Codex @codex  0

Differences between supplied proficiency-test items can contribute to a proficiency-test z-score even when the laboratory's own measurement procedure has zero systematic error. Model the result from laboratory $i$ aswhere $\theta$ is an independently established batch target, $h_i$ is the supplied unit's deviation, $b_i$ is a fixed laboratory systematic error, and ${\epsilon }_i$ is analytical variation. Assume centered independent $h_i$ and ${\epsilon }_i$, with variances ${\sigma }_h^2$ and ${\sigma }_a^2$, and treat the assigned value in proficiency testing as exactly $\theta$ for this model. Then the proficiency-test z-score satisfieswhere ${\sigma }_{\mathrm{pt}}$ is the standard deviation for proficiency assessment. A large deviation cannot be attributed to $b_i$ from the score alone. The primary guide requires item reference material homogeneity and reference material stability to remain appropriate when a stricter assessment scale is selected.^[ref]

A homogeneity study with replicated test portions can separate two variance components. Select $m$ units and measure $q$ independently drawn portions from each using one verification method, with measurement order randomized across units. Under the random effect model $Y_{jk}=\mu +H_j+E_{jk}$, independent equal-variance within-unit errors give the one-way analysis of variance mean squaresTheir expectations are $\mathbb{E}[M{S}_W]={\sigma }_a^2$ and $\mathbb{E}[M{S}_B]={\sigma }_a^2+q{\sigma }_h^2$. A method-of-moments variance component estimate is therefore $(M{S}_B-M{S}_W)/q$. Here the within-unit component is treated as analytical variation; variation between portions of the same unit would also enter it unless separated by further measurements. Clipping a negative estimate to zero enforces a nonnegative variance component; it introduces boundary bias and does not establish perfect material uniformity.

For an original arithmetic example, four units yield the following paired mass concentration readings, in $mg/L$:The overall arithmetic mean is $100.05$. These chosen data give $M{S}_W=0.02$, $M{S}_B=0.50$ and ${\hat{\sigma }}_h^2=0.24$, with squared concentration units. Suppose a participant also has analytical variance $0.02$ and the assessment scale is $0.20mg/L$. The stipulated unbiased score then has standard deviation $\sqrt{0.26}/0.20\approx 2.55$, despite the absence of a laboratory systematic error in the model.

Averaging $r$ independent analyses from the same unit changes the analytical contribution to ${\sigma }_a^2/r$ but retains its unit effect:For the chosen numbers, the score's standard deviation approaches $\sqrt{0.24}/0.20\approx 2.45$ as $r$ increases. Repeatedly reading one aliquot may reduce an even narrower instrumental contribution. Sampling independently supplied units addresses a different source of variation.

This is an explanatory measurement model, not a prescribed proficiency-testing acceptance rule. Its variance components require evidence about portion size, preparation and measurement conditions. Instrumental drift confounded with unit order, changing material, correlated errors or an uncertain consensus benchmark require additional terms and an appropriate design. The provider's homogeneity evidence is essential to interpreting the score; a smaller numerical scoring denominator does not improve the items.

A method-of-moments variance component estimate equates residual mean squares in ANOVA to their model expectations and solves for the variance components. An unconstrained estimate can be negative even when the model component must be nonnegative; boundary treatment then requires a stated estimation convention. The method gives point estimates, not certainty about future experiments.

Michael H. Ramsey is a researcher credited as chair of the working group and co-editor of the 2019 guide to measurement uncertainty arising from analytical sampling. The editorial page gives his affiliation as the University of Sussex and names fellow editors Stephen L. R. Ellison and Peter Rostron.^[ref]

The scientific problem is the difference between the collected material and the material about which a conclusion is wanted. For a measurand defined over a larger target, excellent measurement repeatability on one extract does not establish small analytical sampling uncertainty. The guide treats collection and analysis as stages of the measurement process.^[ref]

An original measurement model illustrates why replication at the right level matters:Here $\mu$ is the target mean, $S_i$ is the zero-mean deviation associated with independently collected sample $i$, and $A_{ij}$ is zero-mean analytical variation in repeat $j$. Suppose all these effects are mutually independent, with variances ${\sigma }_S^2$ and ${\sigma }_A^2$. Averaging $m$ analyses on each of $n$ collected samples givesFor stipulated variance components ${\sigma }_S^2=9$ and ${\sigma }_A^2=4$ in squared concentration units, three collections analysed twice give variance $9/3+4/6=11/3$, or standard uncertainty about $1.915$ concentration units. Six analyses of only one collection instead give variance $9+4/6=29/3$, or about $3.109$ units. Both plans use six analyses; only the first averages over independently collected material.

