Why the scaled and shifted t-distribution should not be used in the Monte Carlo method for estimating measurement uncertainty?

Abstract The Supplement 1 (S1) to the GUM ( Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement ) describes a general numerical approach, known as Monte Carlo method (MCM) for estimating measurement uncertainty, based on the principle of propagation of distributions. The MCM applies to a measurement model that has a single output quantity where the input quantities are characterized by specified PDFs (probability density function). When an input quantity has Type A uncertainty that is estimated with a limited number of observations (a sample), the GUM-S1 recommends using the scaled and shifted t distribution conditioned on the sample mean and sample standard deviation as the PDF of the input quantity. This paper reveals that the scaled and shifted t- distribution is inappropriate for MCM because of the so-called t transformation distortion. This paper proposes an alternative PDF: a normal distribution conditioned on the sample mean and sample standard deviation. A calculation example is presented to demonstrate the inappropriateness of the scaled and shifted t distribution and appropriateness of the proposed PDF for MCM. Two real-world examples are presented to compare the MCM based on the scaled and shifted t- distribution and the MCM based on the proposed PDF with several existing analytical methods.

[1]  Ian Farrance,et al.  Uncertainty in measurement: a review of monte carlo simulation using microsoft excel for the calculation of uncertainties through functional relationships, including uncertainties in empirically derived constants. , 2014, The Clinical biochemist. Reviews.

[2]  Hening Huang Uncertainty estimation with a small number of measurements, part I: new insights on the t-interval method and its limitations , 2017 .

[3]  David R. Kincaid,et al.  Numerical mathematics and computing , 1980 .

[4]  R. Willink Confidence intervals and other statistical intervals in metrology , 2012 .

[5]  Raghu N. Kacker,et al.  Bayesian alternative to the ISO-GUM's use of the Welch–Satterthwaite formula , 2006 .

[6]  M Ballico,et al.  Limitations of the Welch-Satterthwaite approximation for measurement uncertainty calculations , 2000 .

[7]  G. M. Allan,et al.  How confidence intervals become confusion intervals , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[8]  R. Willink An improved procedure for combining Type A and Type B components of measurement uncertainty , 2013 .

[9]  Hening Huang,et al.  Uncertainty estimation with a small number of measurements, part II: a redefinition of uncertainty and an estimator method , 2017 .

[10]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[11]  Hening Huang A unified theory of measurement errors and uncertainties , 2018, Measurement Science and Technology.

[12]  Raghu N. Kacker,et al.  On use of Bayesian statistics to make the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement consistent , 2003 .