Propagation Of Standard Error Of The Mean
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. propagation of error division Uncertainty components are estimated from direct repetitions of the measurement error propagation calculator result. To contrast this with a propagation of error approach, consider the simple example where error propagation physics we estimate the area of a rectangle from replicate measurements of length and width. The area $$ area = length \cdot width $$ can be computed error propagation chemistry from each replicate. The standard deviation 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 sources of error that would emerge if measurements covered
Error Propagation Definition
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 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} \ri
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 combination of
Error Propagation Average
variables in the function. The uncertainty u can be expressed in a number of ways. It error propagation excel may be defined by the absolute error Δx. Uncertainties can also be defined by the relative error (Δx)/x, which is usually written as a error propagation calculus 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 as an interval x ± http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/mpc/section5/mpc55.htm 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 in the region x ± σ. If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty 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 \,} and let the variance-covariance matrix on x be denoted by Σ x {\displaystyle \mathrm {\Sigma
Tour Start here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have Meta Discuss the workings and policies of http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/70164/error-propagation-sd-vs-se this site About Us Learn more about Stack Overflow the company Business Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads with us Cross Validated Questions Tags Users Badges Unanswered Ask Question _ Cross Validated is a question and answer site for people interested in statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, and data visualization. Join them; it only takes a minute: Sign up Here's error propagation how it works: Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and rise to the top Error propagation SD vs SE up vote 7 down vote favorite I have 3 to 5 measures of a trait per individual in two different conditions (A and B). I'm plotting the average for each individual in each condition and I use propagation of standard the standard error (i.e., $SD/\sqrt{N}$, with $N$ = number of measurements) as error bars. Now I want to plot the difference between the average measure per individual in condition A and condition B. I know I can determine the propagated error doing: $$SD=\sqrt{SD_A^2+SD_B^2}$$ but how can I propagate standard errors (since I'm dealing with averages of measurements) instead of standard deviations? Does this make sense at all? standard-deviation standard-error error error-propagation share|improve this question edited Sep 16 '13 at 18:39 whuber♦ 146k18285546 asked Sep 16 '13 at 18:08 Ines 361 add a comment| 2 Answers 2 active oldest votes up vote 4 down vote You should simply treat your SE as SD, and use exactly the same error propagation formulas. Indeed, standard error of the mean is nothing else than standard deviation of your estimate of the mean, so the math does not change. In your particular case when you estimate SE of $C=A-B$ and you know $\sigma^2_A$, $\sigma^2_B$, $N_A$, and $N_B$, then $$\mathrm{SE}_C=\sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2_A}{N_A}+\frac{\sigma^2_B}{N_B}}.$$ Please note that another option that could potentially sound reasonable is incorrect: $$\mathrm{SE}_C \ne \sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2_A\sigma^2_B}{N_A+N_B}}.$$ To see why, imagine that $\sigma^2_A=\sigma^2_B=1$, but in one case you h
be down. Please try the request again. Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Mon, 24 Oct 2016 19:46:15 GMT by s_wx1087 (squid/3.5.20)