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

Propagation of Uncertainty from Systematic Error01:10

Propagation of Uncertainty from Systematic Error

1.6K
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...
1.6K
Standard Error of the Mean01:13

Standard Error of the Mean

13.3K
The sampling variability of a statistic is defined as how much the statistic varies from one sample to another. The sampling variability of a statistic is typically measured by measuring its standard error.The standard error of the mean is an example of a standard error. It is a unique standard deviation known as the standard deviation of the sampling distribution of the mean. The standard error of the mean is a statistic that calculates how correctly a sample distribution represents a...
13.3K
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

711
Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
711
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision03:37

Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision

114.0K
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. 
114.0K
Propagation of Uncertainty from Random Error00:59

Propagation of Uncertainty from Random Error

2.2K
An experiment often consists of more than a single step. In this case, measurements at each step give rise to uncertainty. Because the measurements occur in successive steps, the uncertainty in one step necessarily contributes to that in the subsequent step. As we perform statistical analysis on these types of experiments, we must learn to account for the propagation of uncertainty from one step to the next. The propagation of uncertainty depends on the type of arithmetic operation performed on...
2.2K
Margin of Error01:27

Margin of Error

8.1K
The margin of error is also called the maximum error of an estimate. The margin of error is the maximum possible or expected difference between the observed sample parameter value and the actual population parameter value. For proportion, it is the maximum difference between the value of sample proportion obtained from the data and the true value of population proportion. As the true value of the population parameter is not known, the margin of error is calculated using the sample statistic.
8.1K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

From "negative" trial to positive clinical impact: mitigating eligibility criteria-induced temporal selection bias in emulated clinical trials.

npj health systems·2026
Same author

Leveraging multi-source data to resolve inconsistency across pharmacogenomic datasets in drug sensitivity prediction.

AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium·2026
Same author

Accelerating AI innovation in healthcare: real-world clinical research applications on the Mayo Clinic Platform.

npj health systems·2026
Same author

Hide and Seek: Privacy-Preserving Artificial Intelligence with a Feasibility Study in Rare Disease Diagnosis.

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences·2026
Same author

Synoptic reporting by summarizing cancer pathology reports using large language models.

npj health systems·2026
Same author

Multiple modes of AFM reveal distinct mechanical properties for dystrophin and utrophin not manifest by small fragments.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2026
Same journal

Erratum: Low-dimensional model for adaptive networks of spiking neurons [Phys. Rev. E 111, 014422 (2025)].

Physical review. E·2026
Same journal

Disentangling the effects of many-body forces on depletion interactions.

Physical review. E·2026
Same journal

Charge transport and mode transition in dual-energy electron beam diodes.

Physical review. E·2026
Same journal

Optimization of multisite reactions in complex compartmentalized media.

Physical review. E·2026
Same journal

Origin of geometric cohesion in nonconvex granular materials: Interplay between interdigitation and rotational constraints enhancing frictional stability.

Physical review. E·2026
Same journal

Interaction of walkers with a standing Faraday wave.

Physical review. E·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 19, 2026

Measurement of Spatial Stability in Precision Grip
09:36

Measurement of Spatial Stability in Precision Grip

Published on: June 4, 2020

3.7K

Quantifying errors in the Jarzynski estimator.

Sivaraman Rajaganapathy1, Cailong Hua1, Murti Salapaka1

  • 1University of Minnesota, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA.

Physical Review. E
|April 18, 2026
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

This study introduces rigorous confidence bounds for calculating free energy differences using the Jarzynski equality with limited data. These bounds improve accuracy in nonequilibrium experiments without prior work distribution knowledge.

More Related Videos

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

2.8K
Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements
10:22

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Published on: September 7, 2019

8.9K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 19, 2026

Measurement of Spatial Stability in Precision Grip
09:36

Measurement of Spatial Stability in Precision Grip

Published on: June 4, 2020

3.7K
An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

2.8K
Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements
10:22

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Published on: September 7, 2019

8.9K

Area of Science:

  • Physics
  • Statistical Mechanics
  • Nanotechnology

Background:

  • Free energy is vital in nanosystems.
  • The Jarzynski equality estimates free energy from nonequilibrium work.
  • Current methods have limitations with finite data.

Purpose of the Study:

  • Develop rigorous confidence bounds for Jarzynski equality.
  • Enable accurate free energy calculations from limited experimental data.
  • Provide bounds applicable to systems far from equilibrium.

Main Methods:

  • Derivation of nonrestrictive confidence bounds.
  • Analysis of exponentiated work measurements.
  • Validation using Python-based simulations and experiments.

Main Results:

  • Established rigorous, nonrestrictive confidence bounds for free energy difference.
  • Demonstrated applicability to finite datasets without prior work distribution knowledge.
  • Validated bounds across diverse nonequilibrium conditions.

Conclusions:

  • The developed bounds enhance the reliability of Jarzynski equality in practical applications.
  • This method offers a robust approach for free energy estimation in nanoscale systems.
  • The findings are experimentally and computationally verified.