Bayesian uncertainty analysis compared with the application of the GUM and its supplements

Abstract

The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) has proven to be a major step towards the harmonization of uncertainty evaluation in metrology. Its procedures contain elements from both classical and Bayesian statistics. The recent supplements 1 and 2 to the GUM appear to move the guidelines towards the Bayesian point of view, and they produce a probability distribution that shall encode one's state of knowledge about the measurand. In contrast to a Bayesian uncertainty analysis, however, Bayes' theorem is not applied explicitly. Instead, a distribution is assigned for the input quantities which is then ‘propagated’ through a model that relates the input quantities to the measurand. The resulting distribution for the measurand may coincide with a distribution obtained by the application of Bayes' theorem, but this is not true in general. The relation between a Bayesian uncertainty analysis and the application of the GUM and its supplements is investigated. In terms of a simple example, similarities and differences in the approaches are illustrated. Then a general class of models is considered and conditions are specified for which the distribution obtained by supplement 1 to the GUM is equivalent to a posterior distribution resulting from the application of Bayes' theorem. The corresponding prior distribution is identified and assessed. Finally, we briefly compare the GUM approach with a Bayesian uncertainty analysis in the context of regression problems.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 37 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.