79 research outputs found
Measurement uncertainty and its connection with true value in the GUM versus JCGM documents
No full text
Guidelines for Radiometric Calibration of Electro-Optical Instruments for Remote Sensing
No full textRandom vs. Combinatorial Methods for Discrete Event Simulation of a Grid Computer Network
Get PDFThis study compared random and t-way combinatorial inputs of a network simulator, to determine if these two approaches produce significantly different deadlock detection for varying network configurations. Modeling deadlock detection is important for analyzing configuration changes that could inadvertently degrade network operations, or to determine modifications that could be made by attackers to deliberately induce deadlock. Discrete event simulation of a network may be conducted using random generation, of inputs. In this study, we compare random with combinatorial generation of inputs. Combinatorial (or t-way) testing requires every combination of any t parameter values to be covered by at least one test. Combinatorial methods can be highly effective because empirical data suggest that nearly all failures involve the interaction of a small number of parameters (1 to 6). Thus, for example, if all deadlocks involve at most 5-way interactions between n parameters, then exhaustive testing of all n-way interactions adds no additional information that would not be obtained by testing all 5-way interactions. While the maximum degree of interaction between parameters involved in the deadlocks clearly cannot be known in advance, covering all t-way interactions may be more efficient than using random generation of inputs. In this study we tested this hypothesis for t = 2, 3, and 4 for deadlock detection in a network simulation. Achieving the same degree of coverage provided by 4-way tests would have required approximately 3.2 times as many random tests; thus combinatorial methods were more efficient for detecting deadlocks involving a higher degree of interactions. The paper reviews explanations for these results and implications for modeling and simulation
Assessing differences between results determined according to the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement
No full textIn some metrology applications multiple results of measurement for a common measurand are obtained and it is necessary to determine whether the results agree with each other. A result of measurement based on the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) consists of a measured value together with its associated standard uncertainty. In the GUM, the measured value is regarded as the expected value and the standard uncertainty is regarded as the standard deviation, both known values, of a state-of-knowledge probability distribution. A state-of-knowledge distribution represented by a result need not be completely known. Then how can one assess the differences between the results based on the GUM? Metrologists have for many years used the Birge chisquare test as 'a rule of thumb to assess the differences between two or more measured values for the same measurand by pretending that the standard uncertainties were the standard deviations of the presumed sampling probability distributions from random variation of the measured values. We point out that this is misuse of the standard uncertainties; the Birge test and the concept of statistical consistency motivated by it do not apply to the results of measurement based on the GUM. In 2008, the International Vocabulary of Metrology, third edition (VIM3) introduced the concept of metrological compatibility. We propose that the concept of metrological compatibility be used to assess the differences between results based on the GUM for the same measurand. A test of the metrological compatibility of two results of measurement does not conflict with a pairwise Birge test of the statistical consistency of the corresponding measured values
- …
