评估根据《测量不确定性表达指南》确定的结果之间的差异。

IF 1.5 4区 工程技术
Raghu N Kacker, Rüdiger Kessel, Klaus-Dieter Sommer
{"title":"评估根据《测量不确定性表达指南》确定的结果之间的差异。","authors":"Raghu N Kacker, Rüdiger Kessel, Klaus-Dieter Sommer","doi":"10.6028/jres.115.031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In some metrology applications multiple results of measurement for a common measurand are obtained and it is necessary to determine whether the results agree with each other. A result of measurement based on the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) consists of a measured value together with its associated standard uncertainty. In the GUM, the measured value is regarded as the expected value and the standard uncertainty is regarded as the standard deviation, both known values, of a state-of-knowledge probability distribution. A state-of-knowledge distribution represented by a result need not be completely known. Then how can one assess the differences between the results based on the GUM? Metrologists have for many years used the Birge chisquare test as 'a rule of thumb' to assess the differences between two or more measured values for the same measurand by pretending that the standard uncertainties were the standard deviations of the presumed sampling probability distributions from random variation of the measured values. We point out that this is misuse of the standard uncertainties; the Birge test and the concept of statistical consistency motivated by it do not apply to the results of measurement based on the GUM. In 2008, the International Vocabulary of Metrology, third edition (VIM3) introduced the concept of metrological compatibility. We propose that the concept of metrological compatibility be used to assess the differences between results based on the GUM for the same measurand. A test of the metrological compatibility of two results of measurement does not conflict with a pairwise Birge test of the statistical consistency of the corresponding measured values.</p>","PeriodicalId":17039,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2010-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548867/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Differences Between Results Determined According to the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement.\",\"authors\":\"Raghu N Kacker, Rüdiger Kessel, Klaus-Dieter Sommer\",\"doi\":\"10.6028/jres.115.031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In some metrology applications multiple results of measurement for a common measurand are obtained and it is necessary to determine whether the results agree with each other. A result of measurement based on the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) consists of a measured value together with its associated standard uncertainty. In the GUM, the measured value is regarded as the expected value and the standard uncertainty is regarded as the standard deviation, both known values, of a state-of-knowledge probability distribution. A state-of-knowledge distribution represented by a result need not be completely known. Then how can one assess the differences between the results based on the GUM? Metrologists have for many years used the Birge chisquare test as 'a rule of thumb' to assess the differences between two or more measured values for the same measurand by pretending that the standard uncertainties were the standard deviations of the presumed sampling probability distributions from random variation of the measured values. We point out that this is misuse of the standard uncertainties; the Birge test and the concept of statistical consistency motivated by it do not apply to the results of measurement based on the GUM. In 2008, the International Vocabulary of Metrology, third edition (VIM3) introduced the concept of metrological compatibility. We propose that the concept of metrological compatibility be used to assess the differences between results based on the GUM for the same measurand. A test of the metrological compatibility of two results of measurement does not conflict with a pairwise Birge test of the statistical consistency of the corresponding measured values.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17039,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548867/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.115.031\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2010/11/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.115.031","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2010/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在某些计量应用中,对一个共同的测量对象会获得多个测量结果,因此有必要确定这些结果是否相互一致。基于《测量不确定度表达指南》(GUM)的测量结果包括测量值及其相关的标准不确定度。在 GUM 中,测量值被视为期望值,标准不确定度被视为状态知识概率分布的标准偏差,两者均为已知值。结果所代表的知识状态分布不一定是完全已知的。那么,如何评估基于 GUM 的结果之间的差异呢?多年来,计量学家们一直使用 Birge 秩方检验作为 "经验法则 "来评估相同测量值的两个或多个测量值之间的差异,方法是假定标准不确定度是假定抽样概率分布与测量值随机变化的标准偏差。我们指出,这是对标准不确定度的误用;Birge 检验及其激发的统计一致性概念并不适用于基于 GUM 的测量结果。2008 年,《国际计量词汇》第三版 (VIM3) 引入了计量兼容性的概念。我们建议使用计量兼容性概念来评估基于 GUM 的相同测量结果之间的差异。两个测量结果的计量兼容性检验与相应测量值统计一致性的成对 Birge 检验并不冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing Differences Between Results Determined According to the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement.

In some metrology applications multiple results of measurement for a common measurand are obtained and it is necessary to determine whether the results agree with each other. A result of measurement based on the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) consists of a measured value together with its associated standard uncertainty. In the GUM, the measured value is regarded as the expected value and the standard uncertainty is regarded as the standard deviation, both known values, of a state-of-knowledge probability distribution. A state-of-knowledge distribution represented by a result need not be completely known. Then how can one assess the differences between the results based on the GUM? Metrologists have for many years used the Birge chisquare test as 'a rule of thumb' to assess the differences between two or more measured values for the same measurand by pretending that the standard uncertainties were the standard deviations of the presumed sampling probability distributions from random variation of the measured values. We point out that this is misuse of the standard uncertainties; the Birge test and the concept of statistical consistency motivated by it do not apply to the results of measurement based on the GUM. In 2008, the International Vocabulary of Metrology, third edition (VIM3) introduced the concept of metrological compatibility. We propose that the concept of metrological compatibility be used to assess the differences between results based on the GUM for the same measurand. A test of the metrological compatibility of two results of measurement does not conflict with a pairwise Birge test of the statistical consistency of the corresponding measured values.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
33.30%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is the flagship publication of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. It has been published under various titles and forms since 1904, with its roots as Scientific Papers issued as the Bulletin of the Bureau of Standards. In 1928, the Scientific Papers were combined with Technologic Papers, which reported results of investigations of material and methods of testing. This new publication was titled the Bureau of Standards Journal of Research. The Journal of Research of NIST reports NIST research and development in metrology and related fields of physical science, engineering, applied mathematics, statistics, biotechnology, information technology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信