The problem of inadequacy of mathematical models of measurement objects in connection with the problem of “definitional uncertainty of measurements” and with the need to control risks in accordance with GOST ISO/IEC 17025–2019, General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories, is considered. The history of the problem from the development of the moment approach and the compositional approach through assessment of precision to the introduction of the specialized term, error of inadequacy of a mathematical model of a measurement object, is described. The negative influence of the hopelessness of conceptual and terminological transformations in metrology and the critical contradiction of assessments of the applicability of the statistical methods presented in GOST R ISO/IEC 31010–2011, Management of Risk. Methods of Risk Assessment, and in the Guide to the Expression of Measurement Uncertainty are noted. It is shown that taking into account the inadequacy of probabilistic models in calculations of risk is a necessary condition for assuring the reliability of the results of measurements.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
S. F. Levin, “Uncertainty in the narrow sense and in the broad sense of results of a verification of measurement instruments,” Izmer. Tekhn., No. 9, 15–19 (2007).
S. F. Levin, “Errors of measurements and calculations as the cause of the “catastrophic phenomenon of 1985–1986 in aviation and rocket and space flight engineering,” Kontr.-Izmer. Prib. Sist., No. 3, 21–24 (2000).
P. E. El’yasberg, Measurement Information: How Much is Needed? How Shuld it be Processed?, Nauka, Moscow (1983).
F. Hampel et al., Robustness in Statistics [Russian translation], Mir, Moscow (1989).
S. F. Levin, Optimal Interpolation Filtration of Statistical Characteristics of Random Functions in a Deterministic Version of the Monte-Carlo Method and Red Shift Law, Akad. Nauk SSSR, Moscow (1980).
Problems of CyberneticsVK-94. Statistical Methods in the Theory of Operations Research, Akad. Nauk SSSR, Moscow (1982).
A. G. Ivakhnenko, Inductive Method of Self-Management of Models of Complex Systems, Naukova Dumka, Kiev (1982).
M. H. Quenouille, J. Roy. Stat. Soc., 11, 68–84 (1949).
S. F. Levin, Procedural Recommendations. Degree of Guarantee of Operations Research Program, Znanie, Kiev (1989).
S. F. Levin, “Method of compactness maximum and complex measurement problems,” Izmer. Tekhn., No. 7, 15–21 (1995).
S. F. Levin, “Metrological certification and maintenance of statistical data processing programs,” Izmer. Tekhn., No. 12, 16–18 (1991).
VIM 3, International Dictionary of Metrology. Basic and General Concepts and Corresponding Terms, 3rd ed. [Russian translation], Professional, St. Petersburg NPO (2010), https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_200_2012.pdf, acc. Jan. 10, 2020.
S. F. Levin, “The legend of uncertainty,” Partn. Konkur., No. 1, 13–25 (2001).
Physical Encyclopedia, Bol’shaya Ross. Ents., Moscow (1992), Vol. 3.
S. F. Levin, “Definitional uncertainty and the error of inadequacy,” Izmer. Tekhn., No. 11, 7–11 (2019), https://doi.org/10.32446/0368-102it/2019-11-7-17.
Yu. P. Adler, Yu. V. Granovskiy, and E. V. Markova, Theory of Experiment: Past, Present, and Future, Znanie, Moscow (1982).
S. F. Levin, “What in fact should leading specialists be worried about with the introduction of uncertainty into domestic measurements,” Izmer. Tekhn., No. 12, 61–64 (2008).
L. K. Isaev and V. V. Mardin, Russian-English-French-Spanish Dictionary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology, Izd. Standartov, Moscow (1998).
G. Scheffer, Dispersion Analysis [Russian translation], Izd. Fiz.-Mat. Lit., Moscow (1963).
S. F. Levin, “Unsolved problems of ‘precision.’ Part 1,” Glavn. Metrolog, No. 3, 5–7 (2003).
S. F. Levin, “Unsolved problems of ‘precision.’ Part 2,” Glavn. Metrolog, No. 4, 44–54 (2003).
S. F. Levin, “Unsolved problems of ‘precision.’ Part 3,” Glavn. Metrolog, No. 1, 44–53 (2004).
S. F. Levin, “Unsolved problems of ‘precision.’ Part 4,” Glavn. Metrolog, No. 3, 52–56 (2004).
S. F. Levin, “Unsolved problems of ‘precision.’ Part 5,” Glavn. Metrolog, No. 1, 19–26 (2005).
S. F. Levin, “Unsolved problems of ‘precision.’ Part 6,” Glavn. Metrolog, No. 3, 20–28 (2005).
M. Cox and P. Harris, “Basic assumptions of Appendix 1 to the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement,” Izmer. Tekhn., No. 4, 17–24 (2005).
