Positive-thickness bounds in density sampling

Positive-thickness bounds in density sampling constrain the removed layer's thickness away from zero before converting its mass and area into density. Positivity alone, $\delta >0$, is weaker than a measured lower bound $\delta \ge d_{\min }>0$. The distinction matters because the density model contains the reciprocal $1/\delta$.

Suppose positive input intervals describe mass $M\in [M_{-},M_{+}]$, area $A\in [A_{-},A_{+}]$ and thickness $\delta \in [d_{-},d_{+}]$. Monotonicity gives the enclosing boundsThis is an original deterministic propagation, not a confidence interval unless the joint coverage of the input intervals is separately established. Correlations may make some corner combinations unattainable, in which case this box bound can be conservative. The GUM explicitly distinguishes propagation of standard uncertainties from propagation of confidence intervals.^[ref]

For stipulated $M\in [0.99,1.01]$ mg, $A\in [0.98,1.02]\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and $\delta \in [8,12]$ micrometres, the resulting density lies between approximately $0.809$ and $1.288\mathrm{g}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$. The nominal inputs give $1\mathrm{g}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, but the exact enclosing interval is asymmetric.

A probabilistic subtlety is finite inverse moments in thickness models. If a positive-thickness probability density function obeys $p(\delta )\ge c>0$ throughout an interval $0<\delta <\epsilon$, thenThus merely conditioning a normal distribution on positive thickness does not necessarily make mean inferred density finite. A physical lower bound or a justified distribution with sufficiently vanishing near-zero density changes that conclusion; clipping simulated values at a convenient minimum changes the model.

An experiment should record the two surface positions, their common reference and which geometric constraint supplies the lower bound. Rejecting impossible geometry and concealing poorly resolved geometry are different operations. Repeated mass readings cannot by themselves establish a positive thickness bound.

Finite inverse moments in thickness models determine whether a positive but uncertain layer thickness permits a finite mean or variance after conversion to density. With fixed positive mass and area, write $\rho =K/\delta$, where $K=M/A$. A finite thickness mean does not ensure that $E({\delta }^{-1})$ or $E({\delta }^{-2})$ exists.

Suppose the thickness probability density function behaves near zero as $p(\delta )\sim C{\delta }^{a-1}$ with $C>0$. The small-thickness part of the inverse moment is proportional toFor $q>0$, this converges exactly when $a>q$. Thus a finite mean density requires $a>1$, while finite density variance requires $a>2$, assuming the rest of the distribution is well behaved.

An exact example uses a gamma distribution with shape $a$ and scale $\theta$. Substitution into its density and the gamma function integral givesThe distribution and parameter conventions are specified by NIST; the inverse-moment calculation here follows directly from the integral.^[ref] For $a=2$ and $\theta =d/2$, mean thickness is $d$ and mean density is $2K/d$, yet its second moment diverges. A simulation can return finite sample variances without establishing a finite population variance.

A lognormal distribution provides a different positive-tail model. If $\log \delta \sim N(\mu ,s^2)$, then $E({\delta }^{-q})=\exp (-q\mu +q^2{s}^2/2)$, finite for every finite positive $q$. NIST defines this logarithmic-normal parameterization and its coefficient of variation.^[ref] With mean thickness $d$ and coefficient of variation $c$, mean density is $K(1+c^2)/d$. At $c=0.20$, it exceeds $K/d$ by 4%.

Tail-model dependence of inferred density uncertainty is therefore experimentally consequential. Choosing a convenient positive distribution changes the implied inverse moments. Justify near-zero behaviour from dimensional evidence or physical bounds rather than treating positivity or a stable finite simulation as sufficient validation.

Tail-model dependence of inferred density uncertainty is the sensitivity of a density estimate's distribution to the assumed probability of very small positive thicknesses. For $\rho =K/\delta$ with fixed $K=M/A>0$, a tiny thickness has disproportionate influence through $1/\delta$. The main body of a thickness histogram can look stable while the inferred mean or variance remains model-dependent.

A gamma distribution and a lognormal distribution provide useful explicit models. NIST specifies their density functions and parameter conventions.^[ref] At mean thickness $d$ and coefficient of variation $c$, the gamma model has shape $a=1/c^2$ and givesThe lognormal model gives $(1+c^2)/d$. The two agree closely for small $c$, but that agreement concerns those model families, not every positive distribution with a similar spread.

An original rare-event example makes the limitation explicit. Let thickness be $0.001$ micrometres with probability $0.0001$ and $10.001$ micrometres otherwise. Mean thickness is exactly 10 micrometres and its standard deviation is approximately 0.10 micrometres, about 1% of the mean. Nevertheless,nearly twice the reciprocal of mean thickness. The rare component supplies about half the inverse moment. These are deliberately constructed model values, not measured polymer-layer dimensions.

Rare-thickness leverage on inverse moments can escape an apparently reassuring sample. With 1,000 independent thickness observations, the chance of seeing none of that rare component is $(0.9999{)}^{1000}\approx 0.905$. A finite simulation or a smooth fit to common observations need not validate the unobserved lower tail.

A useful experiment investigates whether dimensional resolution, specimen geometry or physical constraints rule out such near-zero layers. Report sensitivity to defensible alternative lower-tail models or measured lower bounds. Choosing a positive distribution guarantees positive thickness, but does not establish that its inverse moments describe the measurement process.

