Synek Václav
Faculty of the Environment, Jan Evangelista Purkyne University, Králova výsina 7, CZ-40096 Ustí nad Labem, Czech Republic.
Talanta. 2005 Feb 28;65(4):829-37. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2004.07.038.
In ISO Guide it is strictly recommended to correct results for the recognised significant bias, but in special cases some analysts find out practical to omit the correction and to enlarge the expanded uncertainty for the uncorrected bias instead. In this paper, four alternatively used methods computing these modified expanded uncertainties are compared according to the levels of confidence, widths and layouts of the obtained uncertainty intervals. The method, which seems to be the best, because it provides the same uncertainty intervals as in the case of the bias correction, has not been applied very much, maybe since these modified uncertainty intervals are not symmetric about the results. The three remaining investigated methods maintain their intervals symmetric, but only two of them provide intervals of the kind, that their levels of confidence reach at least the required value (95%) or a larger one. The third method defines intervals with low levels of confidence (even for small biases). It is proposed a new method, which gives symmetric intervals just with the required level of confidence. These intervals are narrower than those symmetric intervals with the sufficient level of confidence obtained by the two mentioned methods. A mathematical background of the problem and an illustrative example of calculations applying all compared methods are attached.
在ISO指南中,强烈建议对已识别的显著偏差校正结果,但在特殊情况下,一些分析人员发现省略校正并扩大未校正偏差的扩展不确定度更为实际。本文根据所获得不确定度区间的置信水平、宽度和布局,比较了四种交替使用的计算这些修正扩展不确定度的方法。似乎最好的方法,即提供与偏差校正情况下相同的不确定度区间,但该方法应用并不多,可能是因为这些修正的不确定度区间关于结果不对称。其余三种研究方法保持其区间对称,但其中只有两种方法提供的区间,其置信水平至少达到所需值(95%)或更高。第三种方法定义的区间置信水平较低(即使对于小偏差也是如此)。本文提出了一种新方法,该方法给出的对称区间恰好具有所需的置信水平。这些区间比上述两种方法获得的具有足够置信水平的对称区间更窄。本文还附上了该问题的数学背景以及应用所有比较方法的计算示例。