Error Propagation Using Standard Deviation
Contents |
The approach to uncertainty analysis that has been followed up to this point in the discussion has been what is called a top-down approach. Uncertainty components are estimated from direct repetitions of the measurement result. To contrast this with a propagation of error approach, consider error propagation vs standard deviation the simple example where we estimate the area of a rectangle from replicate measurements error analysis standard deviation of length and width. The area $$ area = length \cdot width $$ can be computed from each replicate. The standard deviation
Error Propagation Mean
of the reported area is estimated directly from the replicates of area. Advantages of top-down approach This approach has the following advantages: proper treatment of covariances between measurements of length and width proper treatment of unsuspected
Error Propagation Covariance
sources of error that would emerge if measurements covered a range of operating conditions and a sufficiently long time period independence from propagation of error model Propagation of error approach combines estimates from individual auxiliary measurements The formal propagation of error approach is to compute: standard deviation from the length measurements standard deviation from the width measurements and combine the two into a standard deviation for area using the approximation for products how to find propagation of error of two variables (ignoring a possible covariance between length and width), $$ s_{area} = \sqrt{width^2 \cdot s_{length}^2 + length^2 \cdot s_{width}^2} $$ Exact formula Goodman (1960) derived an exact formula for the variance between two products. Given two random variables, \(x\) and \(y\) (correspond to width and length in the above approximate formula), the exact formula for the variance is: $$ V(\bar{x} \bar{y}) = \frac{1}{n} \left[ X^2 V(y) + Y^2 V(x) + 2XYE_{11} + 2X\frac{E_{12}}{n} + 2Y\frac{E_{21}}{n} + \frac{V(x) V(y)}{n} + \frac{Cov((\Delta x)^2, (\Delta y)^2) -E_{11}^2 }{n^2} \right] $$ with \(X = E(x)\) and \(Y = E(y)\) (corresponds to width and length, respectively, in the approximate formula) \(V(x)\) is the variance of \(x\) and \(V(y)\) is the variance \(y\) (corresponds to \(s^2\) for width and length, respectively, in the approximate formula) \( E_{ij} = {(\Delta x)^i, (\Delta y)^j}\) where \( \Delta x = x - X \) and \( \Delta y = y - Y \) \( Cov((\Delta x)^2, (\Delta y)^2) = E_{22} - V(x) V(y) \) To obtain the standard deviation, simply take the square root of the above formula. Also, an estimate of the statistic is obtained by substituting sample estimates for the corresponding population values on the right hand side of the equation. Approximate formula assumes indpendence The approx
propagation of error) is the effect of variables' uncertainties (or errors, more specifically random errors) on the uncertainty of a function based on them. When the variables are the values of experimental measurements they have uncertainties due to measurement limitations (e.g., instrument precision) which propagate to the
Error Propagation Calculator
combination of variables in the function. The uncertainty u can be expressed in a number error propagation physics of ways. It may be defined by the absolute error Δx. Uncertainties can also be defined by the relative error (Δx)/x, which is error propagation chemistry usually written as a percentage. Most commonly, the uncertainty on a quantity is quantified in terms of the standard deviation, σ, the positive square root of variance, σ2. The value of a quantity and its error are then expressed http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/mpc/section5/mpc55.htm as an interval x ± u. If the statistical probability distribution of the variable is known or can be assumed, it is possible to derive confidence limits to describe the region within which the true value of the variable may be found. For example, the 68% confidence limits for a one-dimensional variable belonging to a normal distribution are ± one standard deviation from the value, that is, there is approximately a 68% probability that the true value lies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty in the region x ± σ. If the uncertainties are correlated then covariance must be taken into account. Correlation can arise from two different sources. First, the measurement errors may be correlated. Second, when the underlying values are correlated across a population, the uncertainties in the group averages will be correlated.[1] Contents 1 Linear combinations 2 Non-linear combinations 2.1 Simplification 2.2 Example 2.3 Caveats and warnings 2.3.1 Reciprocal 2.3.2 Shifted reciprocal 3 Example formulas 4 Example calculations 4.1 Inverse tangent function 4.2 Resistance measurement 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links Linear combinations[edit] Let { f k ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ) } {\displaystyle \ ρ 5(x_ ρ 4,x_ ρ 3,\dots ,x_ ρ 2)\}} be a set of m functions which are linear combinations of n {\displaystyle n} variables x 1 , x 2 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_ σ 7,x_ σ 6,\dots ,x_ σ 5} with combination coefficients A k 1 , A k 2 , … , A k n , ( k = 1 … m ) {\displaystyle A_ σ 1,A_ σ 0,\dots ,A_ ρ 9,(k=1\dots m)} . f k = ∑ i n A k i x i or f = A x {\displaystyle f_ ρ 5=\sum _ ρ 4^ ρ 3A_ ρ 2x_ ρ 1{\text{ or }}\mathrm ρ 0 =\mathrm σ 9 \,}
Community Forums > Mathematics > Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics > Dismiss Notice Join Physics Forums Today! The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here! Error propagation with averages and standard deviation Page https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/error-propagation-with-averages-and-standard-deviation.608932/ 1 of 2 1 2 Next > May 25, 2012 #1 rano I was wondering if someone could please help me understand a simple problem of error propagation going from multiple measurements with errors to an average incorporating these errors. I have looked on several error propagation webpages (e.g. UC physics or UMaryland physics) but have yet to find exactly what I am looking for. I would like to illustrate my question with some example data. Suppose we error propagation want to know the mean ± standard deviation (mean ± SD) of the mass of 3 rocks. We weigh these rocks on a balance and get: Rock 1: 50 g Rock 2: 10 g Rock 3: 5 g So we would say that the mean ± SD of these rocks is: 21.6 ± 24.6 g. But now let's say we weigh each rock 3 times each and now there is some error associated with the mass of each error propagation using rock. Let's say that the mean ± SD of each rock mass is now: Rock 1: 50 ± 2 g Rock 2: 10 ± 1 g Rock 3: 5 ± 1 g How would we describe the mean ± SD of the three rocks now that there is some uncertainty in their masses? Would it still be 21.6 ± 24.6 g? Some error propagation websites suggest that it would be the square root of the sum of the absolute errors squared, divided by N (N=3 here). But in this case the mean ± SD would only be 21.6 ± 2.45 g, which is clearly too low. I think this should be a simple problem to analyze, but I have yet to find a clear description of the appropriate equations to use. If my question is not clear please let me know. Any insight would be very appreciated. rano, May 25, 2012 Phys.org - latest science and technology news stories on Phys.org •Game over? Computer beats human champ in ancient Chinese game •Simplifying solar cells with a new mix of materials •Imaged 'jets' reveal cerium's post-shock inner strength May 25, 2012 #2 viraltux rano said: ↑ I was wondering if someone could please help me understand a simple problem of error propagation going from multiple measurements with errors to an average incorporating these errors. I have looked on several error propagation w