Rare-thickness leverage on inverse moments is the disproportionate contribution of uncommon, very thin layers to inferred density when $\rho =K/\delta$. Its sampling consequence is especially revealing: a sample can miss the influential component and report very little apparent variability.

Consider an original two-point thickness model. Let the rare thickness be $\epsilon$ with probability $p$, and the common thickness be $d_c$ otherwise. Define $a=1/\epsilon$ and $b=1/d_c$. Among $n$ independent measurements the rare count $N$ has a binomial distribution, and the estimated mean reciprocal thickness isConsequently,Multiplication by $K$ converts these into the mean and variance of the sample mean inferred density. The formulas are exact for this constructed model.

Take $p=0.0001$, $\epsilon =0.001$ micrometres and $d_c=10.001$ micrometres. The true mean reciprocal thickness is approximately $0.19998\mu {\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. With $n=1000$, zero rare observations has probability about 0.905 and gives $\hat{m}\approx 0.09999$. Exactly one rare observation instead gives $\hat{m}\approx 1.09989$. The sampling distribution is highly asymmetric despite the large-looking sample count. When every sampled value is the same common thickness, the ordinary sample variance is even zero; it has not revealed the missing component.

Rare-event discovery versus inverse-moment precision distinguishes two experimental objectives. To have at least 95% probability of seeing one rare event requiresor 29,956 observations for this $p$. Estimating the rare fraction to relative standard uncertainty about 10% instead needs roughly one million independent observations, since $u(\hat{p})/p=\sqrt{(1-p)/(np)}$. Seeing one event is not precise quantification of its contribution.

A distributional assumption therefore needs physical support near zero thickness, not just a fit to the sample centre. NIST's gamma distribution and lognormal distribution entries specify distinct lower-tail models; choosing either is a modeling decision.^[ref] Dimensional resolution and independent geometric bounds can be more informative than extending a simulation that never challenges its assumed tail.

Rare-event discovery versus inverse-moment precision separates seeing an influential thin region from estimating its contribution to inferred density. In a two-point thickness model, let a rare thickness occur with probability $p$, with reciprocal thickness $a$, while common regions have reciprocal thickness $b$. For $n$ independent observations, the rare count has a binomial distribution. The chance of at least one rare observation isTo make this at least $1-\alpha$, choose $n\ge \log (\alpha )/\log (1-p)$. For stipulated $p=10^{-4}$ and $\alpha =0.05$, the smallest integer is 29,956. This planning statement assumes the specified rare-event probability; it does not estimate that probability from a sample that missed the event.^[ref]

The sampling distribution of the estimated inverse moment answers another question. With $N$ the observed rare count,Thus a target relative standard uncertainty $\eta$ for the inverse moment requiresThis is a contribution-weighted precision target for inverse moments: the required count depends on both rarity and the leverage of the rare value.

Use the original model $a=1000\mu {\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, $b=1/10.001\mu {\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and $p=10^{-4}$. Here $\mu \approx 0.19998\mu {\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and $(a-b)p/\mu =1/2$. ConsequentlyAt the 95%-discovery count, this relative standard uncertainty is still about 28.9%. Reaching 10% for the inverse moment needs 249,975 observations in this model, while reaching 10% for the rare fraction itself needs 999,900. The factor of four arises because the rare excess accounts for half the total inverse moment, so its relative fluctuation is diluted in the total.

These are exact variance calculations under a stipulated distribution, not confidence-coverage guarantees or measured material properties. Spatially clustered thin regions reduce the effective independent sample count. A credible physical lower-thickness bound or better resolved imaging can change the model more substantially than merely extending a simulation with an unsupported tail.

A contribution-weighted precision target for inverse moments chooses sample size according to how strongly rare observations affect the desired inverse moment, rather than according to the probability of seeing any rare observation. For positive thickness $H$, an inverse moment such as $\mu =\mathbb{E}(1/H)$ can be sensitive to very small thicknesses.

In an original two-point model, let reciprocal thickness be $a$ with rare probability $p$, and $b$ otherwise, with $a>b>0$. Then $\mu =b+(a-b)p$. For $n$ independent observations and rare count $N$, the estimate is $\hat{\mu }=b+(a-b)N/n$. Since $N$ has a binomial distribution,Define the fraction of the mean supplied by the rare excess over the baseline as $\theta =(a-b)p/\mu$. Its relative standard uncertainty isfor target relative uncertainty $\eta$. Here $0<\theta <1$. Rarity alone does not specify the required precision because the rare value's magnitude also enters.

For stipulated $p=10^{-4}$ and $\eta =0.10$, a rare-excess contribution $\theta =0.05$ requires at least 2,500 observations, whereas $\theta =0.50$ requires 249,975. A tenfold increase in contribution raises this variance-based count a hundredfold. The first case still has approximately $(1-10^{-4}{)}^{2500}=0.779$ probability of no rare observation. That is compatible with its standard-uncertainty target because missing the rare excess produces only a 5% relative error in that particular model.

This is not a 95% probability guarantee of a specified relative error. Discovery probability $1-(1-p{)}^n$, estimator variance and interval coverage are different criteria. Exact binomial distribution tail calculations address count probabilities; they do not turn a standard deviation into a coverage statement automatically.^[ref]

The calculation also treats $a$, $b$ and $p$ as specified planning quantities. Uncertainty in rare-event probability, imaging resolution or the reciprocal values requires further modeling; spatial dependence reduces the usefulness of an independent-sample count. In particular, increasing $n$ cannot establish an assumed physical lower-thickness bound that the measurement system never resolves.