Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Propagation of Uncertainty from Systematic Error01:10

Propagation of Uncertainty from Systematic Error

The atomic mass of an element varies due to the relative ratio of its isotopes. A sample's relative proportion of oxygen isotopes influences its average atomic mass. For instance, if we were to measure the atomic mass of oxygen from a sample, the mass would be a weighted average of the isotopic masses of oxygen in that sample. Since a single sample is not likely to perfectly reflect the true atomic mass of oxygen for all the molecules of oxygen on Earth, the mass we obtain from this particular...
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision03:37

Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision

Scientists typically make repeated measurements of a quantity to ensure the quality of their findings and to evaluate both the precision and the accuracy of their results. Measurements are said to be precise if they yield very similar results when repeated in the same manner. A measurement is considered accurate if it yields a result that is very close to the true or the accepted value. Precise values agree with each other; accurate values agree with a true value.
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization01:12

Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization

Error is the deviation of the obtained result from the true, expected value or the estimated central value. Errors are expressed in absolute or relative terms.
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Performance of GPT-based large language models in hepatocellular carcinoma stratification: liver function assessment, BCLC staging, and treatment recommendations.

Scientific reports·2026
Same author

Refining prognostication in intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma after transarterial chemoembolization: promise and limitations of the proposed NTAA model.

Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition·2026
Same author

Initial Results of FAPI PET/MRI to Assess the Extent of Endometriosis.

Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine·2026
Same author

Prognostic role of FDG-PET in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma treated with CD3-CD20 directed bispecific antibodies: a multicentric analysis.

European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging·2026
Same author

Dynamics, Pharmacokinetics, and Dosimetry of First-in-Human [<sup>68</sup>Ga]Ga-OncoACP3-DOTA PET in Patients with Prostate Cancer.

Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine·2026
Same author

Entanglement Superactivation in Multiphoton Distillation Networks.

Physical review letters·2026
Same journal

Erratum: Bacterial Turbulence at Compressible Fluid Interfaces [Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 138301 (2026)].

Physical review letters·2026
Same journal

Unveiling Light-Quark Yukawa Flavor Structure via Dihadron Fragmentation at Lepton Colliders.

Physical review letters·2026
Same journal

Adaptable Route to Fast Coherent State Transport via Bang-Bang-Bang Protocols.

Physical review letters·2026
Same journal

Topological Transition and Emergence of Elasticity of Dislocation in Skyrmion Lattice: Beyond Kittel's Magnetic-Polar Analogy.

Physical review letters·2026
Same journal

Pound-Drever-Hall Method for Superconducting-Qubit Readout.

Physical review letters·2026
Same journal

Coupling a ^{73}Ge Nuclear Spin to an Electrostatically Defined Quantum Dot in Silicon.

Physical review letters·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 11, 2026

Measurement of Quantum Interference in a Silicon Ring Resonator Photon Source
12:19

Measurement of Quantum Interference in a Silicon Ring Resonator Photon Source

Published on: April 4, 2017

Certifying systematic errors in quantum experiments.

Tobias Moroder1, Matthias Kleinmann, Philipp Schindler

  • 1Naturwissenschaftlich-Technische Fakultät, Universität Siegen, Walter-Flex-Straße 3, D-57068 Siegen, Germany.

Physical Review Letters
|May 21, 2013
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Ignoring experimental errors can invalidate quantum experiment results. This study introduces new tests to detect systematic errors in quantum state tomography using limited data from ion trap experiments.

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 11, 2026

Measurement of Quantum Interference in a Silicon Ring Resonator Photon Source
12:19

Measurement of Quantum Interference in a Silicon Ring Resonator Photon Source

Published on: April 4, 2017

Area of Science:

  • Quantum physics
  • Experimental methodology

Background:

  • Experimental errors, particularly systematic errors, can compromise the integrity of scientific results.
  • Accurate analysis of quantum experiments relies on accounting for all sources of error, including those in finite datasets.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To develop and apply novel tests for detecting systematic errors in quantum experiments.
  • To specifically address the challenge of systematic error detection in quantum state tomography with limited data.

Main Methods:

  • Development of three distinct methods for detecting systematic errors.
  • Application of linear inequality tests for error detection.
  • Utilization of a generalized likelihood ratio test for error detection.

Main Results:

  • The developed tests are applied to tomographic data from an ion trap experiment.
  • The study demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed methods in identifying systematic errors.

Conclusions:

  • The proposed tests provide a robust framework for identifying systematic errors in quantum experiments.
  • Accurate quantum state tomography requires rigorous error detection, especially with finite datasets.