Raghu Kacker et al 2006 Metrologia 43 S167 doi:10.1088/0026-1394/43/4/S02
Raghu Kacker1, Blaza Toman1 and Ding Huang2
Show affiliationsWe compare three approaches for quantifying uncertainty through a measurement equation: the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), draft GUM Supplement 1 and Bayesian statistics. For illustration, we use a measurement equation for simple linear calibration that includes both Type A and Type B input variables. We consider three scenarios: (i) the measurement equation is linear with one Type B input variable having a normal distribution, (ii) the measurement equation is non-linear with two Type B input variables each having a normal distribution and (iii) the measurement equation is non-linear with two Type B input variables each having a rectangular distribution. We consider both small and large uncertainties for the Type B input variables. We use each of the three approaches to quantify the uncertainty in measurement for each of the three scenarios. Then we discuss the merits and limitations of each approach.
06.20.fb Standards and calibration
06.20.Dk Measurement and error theory
02.50.-r Probability theory, stochastic processes, and statistics
Issue 4 (August 2006)
Received 24 October 2005
Published 4 August 2006
Raghu Kacker et al 2006 Metrologia 43 S167
Michael Heim et al 2006 J. Micromech. Microeng. 16 70
H Ezawa and M Leventhal 1975 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 8 1824
Luigi C Berselli and Hakima Bessaih 2002 Nonlinearity 15 1729
Arshad Kudrolli 2004 Rep. Prog. Phys. 67 209
P J Dortmans et al 1997 J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 23 183
W Lewandowski et al 2006 Metrologia 43 278
Michael V Klibanov and Alexandre Timonov 2003 Inverse Problems 19 1299
L Malinowski 1993 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 26 1176
R. Messina et al 2002 Europhys. Lett. 60 383