  Time-of-flight measurements such as the OPERA and MINOS experiments rely
crucially on statistical analysis (as well as many other ingredients) for their
conclusions. The nature of these experiments leads to a simple class of
statistical models for the results; however, which model in the class is
appropriate is not known exactly, as this depends on information obtained
experimentally, which is subject to noise and other errors. To obtain robust
conclusions, this problem, known as "model uncertainty," needs to be addressed,
with quantitative bounds on the effect such uncertainty may have on the final
result.
  The OPERA (and MINOS) analysis appears to take steps to mitigate the effects
of model uncertainty, though without quantifying any remaining effect. We
describe one of the strategies used (averaging individual probability
distributions), and point out a potential source of error if this is not
carried out correctly. We then argue that the correct version of this strategy
is not the most effective, and suggest possible alternatives. These
alternatives may give more accurate statistical results using the same data,
allowing, for example, more accurate determination of the dependence of the
anomalous time shift on energy. Which strategies work and how well can only be
evaluated with access to the full data.
  Whether or not the anomalous result from OPERA turns out to be confirmed, we
believe that techniques such as those presented here may be appropriate for the
analysis of other timing experiments of this type.
