Validating the applicability of the GUM procedure

This paper is directed at practitioners seeking a degree of assurance in the quality of the results of an uncertainty evaluation when using the procedure in the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) (JCGM 100 : 2008). Such assurance is required in adhering to general standards such as International Standard ISO/IEC 17025 or other sector-specific standards. We investigate the extent to which such assurance can be given. For many practical cases, a measurement result incorporating an evaluated uncertainty that is correct to one significant decimal digit would be acceptable. Any quantification of the numerical precision of an uncertainty statement is naturally relative to the adequacy of the measurement model and the knowledge used of the quantities in that model.For general univariate and multivariate measurement models, we emphasize the use of a Monte Carlo method, as recommended in GUM Supplements 1 and 2. One use of this method is as a benchmark in terms of which measurement results provided by the GUM can be assessed in any particular instance. We mainly consider measurement models that are linear in the input quantities, or have been linearized and the linearization process is deemed to be adequate. When the probability distributions for those quantities are independent, we indicate the use of other approaches such as convolution methods based on the fast Fourier transform and, particularly, Chebyshev polynomials as benchmarks.

[1]  Peter M. Harris,et al.  Numerical Aspects in the Evaluation of Measurement Uncertainty , 2011, WoCoUQ.

[2]  Lloyd N. Trefethen,et al.  An Extension of MATLAB to Continuous Functions and Operators , 2004, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[3]  C. W. Clenshaw,et al.  A method for numerical integration on an automatic computer , 1960 .

[4]  Alan R. Jones,et al.  Fast Fourier Transform , 1970, SIGP.

[5]  John E. Harries,et al.  Radiometric calibration of the GERB instrument , 1998 .

[6]  Lloyd N. Trefethen,et al.  Barycentric Lagrange Interpolation , 2004, SIAM Rev..

[7]  J. Gardner,et al.  Uncertainties in source distribution temperature and correlated colour temperature , 2006 .

[8]  René Dybkaer,et al.  Revision of the ‘Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement’. Why and how , 2012 .

[9]  J. N. Lyness,et al.  Numerical Differentiation of Analytic Functions , 1967 .

[10]  J L Gardner Correlations in primary spectral standards , 2003 .

[11]  J. Rice Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis , 1988 .

[12]  L. Pendrill Using measurement uncertainty in decision-making and conformity assessment , 2014 .

[13]  Clemens Elster,et al.  A two-stage procedure for determining the number of trials in the application of a Monte Carlo method for uncertainty evaluation , 2010 .

[14]  N. Higham The numerical stability of barycentric Lagrange interpolation , 2004 .

[15]  Leonard Steinborn,et al.  International Organization for Standardization ISO/IEC 17025 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories , 2004 .

[16]  Peter M. Harris,et al.  CONVOLUTION AND UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION , 2006 .

[17]  Richard Dewhurst,et al.  Measurement Science and Technology: a historical perspective , 2012 .