I Error Propagation in Measurements

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on error propagation in measurements, particularly when calculating the area of a rectangle defined by dimensions x and y with symmetric errors ε_x and ε_y. The participants explore the implications of including a higher-order term in the error expansion, questioning whether it introduces a negative bias due to the pairing of signs. They clarify that the standard approach to error is to use relative variations, which can be combined through various methods. Three main strategies for estimating errors are discussed: evaluating extreme values, summing small relative errors, and adding relative errors in quadrature for greater accuracy. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding these methods for accurate measurement analysis.
erobz
Gold Member
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,841
I was imagining trying to construct a rectangle of area ##A = xy##

If we give a symmetric error to each dimension ##\epsilon_x, \epsilon_y##

$$ A + \Delta A = ( x \pm \epsilon_x )( y \pm \epsilon_y )$$

Expanding the RHS and dividing through by ##A##

$$ \frac{\Delta A}{ A} = \pm \frac{\epsilon_x}{x} \pm \frac{\epsilon_y}{y} (\pm)(\pm) \frac{\epsilon_x \epsilon_y}{xy}$$

The first two terms are symmetrical error, but without neglecting the third higher order term should it have a negative bias since ## \frac{2}{3}## of sign ( ##\pm##) parings result in a negative third term, and ##\frac{1}{3}## pairings result in a positive third term?

My terminology is probably improper.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Never mind! I think I did that wrong... There are only 4 pairings. for some reason I had ##C(4,2)## in my head.
 
The standard term for the error is the relative variation (the square of the standard deviation divided by the measurement). If you have several possible error sources, add the relative variations.
 
Three options to consider:
1) Simply evaluate your function using measurements that result in the highest and lowest possible values, in this case calculate area given by the maximum probable measurements and the minimum probable measurements. The difference in these values will be roughly symmetric about the best estimate provided the uncertainties are relatively small. Since the high and low will be roughly symmetric from the best estimate you can get away with just finding either the highest or lowest for

2) What @Svein said. If the relative errors are small you can add them together to find the relative error of the product and then easily find the absolute error. It will match with method 1 when rounded sensibly using standard significant digit 'rules.'

3) Add the relative errors in quadrature (square them, add, then square root). This is likely a more accurate estimate of the uncertainty in the product provided that the uncertainties are not covariant. This method comes from the calculus of probabilities. See Taylor's An Introduction to Error Analysis for an excellent introductory text on this.
 
I have been insisting to my statistics students that for probabilities, the rule is the number of significant figures is the number of digits past the leading zeros or leading nines. For example to give 4 significant figures for a probability: 0.000001234 and 0.99999991234 are the correct number of decimal places. That way the complementary probability can also be given to the same significant figures ( 0.999998766 and 0.00000008766 respectively). More generally if you have a value that...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K