Uncertainty, estimation

The posterior PDF in Equation (5.18) can be well approximated by a Gaussian distribution centered at the optimal (most probable) parameters (X, 0, ) and with covariance matrix T(X, 0, 9) equal to the inverse of the Hessian of the objective function 7(X, 0,9) = -Inp(X, 0,9 X, f,C) calculated at the optimal parameters [19], This covariance matrix is given by  

Bayesian Methods for Structural D5mamics and Civil Engineering 

---

Values inferred from component emission factors and given as indicators only. Uncertainty estimates assume that maximum emissions are associated with large N availability. 

Like frequency estimates, consequence estimates can have very large uncertainties. Estimates that vary by orders of magnitude can result from (1) basic uncertainties in chemical/physical properties, (2) differences in average vs. time-dependent meteorological conditions, and/or (3) uncertainties in the release, dispersion, and effects models. Some... 

Obviously for this method to work the ratio T1IT2 must be appreciably smaller than unity. Provided this condition is met, this method is a simple and reliable way to test for an isokinetic relationship or to detect deviations from such a relationship. Exner shows examples of systems plotted both as log 2 vs. log and as AH vs. A5, demonstrating the inadequacy of the latter plot. Exner has also developed a statistical analysis of the Petersen method this analysis yields p and an uncertainty estimate of p. Exner has applied his statistical methods to 100 reaction series, finding that 78 of them follow approximately valid isokinetic relationships. 

Model Uncertainty Estimates. In spite of the complexity of the 3 models compared by Dodge, (CB4, CAL and RADM employ 81, 132, and 154 chemical steps and 34, 51 and 57 chemical species, respectively), it is possible to gain useful information about radical interrelationships by considering approximate... 

Craig, S., Holmen, K. and Bjorkstrom, A. (1997). Net terrestrial carbon exchange from mass balance calculations an uncertainty estimate, Tellus, Ser. B, 49, 136-148. 

H. Guess, K. Crump and R. Peto. "Uncertainty Estimates for Low-Dose Rate Extrapolations of Animal Carcinogenicity Data." Cancer Research, 37, 1977, pp. 3475-3483. 

Fig. 4.6. The uncertainty estimation process, according to EURACHEM [1995] Fleming et al. [1996]...

Fig. 7.8 Structural parameters for formamide determined from gas-electron diffraction (values with uncertainty estimates in parentheses taken from M. Kitano and K. Kuchitsu, Bull. Chem. Soc. Japan, 47 (1974) 67) and HF/4-21G calculations (values taken from H. L. Sellers, V. J. Klimkowski, and L. Schafer, Chem. Phys. Lett. 58 (1978) 541).

When evaluating uncertainty, it is important to understand the distinction between empirical and non-empirical methods, as this influences how the uncertainty is evaluated. In the case of non-empirical methods, any bias in the results which is due to the method of analysis or, for example, a particular sample type, needs to be considered as part of the uncertainty evaluation process. For example, if a method was intended to determine the total amount of cadmium present in a soil sample, but for some reason only 90% of the cadmium present was extracted from the sample, then this 10% bias would need to be accounted for in the uncertainty estimate. One approach would be to correct results to take account of the bias. However, there would be an uncertainty associated with the correction as there will be some uncertainty about the estimate of the bias. For empirical methods, the method bias is, by definition, equal to zero (the method defines the result obtained). However, when evaluating the uncertainty associated with results obtained from an empirical method, we still need to consider the uncertainty associated with any bias introduced by the laboratory during its application of the method. One approach is to analyse a reference material that has been characterized by using the same empirical method. If no suitable reference material is available, then any bias associated with carrying out the individual stages of the method in a particular laboratory will need to be evaluated. 

Your list should have included at least some of the items mentioned above, but you may well have identified other sources of uncertainty. Remember that uncertainty is not about mistakes. The uncertainty estimate is intended to reflect the likely variation in results when a method is carried out correctly and operating under statistical control. Your list of sources of uncertainty should not therefore include any gross errors such as contamination of samples, mistakes in calculations or the analyst failing to follow the standard operating procedure correctly. 

All uncertainty estimates must be expressed numerically as a standard uncertainty. The term standard uncertainty is analogous to the statistical term standard deviation. A standard uncertainty is therefore an uncertainty estimate expressed as a standard deviation. Standard uncertainties are usually denoted by the symbol u. Uncertainty estimates can be divided into two categories [7] ... 

Note that the categories relate only to how the estimate was obtained, and not to whether the uncertainty is due to a random or a systematic effect. Type A uncertainty estimates are, by definition, expressed as a standard deviation. Type B uncertainty estimates can take a number of different forms, and may need to be converted to a standard uncertainty prior to combination with other uncertainty estimates. This is discussed later in this section. 

As mentioned previously, uncertainty estimates which have not been obtained directly by statistical evaluation of data may need converting into the correct form before the final combination of the individual uncertainty estimates can be carried out. This is discussed in the next section. 

Converting Data to Standard Uncertainties Uncertainty estimates can be obtained from a number of sources. However, they may not be expressed as a standard uncertainty and there are a number of rules for converting data. 

All of the standard uncertainty estimates obtained in the previous stage must now be combined to produce an overall uncertainty. Consider a measurement... 

Provided the sample matrix and analyte concentration are appropriate, matrix Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) can make ideal proficiency testing samples. The assigned value is the certified value given on the certificate accompanying the CRM. The certificate will also give an uncertainty estimate for the certified value, and the use of CRMs allows the traceability of analytical data to be established. However, matrix CRM availability is limited and the materials are often expensive. Hence, Certified Reference Materials are seldom used as PT samples. 

Classical process synthesis consists of the synthesis of the alternatives, their analysis and final evaluation. Hurme and Jarvelainen (1995) have presented a combined process synthesis and simulation system consisting of an interactive rule-based system which is used for generating process alternatives (Fig. 10). The process alternatives are simulated, costed and evaluated through profitability analysis. The developed system concept combines process synthesis, simulation and costing with uncertainty estimation. 

Accuracy, uncertainty, and traceability. A certified value is the best approximation of the true concentration of the analyte. During the certification process, a variety of analytical methods may be used to determine this true value. Uncertainty estimates ultimately based on this process, together with information about the material s homogeneity can give a certified reference material traceability, needed for true international comparability. 

Verkouteren, R. M. and Kleindienst, D. B. Value assignment and uncertainty estimation of selected light stable isotope reference materials. NIST Special Publication 260-149 (2004). 

R. Femat, J. Alvarez-Ramirez, and M. Rosales-Torres. Robust asymptotic linearization via uncertainty estimation Regulation of temperature in a fluidized bed reactor. Comput. Chem. Eng., 23 697-708, 1999. 

For the general, multiparameter case, the product of the purely experimental uncertainty estimate, and the matrix gives the estimated... 

The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) to some extent is the Bible of uncertainty estimation. Since it was originally made for physical measurements in metrology laboratories, it is quite difficult to translate it into analytical chemistry problems, especially for routine measurements. 

The Uncertainty Estimation Process as described in the EURACHEM/CiTAC-guidecan be divided in 4 steps which are shown graphicaiiy beiow... 

Specification of the Measurand In the context of uncertainty estimation, specification of the measurand" requires both a clear and unambiguous statement of what is being measured, and a quantitative expression relating the value of the measurand to the parameters on which it depends. 

Without doing anything, but looking into some papers, we therewith have two estimates of our expanded un-certainty, 60% and 40%. This shows the uncertainty of this uncertainty estimation. 

ISO/TS 21748 2004 Guidance for the use of repeatability, reproducibihty and tmeness estimates in measurement uncertainty estimation... 

---