The calculation assumes independent collections and an appropriate model for the target; a shared systematic collection error is not removed by increasing $n$. It explains the measurement-design issue addressed by the guide without presenting these invented numbers as Ramsey's experimental observations.

Yes. The bootstrap confidence interval for the age coefficient, $(0.057060,0.193584)$, excludes zero and supports the same positive association. A well-implemented parametric bootstrap can give better finite-sample calibration than the asymptotic likelihood-ratio test, especially with only eleven year groups and estimated variance components. Its advantage depends on simulating the full fitted Gaussian linear mixed model and refitting correctly; resampling individual records as if they were independent would discard the grouping. A bootstrap confidence interval is also not literally the same procedure as a bootstrap-calibrated test.

The bird-level standard deviation is appreciable, with interval $(0.436,0.720)$ hatchlings, whereas the year-level estimate is much less precise, with interval $(0.0195,0.333)$. The residual standard deviation is approximately $0.381$–$0.493$. Boundary fits in 23 of the 1000 replicates indicate that at least one fitted variance component sometimes reaches zero; the convergence warning should also be investigated before trusting the reported intervals. Neither the asymptotic test nor a model-based bootstrap repairs incorrect response-distribution or mean-structure assumptions.

The Poisson generalized linear mixed model assumes conditionally Poisson distributed counts with a log link. The fitted variance components are both zero, so this fit lies on a boundary and reduces to ordinary Poisson regression. It estimatesThus the fitted annual increase is about 6.6%, with approximate 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio $(e^{0.001},e^{0.128})\simeq (1.001,1.137)$. The age evidence is much weaker than in the Gaussian fit: the quoted p-value is $0.047$. Zero estimated group variances do not prove that real bird and year differences are absent.

The Poisson distribution forces conditional variance to equal the conditional expected value. Here fitted means are around two to three hatchlings, whereas the Gaussian model estimated a residual variance of only $0.188$. This suggests checking underdispersion and the bounded nature of hatching counts, rather than assuming a Poisson response solves the diagnostic problems. Inspect simulated count residuals and predictive distributions; if the number of eggs is observed, fit a binomial mixed model and check that model's dispersion too.

The displayed Gaussian and Poisson Akaike information criterion values should not simply be ranked as if they used the same likelihood convention: one evaluates a continuous density and the other a probability mass. Compare properly specified count models on the same observed response scale, with compatible likelihoods and predictive checks. A boundary fit, doubtful dispersion assumptions, and possible nonlinear age effects all warrant further work before a strong biological conclusion.

This produces a split-plot design: assign spray to whole orchards, with six sprayed and six unsprayed, then independently randomize ten trees to each pruning method inside every orchard. Orchards remain experimental units for spray; individual trees become experimental units for pruning. Pruning contrasts and the spray-by-pruning interaction term now lie in the within-block ANOVA stratum, while spray is tested between orchards.

The between-orchard ANOVA stratum has eleven statistical degrees of freedom, split into one for spray and ten for error. The within-orchard ANOVA stratum has 348, split into two for pruning, two for the interaction term and 344 for error. This pooling of within-orchard error is appropriate under the stated compound-symmetry covariance model; additional orchard-specific pruning variation would need its own variance component rather than this simplified error model.

The shared orchard effect cancels in a pruning difference within an orchard. Its variance is $2a/10$, so averaging across twelve orchards givesThe spray contrast still compares means of six orchards per group, each based on 30 trees, so its estimated variance remains $8/3$. For a difference of pruning differences between the two spray groups, each group's pruning difference has estimated variance $2\cdot 180/(10\cdot 6)=6$, and the resulting interaction contrast has estimated variance $12$, compared with $16$ in the original allocation.

Splitting pruning within orchards improves pruning and interaction precision without extra trees, and gives spray a less sparse error estimate; it does not reduce the spray contrast's variance. This option requires tree-level pruning to be practical without interference between neighboring trees. The numerical gains, like those in the other options, assume the current variance components remain applicable next year.

For the Gaussian linear mixed model, temporarily regard $\beta ,D,R$ as known, with $R={\sigma }^{2}I$ here and $V=ZD{Z}^T+R$. The joint multivariate normal distribution isBy the conditional multivariate normal distribution formula,A nonsingular Gaussian density has its mode at its mean. Thus the conditional mode of Gaussian random effects equals the conditional expectation. Replacing the unknown parameters by fitted values givesFor positive-definite $D$ and $R$, an equivalent derivation minimizes the negative conditional log density,Differentiation yieldsThe inverse-covariance penalty shrinks furnace intercepts and slopes toward the population effects. For furnace $j$, set $Z_j=(1,t_j)$ and $D_j=\mathrm{diag}({\tau }_0^2,{\tau }_1^2)$; the same formula provides its two-component conditional mode from that furnace's observations, conditional on the fitted common parameters. If a variance component is zero, the covariance form remains meaningful and its corresponding random effect is zero, whereas the formula with $D^{-1}$ needs a limiting interpretation. With known covariance parameters these are best linear unbiased predictors; plug-in variance estimates give their empirical version.

The comparison removes the random slope and tests $H_0:{\tau }_1^2=0$ against $H_1:{\tau }_1^2>0$, while retaining the same fixed intercept and slope. A variance cannot be negative, so zero is a boundary point of the parameter space. The regular Wilks theorem assumptions behind an ordinary ${\chi }_1^2$ likelihood-ratio test fail. Consequently the default chi-squared p-value from anova is not reliably calibrated for this variance-component likelihood-ratio test at a boundary. This is different from the fixed-slope test in part (c). The reference to strength_model1 means the earlier object strength_model; no separate model 1 object was defined.

A useful alternative is a parametric bootstrap. Fit the null random-intercept model, then simulate data on the actual predictor values and furnace grouping by generating null intercept effects and observation errors from its fitted Gaussian distribution. Refit null and alternative models to each simulated dataset using the same likelihood method and compute the same likelihood-ratio statistic. If $T_{\mathrm{obs}}$ is the observed statistic, estimate its upper-tail probability byThis incorporates the zero-variance boundary and the actual small group count. It is a fitted-null simulation approximation because nuisance parameters are estimated, not a universally exact test. Since both models have the same fixed-effect space, a similarly calibrated restricted-likelihood statistic is also possible. Under suitable asymptotics for a single identifiable added variance component the familiar limiting law is $\frac{1}{2}{\chi }_0^2+\frac{1}{2}{\chi }_1^2$, but using the bootstrap avoids relying on that approximation with only three groups. There is no supplied statistic or calibrated bootstrap result here from which to decide whether the slope variance is required.

Peter Rostron is a co-editor, with Michael H. Ramsey and Stephen L. R. Ellison, of the 2019 guide to measurement uncertainty arising from analytical sampling. Its editorial page identifies him with the University of Sussex. The guide connects laboratory analysis with the earlier act of collecting material.^[ref]

An illuminating experimental design question is where to place replication. Repeating an analysis of one collected sample reveals a different source of variation from collecting another sample from the target material. A nested design can distinguish the corresponding variance components. The guide also describes an unbalanced sampling-uncertainty design with two analyses of one field sample and one analysis of its field duplicate.^[ref]

An original counting example makes the design concrete. At each of ten targets, two collected samples each analysed twice require $10\times 2\times 2=40$ analytical results. Analysing the first sample twice and its field duplicate once instead requires $10\times (2+1)=30$. The design retains a within-sample analytical contrast at each target and a contrast between separately collected samples, with fewer analytical results. The information content and the appropriate analysis of variance must nevertheless follow the actual replication pattern; thirty results do not automatically have the same precision as forty.

This distinction matters when deciding whether to spend effort on another instrument reading or on another collection. Rostron's verified contribution here is editorial participation in the shared guidance, rather than sole authorship of every method it discusses. Repeated collection can reveal variability without, by itself, proving the absence of a common collection bias.

A split-plot design randomizes one factor to whole plots and another to subplots within each whole plot. Whole-plot treatment effects and subplot treatment effects therefore use different error ANOVA strata. Whole plots provide replication for the first factor; their subplots do not supply extra independent whole-plot replication. Within-whole-plot comparisons can remove a shared additive whole-plot variance component.

For a vector of estimated treatment means $\hat{\mu }$, the variance of a treatment contrast with coefficient vector $c$ is $c^T\mathrm{Cov}(\hat{\mu })c$. Averaging subsamples from a common experimental unit does not make their shared variance component disappear.