C. Ehrlich, R. Dybkaer, and W. Wöger, OIML Bull., 23–35 (April, 2007).
C. Ehrlich, R. Dybkaer, and W. Wöger, “Evolution of philosophy and the interpretation of the concept of ‘measurement’,” Glavn. Metrolog, No. 1, 11–30 (2016).
S. F. Levin, “Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Revision: Replacement of paradigm or a new sanction?” Zakonodat. Prikl. Metrol., No. 5, 31–44 (2016), https://doi.org/10.32446/0368-1025it/2016-15-31-44.
S. F. Levin, “Metrology: concepts and terms, phraseologisms and catachreses. Part 1,” Kontr.–Izmer. Prib. Sist., No. 1, 35–38 (2017).
S. F. Levin, “Metrology: concepts and terms, phraseologisms and catachreses. Part 2,” Kontr.–Izmer. Prib. Sist., No. 2, 35–38 (2017).
S. F. Levin, “The concept of uncertainty – Theory of errors: Philosophical dispute and mathematical results,” Kontr.–Izmer. Prib. Sist., No. 4, 32–36 (2018).
S. F. Levin, “Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement: Problems, unrealized possibilities of measurement: problems, unrealized possibilities, and revisions. Part 3. Reduction to a common terminological denominator,” Izmer. Tekhn., No. 7, 14–22 (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.32446/0368-1025it.2019-7-14-19.
Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement [Russian translation], VNIIM, St. Petersburg (1999).
S. F. Levin, “Is it possible to convert error into uncertainty ‘precisely’?” Zakonodat. Prikl. Metrol., No. 3, 18–25 (2017).
Development of Research on Calibration of Measurement Instruments: Report of a Working Group, RSPP, Moscow (2016).
S. F. Levin, “Mathematical theory of measurement problems. Part 10. Method of joint measurements,” Kontr.–Izmer. Prib. Sist., No. 3, 23–24 (2006).
S. F. Levin, “Mathematical theory of measurement problems. Part 10. Method of joint measurements,” Kontr.–Izmer. Prib. Sist., No. 4, 32–36 (2006).
S. F. Levin, “Mathematical theory of measurement problems. Part 10. Method of joint measurements,” Kontr.–Izmer. Prib. Sist., No. 5, 33–34 (2006).
S. F. Levin, “Measurement problem of identification of error function,” Zakonodat. Prikl. Metrol., No. 4, 27–33 (2016).
S. F. Levin, “Statistical procedures of control in high-precision measurements,” Kontr.–Izmer. Prib. Sist., No. 3, 8–11 (2018).
S. F. Levin, “Calibration of measurement instruments – Three solutions of the same measurement problem,” Kontr.–Izmer. Prib. Sist., No. 1, 35–38 (2018).
L. N. Bol’shev and N. V. Smirnov, Tables of Mathematical Statistics, Nauka, Moscow (1983), 3rd ed.
M. N. Selivanov, A. E. Fridman, and Zh. F. Kudryashova, Quality of Measurements, Lenizdat, Leningrad (1987).
P. V. Novitskij and I. A. Zograf, Estimation of Errors of the Results of Measurements, Energoatomizdat, Leningrad (1985).
S. F. Levin, “Quality of verifi cation of measurement instruments and a posteriori reliability of control,” Izmer. Tekhn., No. 9, 20–25 (2018), https://doi.org/10.32446/0368-1025it/2018-9-20-25.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Translated from Izmeritel’naya Tekhnika, No. 7, pp. 13–21, July, 2020.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Levin, S.F. Inadequacy of Mathematical Models of Measurement Objects and Calculations of Risk Based On the Use of Gost ISO/IEC 17025–2019. Meas Tech 63, 524–533 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11018-020-01819-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11018-020-01819-8