Measurement Techniques

, Volume 56, Issue 6, pp 584–590 | Cite as

Application of Bayesian model averaging using a fixed effects model with linear drift for the analysis of key comparison CCM.P-K12

  • O. Bodnar
  • A. Link
  • K. Klauenberg
  • K. Jousten
  • C. Elster
Article

In this paper, we extend a recently proposed procedure for the analysis of key comparison data to the case where the traveling standard shows a linear drift. The procedure is based on a fixed effects model and assumes that a certain number of the laboratories measure without bias. The analysis is carried out by applying Bayesian model averaging to all possible different models, each assuming zero biases for a different subset of laboratories. The method is applied to the key comparison CCM.P-K12.

Keywords

fixed effects model Bayesian averaging method of (weighted) least squares bias 

References

  1. 1.
    C. Elster and B. Toman, “Analysis of key comparisons: estimating laboratories’ biases by a fixed effects model using Bayesian model averaging,” Metrologia, 47, 113–119 (2010).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. D. Ehrlich, “A note on flow rate and leak rate units,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A, 4, 2384–2385 (1986).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. Jitschin, G. Grosse, and D. Wandrey, “Diffusion leak artifacts as a secondary standard for gas flow,” Vacuum, 38, 883–886 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. A. Hoeting, D. Madigan, A. E. Raftery, and C. T. Volinksy, “Bayesian model averaging: A tutorial,” Stat. Sci., 14, 382–417 (1999).CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mutual Recognition of National Measurement Standards and of Calibration and Measurement Certificates Issued by National Metrology Institutes (MRA), BIPM (1999).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evaluation of Measurement Data. Supplement 1 to the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Propagation of Distributions Using a Monte Carlo Method, Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, JCGM 101:2008 BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, and OIML.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. E. Kass and L. Wasserman “The selection of prior distributions by formal rules,” J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 91, 1343–1370 (1996).CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. A. Harville, Matrix Algebra from a Statistician’s Perspective, Springer-Verlag, New York (1997).CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. G. Chunovkina, C. Elster, I. Lira, and W. Wöger, “Analysis of key comparison data and laboratory biases,” Metrologia, 45, 211–216 (2008).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. M. Sutton, “Analysis and linking of international measurement comparisons,” Metrologia, 41, 272–277 (2004).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. R. White, “On the analysis of measurement comparisons,” ibid., 122–131.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Bodnar
    • 1
  • A. Link
    • 1
  • K. Klauenberg
    • 1
  • K. Jousten
    • 1
  • C. Elster
    • 1
  1. 1.Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations