4.7 Article

Statistical analysis for explosives detection system test and evaluation

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-03755-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. SRA International Inc. under U.S. Department of Homeland Security [DTFA0301F20103]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The verification of trace explosives detection systems is often limited to small sample sets, requiring statistical analysis to support the significance of the results. This study presents a method based on probability confidence interval to assess the trials and provides useful measures of the system's performance. Additionally, statistical tests are conducted to examine the propriety of combining statistics for similar tests.
The verification of trace explosives detection systems is often constrained to small sample sets, so it is important to support the significance of the results with statistical analysis. As binary measurements, the trials are assessed using binomial statistics. A method is described based on the probability confidence interval and expressed in terms of the upper confidence interval bound that reports the probability of successful detection and its level of statistical confidence. These parameters provide useful measures of the system's performance. The propriety of combining statistics for similar tests-for example in trace detection trials of an explosive on multiple surfaces-is examined by statistical tests. The use of normal statistics is commonly applied to binary testing, but the confidence intervals are known to behave poorly in many circumstances, including small sample numbers. The improvement of the normal approximation with increasing sample number is shown not to be substantial for the typical numbers used in this type of explosives detection system testing, and binary statistics are preferred. The methods and techniques described here for testing trace detection can be applied as well to performance testing of explosives detection systems in general.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据