation without introducing ambiguity; for example, Lira (2008), Lira & Grientschnig (2010a) and Lira & Wöger (2001) are cases in point. However, its application is only admissible if state-of-knowledge distributions are not provided for all quantities included in the argument of a delta function but only for a subset of functionally independent quantities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mentioned set of quantities and the model relating them are the same as recently considered by Lira (2008), namely X 3 D .X 2 1 C X 2 2 / 1=2 , where X 1 and X 2 are regarded as input quantities and X 3 as the output quantity. Provided that the parameter space is restricted to a single quadrant, the situation could be dealt with by considering any of the parameterizations ¹X 1 ; X 2 º, ¹X 1 ; X 3 º or ¹X 2 ; X 3 º.…”

Section: Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

Combining Probability Distributions by Multiplication in Metrology: A Viable Method?

Grientschnig

Lira

2014

Int Statistical Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In measurement science quite often the value of a so-called 'output quantity' is inferred from information about 'input quantities' with the help of the 'mathematical model of measurement'. The latter represents the functional relation through which outputs and inputs depend on one another. However, subsets of functionally independent quantities can always be so defined that they suffice to express the entire information available. Reporting information in terms of such a subset may in certain circumstances require aggregating probability distributions whose arguments are interrelated quantities. The option of aggregating by multiplication of distributions is shown to be susceptible of yielding inconsistent results when the roles of inputs and outputs are assigned differently to the quantities. Two alternatives to this practice that do not give rise to such discrepancies are discussed, namely (i) logarithmic pooling with weights summing to one and (ii) linear pooling, of which the former appears to be slightly more favourable for applications in metrology. An example illustrates the inconsistency of results obtained by distinct ways of multiplying distributions and the manner in which these results differ from a logarithmically pooled distribution.

show abstract

“…7 This interpretation has known many debates in statistics and metrology. For an example of a recent disagreement about the meaning of "coverage intervals", see [17,25,33,26,40,41]. 8 As explained in the previous section, the frequentist appraisal of uncertainties also faces a critical challenge from a technical standpoint, namely the probabilistic treatment of systematic errors.…”

Section: Amended Vim1 Proposal Measurement Uncertainty: An Estimate Characterizing the Range Of Values Within Which The True Value Of A Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the meaning of measurement uncertainty

Grégis

2019

Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the long-run success rate of coverage intervals

Cited by 20 publications

References 5 publications

Uncertainty of the variation in length of gauge blocks by mechanical comparison: a worked example

Uncertainty of the variation in length of gauge blocks by mechanical comparison: a worked example

Combining Probability Distributions by Multiplication in Metrology: A Viable Method?

On the meaning of measurement uncertainty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About