2020Unpublished venueOpen access

Uncertainty about the Uncertainty [Slides]

Hanna Makaruk, USDOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

A golden standard in science is to repeat an experiment a statistically significant number of times, recording data using the same set of detectors and the same data analysis methodology. In such case experimental error includes both the range of true values generated by repetitions of the experiment, and measurement uncertainty caused by the detector. They are independent. It is a huge and too frequently used simplification, to assume that one can measure multiple repetitions of an identical experiment, resulting in identical true experimental value. Repetitions, as similar is it is experimentally achievable result in a range of the true values rather than in a single value. When modern, very sensitive and well calibrated measurement systems are used, this range is not negligible, and sometimes dominates, in comparison to the measurement uncertainty. Range of true values depends on the physics of the experiment, while measurement uncertainty depends on the measurement method (properties of the detector not of the experiment). When data from one–of–a kind experiment are analyzed, only the measurement uncertainty is reported. It gives no information about the range, in which the true values of experiment would spread if the experiment was repeated. A frequently used approximation, that if a physical quantity is measured as a function of time, only measurement of this quantity, produces uncertainty is also in some real experiments fare to strong. Example: In reaction history time measurement uncertainty propagated to alpha dominated under certain conditions over the flux measurement uncertainty propagated to alpha. Reliability of a data point is in general independent from its measurement uncertainty. However, in practice reliable measurement methods frequently have high measurement uncertainty, while low reliability methods are applied to limit measurement uncertainty. Comparison of reliable data with high measurement uncertainty to not so reliable data measured with low uncertainty is discussed – in different scenarios different data analysis methods are applicable.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

A golden standard in science is to repeat an experiment a statistically significant number of times, recording data using the same set of detectors and the same data analysis methodology. In such case experimental error includes both the range of true values generated by repetitions of the experiment, and measurement uncertainty caused by the detector. They are independent. It is a huge and too frequently used simplification, to assume that one can measure multiple repetitions of an identical experiment, resulting in identical true experimental value. Repetitions, as similar is it is experimentally achievable result in a range of the true values rather than in a single value. When modern, very sensitive and well calibrated measurement systems are used, this range is not negligible, and sometimes dominates, in comparison to the measurement uncertainty. Range of true values depends on the physics of the experiment, while measurement uncertainty depends on the measurement method (properties of the detector not of the experiment). When data from one–of–a kind experiment are analyzed, only the measurement uncertainty is reported. It gives no information about the range, in which the true values of experiment would spread if the experiment was repeated. A frequently used approximation, that if a physical quantity is measured as a function of time, only measurement of this quantity, produces uncertainty is also in some real experiments fare to strong. Example: In reaction history time measurement uncertainty propagated to alpha dominated under certain conditions over the flux measurement uncertainty propagated to alpha. Reliability of a data point is in general independent from its measurement uncertainty. However, in practice reliable measurement methods frequently have high measurement uncertainty, while low reliability methods are applied to limit measurement uncertainty. Comparison of reliable data with high measurement uncertainty to not so reliable data measured with low uncertainty is discussed – in different scenarios different data analysis methods are applicable.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

A golden standard in science is to repeat an experiment a statistically significant number of times, recording data using the same set of detectors and the same data analysis methodology. In such case experimental error includes both the range of true values generated by repetitions of the experiment, and measurement uncertainty caused by the detector. They are independent. It is a huge and too frequently used simplification, to assume that one can measure multiple repetitions of an identical experiment, resulting in identical true experimental value. Repetitions, as similar is it is experimentally achievable result in a range of the true values rather than in a single value. When modern, very sensitive and well calibrated measurement systems are used, this range is not negligible, and sometimes dominates, in comparison to the measurement uncertainty. Range of true values depends on the physics of the experiment, while measurement uncertainty depends on the measurement method (properties of the detector not of the experiment). When data from one–of–a kind experiment are analyzed, only the measurement uncertainty is reported. It gives no information about the range, in which the true values of experiment would spread if the experiment was repeated. A frequently used approximation, that if a physical quantity is measured as a function of time, only measurement of this quantity, produces uncertainty is also in some real experiments fare to strong. Example: In reaction history time measurement uncertainty propagated to alpha dominated under certain conditions over the flux measurement uncertainty propagated to alpha. Reliability of a data point is in general independent from its measurement uncertainty. However, in practice reliable measurement methods frequently have high measurement uncertainty, while low reliability methods are applied to limit measurement uncertainty. Comparison of reliable data with high measurement uncertainty to not so reliable data measured with low uncertainty is discussed – in different scenarios different data analysis methods are applicable.

Key concepts: Measurement uncertainty, Range (aeronautics), Reliability (semiconductor), Measure (data warehouse), Detector, Observational error, Statistics, Experimental data

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Uncertainty about the Uncertainty [Slides] — Research Paper | ScholarLens