Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Relative uncertainties #653

Open
josephwright opened this issue Apr 3, 2023 · 6 comments
Open

Relative uncertainties #653

josephwright opened this issue Apr 3, 2023 · 6 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@josephwright
Copy link
Owner

Split out from #652. Some applications benefit from relative uncertainty, where the first value is factored out to create the form
val \times (1 \pm rel_uncertainty), or with exponentials
val.xxxx \times (1 \pm rel_uncertainty) \times 10^{exponent}.
If uncertainty-mode had another option relative that formatted in this manner, that would be nice!

@josephwright josephwright added the enhancement New feature or request label Apr 3, 2023
@Gerald-Meyers
Copy link

Perhaps it is worth noting that in literature relative uncertainties are expressed as value \times base^{exponent} \pm x\% where x=uncertainty/value. Having the option for both, including value \times (1+x) may be beneficial, perhaps only the simpler option.

@josephwright
Copy link
Owner Author

Can you point to some examples in the published literature? I've never come across this format, so I'd like to see it 'in the wild'.

@Gerald-Meyers
Copy link

I'll be honest, outside of a few specific examples that I saw recently, I have only ever seen the standard version. It's fairly niche and not common. I'll look for an example an try to cite it here soon.

@josephwright
Copy link
Owner Author

Cool - it's broadly 'policy' to ask for examples as I need to avoid 'well I like it' features

@Gerald-Meyers
Copy link

Here is one standard reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3387884/pdf/cbr_33_2_49.pdf
I had found another a few days ago that I had run across as well. I'll link it when I can get the PDF off of my desktop.

  1. Depending on the exact form of the functional relationship y = f (x1, x2, x3, ... , x n), it may be more appropriate to use the relative uncertainties (that is, u(y)/y and Rules for Calculating Uncertainty of Measurement u(xi)/xi) instead of the absolute uncertainty values (u(y) and u(xi)). As a general rule, use relative uncertainties for functions which include terms with multiplication and/or division but not addition or subtraction. Examples of expressions that involve relative uncertainties are given in Table 2. Relative uncertainty is also referred to as coefficient of variation (CV)

I do not claim that there is a standard format for presenting relative uncertainty, so implementation and presentations certainly will vary. I have only come across this in the wild a few times. I mostly have seen relative uncertainty in artificial situations, and a few population statistics. Pick a topic, add the quoted phrase "relative uncertainty" and you can find a few articles that use it in the abstract for different purposes.

@Gerald-Meyers
Copy link

Gerald-Meyers commented Apr 4, 2023

Here is the reference that I mentioned: https://www.eurachem.org/index.php/publications/guides/quam
Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement, 3rd Edition (2012) from EuraChem.

pg 27:

Rule 2
For models involving only a product or quotient, e.g. y=(p × q × r ×...) or y= p / (q × r ×...), the combined standard uncertainty uc(y) is given by [...latex...] where (u(p)/p) etc. are the uncertainties in the parameters, expressed as relative standard deviations.
NOTE: Subtraction is treated in the same manner as addition, and division in the same way as multiplication.

pg 35 has a table of examples of relative uncertainties

Relative Standard Uncertainty makes a large appearance throughout the document, but the $val \pm rel$% is not present so far as I can tell. I've seen it else where.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants