Stoudt Sara, Pintar Adam, Possolo Antonio
Smith College, Northampton, MA 01063, USA.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA.
J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol. 2021 Mar 3;126:126004. doi: 10.6028/jres.126.004. eCollection 2021.
Since coverage intervals are widely used expressions of measurement uncertainty, this contribution reviews coverage intervals as defined in the (GUM), and compares them against the principal types of probabilistic intervals that are commonly used in applied statistics and in measurement science. Although formally identical to conventional confidence intervals for means, the GUM interprets coverage intervals more as if they were Bayesian credible intervals, or tolerance intervals. We focus, in particular, on a common misunderstanding about the intervals derived from the results of the Monte Carlo method of the GUM Supplement 1 (GUM-S1), and offer a novel interpretation for these intervals that we believe will foster realistic expectations about what they can deliver, and how and when they can be useful in practice.
由于覆盖区间是测量不确定度的广泛使用的表达方式,本文献回顾了《测量不确定度表示指南》(GUM)中定义的覆盖区间,并将它们与应用统计学和测量科学中常用的主要概率区间类型进行比较。尽管GUM中的覆盖区间在形式上与均值的传统置信区间相同,但GUM对覆盖区间的解释更像是贝叶斯可信区间或容忍区间。我们特别关注关于从GUM补篇1(GUM-S1)的蒙特卡洛方法结果得出的区间的一个常见误解,并为这些区间提供一种新颖的解释,我们认为这将培养对它们所能提供的内容以及它们在实践中如何以及何时有用的现实期望。