AI 中文总结
本文提出协方差缩放模型审计引力常数测量档案，发现NIST结果在历史推断离散度下一致，并给出双模式扭矩诊断，未提出新G值。
AI 中文摘要
实验室对牛顿引力常数$G$的测定结果之间的差异超出了其标称不确定度所允许的范围。我们使用一个保留完整报告协方差矩阵的比例协方差缩放模型，检验了构成CODATA-2018档案的十六项测定。由于2026年NIST扭秤重新测定与BIPM Mark II扭秤共享仪器谱系，我们的主要历史拟合排除了BIPM-14测定，对剩余十五项测量得到$\hat{\lambda} = 2.967$。在声明的均匀协方差缩放约定下，针对该历史模型进行评估时，相关的四配置NIST结果在档案报告未缩放的协方差下极不可能，但一旦应用历史推断的额外离散度，在统计上则不足为奇（$Q_\lambda = 4.840$；有限样本$F$尾部$p = 0.382$）；仅均值缩放敏感性使该向量保持不一致。保留完整档案也给出类似结果。我们进一步检验了NIST报告的四组匹配的自由-伺服扭矩差。它们与四个测试配置中的单一公共绝对扭矩偏移一致，$\widehat{\Delta N} = 1.918 \pm 0.215$ pN·m，并且在所述的独立A类处理下，一个同样简单的分数缩放替代模型对其描述不佳，两种扭矩模型之间的卡方对比为$\Delta\chi^{2} = 11.041$。本文提供了历史档案的协方差审计、谱系限定的一致性检查，以及一个可实验检验的双模式扭秤诊断方法，而未提出修订的$G$值。
英文摘要
Laboratory determinations of the Newtonian gravitational constant $G$ disagree by more than their quoted uncertainties allow. We examine the sixteen determinations comprising the CODATA-2018 archive using a proportional covariance-scale model that retains the full reported covariance matrix. Because the 2026 NIST torsion-balance redetermination shares apparatus lineage with the BIPM Mark II balance, our primary historical fit excludes the BIPM-14 determination, giving $\hatλ = 2.967$ for the remaining fifteen measurements. Evaluated against this historical model under the declared uniform covariance-scaling convention, the correlated four-configuration NIST result is highly unlikely under the archive's reported, unscaled covariance but is statistically unremarkable once the historically inferred extra dispersion is applied ($Q_λ= 4.840$; finite-sample $F$ tail $p = 0.382$); a mean-only scaling sensitivity leaves the vector discrepant. Retaining the complete archive also gives a comparable result. We further examine four matched free-minus-servo torque differences reported by NIST. They are consistent with a single common absolute torque offset across the four tested configurations, $\widehat{ΔN} = 1.918 \pm 0.215$ pN m, and poorly described by an equally simple fractional-scale alternative under the stated independent-Type-A treatment, with a chi-square contrast of $Δχ^{2} = 11.041$ between the two torque models. The paper provides a covariance audit of the historical archive, a lineage-qualified consistency check, and an experimentally testable diagnostic for dual-mode torsion balances, without proposing a revised value of $G$.
Comments16 pages. 3 figures. 8 tables. Code will be uploaded to https://github.com/vineetsci/g-metrology
