Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

The Uncertainty of Measurements

Some numerical statements are exact: Mary has 3 brothers, and 2 + 2 = 4. However, all
measurements have some degree of uncertainty that may come from a variety of sources. The process
of evaluating this uncertainty associated with a measurement result is often called uncertainty
analysis or error analysis.
The complete statement of a measured value should include an estimate of the level of
confidence associated with the value. Properly reporting an experimental result along with its
uncertainty allows other people to make judgments about the quality of the experiment, and it
facilitates meaningful comparisons with other similar values or a theoretical prediction. Without an
uncertainty estimate, it is impossible to answer the basic scientific question: “Does my result agree
with a theoretical prediction or results from other experiments?” This question is fundamental for
deciding if a scientific hypothesis is confirmed or refuted.
When we make a measurement, we generally assume that some exact or true value exists based
on how we define what is being measured. While we may never know this true value exactly, we
attempt to find this ideal quantity to the best of our ability with the time and resources available. As
we make measurements by different methods, or even when making multiple measurements using
the same method, we may obtain slightly different results. So how do we report our findings for our
best estimate of this elusive true value? The most common way to show the range of values that we
believe includes the true value is:
measurement = best estimate ± uncertainty (units)
Let’s take an example. Suppose you want to find the mass of a gold ring that you would like to
sell to a friend. You do not want to jeopardize your friendship, so you want to get an accurate mass
of the ring in order to charge a fair market price. By simply examining the ring in your hand, you
estimate the mass to be between 10 and 20 grams, but this is not a very precise estimate. After some
searching, you find an electronic balance that gives a mass reading of 17.43 grams. While this
measurement is much more precise than the original estimate, how do you know that it is accurate,
and how confident are you that this measurement represents the true value of the ring’s mass? Since
the digital display of the balance is limited to 2 decimal places, you could report the mass as m =
17.43 ± 0.01 g. Suppose you use the same electronic balance and obtain several more readings: 17.46
g, 17.42 g, 17.44 g, so that the average mass appears to be in the range of 17.44 ± 0.02 g. By now
you may feel confident that you know the mass of this ring to the nearest hundredth of a gram, but
how do you know that the true value definitely lies between 17.43 g and 17.45 g? Since you want to
be honest, you decide to use another balance that gives a reading of 17.22 g. This value is clearly
below the range of values found on the first balance, and under normal circumstances, you might not
care, but you want to be fair to your friend. So what do you do now?

1
Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

To help answer these questions, we should first define the terms accuracy and precision:

Accuracy is the closeness of agreement between a measured value and a true or

accepted value. Measurement error is the amount of inaccuracy.
Precision is a measure of how well a result can be determined (without reference
to a theoretical or true value). It is the degree of consistency and agreement
among independent measurements of the same quantity; also the reliability or
reproducibility of the result.
The statement of uncertainty associated with a measurement should include
factors that affect both the accuracy and precision of the measurement.

Caution: Unfortunately the terms error and uncertainty are often used interchangeably to
describe both imprecision and inaccuracy. This usage is so common that it is impossible to avoid
entirely. Whenever you encounter these terms, make sure you understand whether they refer to
accuracy or precision, or both.
Notice that in order to determine the accuracy of a particular measurement, we have to know the
ideal, true value, which we really never do. Sometimes we have a “textbook” measured value, which
is known precisely, and we assume that this is our “ideal” value, and use it to estimate the accuracy
of our result. Other times we know a theoretical value, which is calculated from basic principles, and
this also may be taken as an “ideal” value. But physics is an empirical science, which means that the
theory must be validated by experiment, and not the other way around. We can escape these
difficulties and retain a useful definition of accuracy by assuming that, even when we do not know
the true value, we can rely on the best available accepted value with which to compare our
experimental value.
For our example with the gold ring, there is no accepted value with which to compare, and both
measured values have the same precision, so we have no reason to believe one more than the other.
The only way to assess the accuracy of the measurement is to compare with a known standard. For
this situation, it may be possible to calibrate the balances with a standard mass that is accurate within
a narrow tolerance and is traceable to a primary mass standard at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). Calibrating the balances should eliminate the discrepancy
between the readings and provide a more accurate mass measurement.
Precision is often reported quantitatively by using relative or fractional uncertainty:

uncertainty
Relative Uncertainty =
measured quantity (1)

For example, m = 75.5 ± 0.5 g has a fractional uncertainty of: 0.5 g

= 0.0066 = 0.66%
75.5 g

2 University of North Carolina

 Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

Accuracy is often reported quantitatively by using relative error:

measured value - expected value

Relative Error =
expected value (2)

If the expected value for m is 80.0 g, then the relative error is: 75.5 − 80.0
= −0.056 = −5.6%
80.0
Note: The minus sign indicates that the measured value is less than the expected value.
When analyzing experimental data, it is important that you understand the difference between
precision and accuracy. Precision indicates the quality of the measurement, without any guarantee
that the measurement is “correct.” Accuracy, on the other hand, assumes that there is an ideal value,
and tells how far your answer is from that ideal, “right” answer. These concepts are directly related
to random and systematic measurement errors.

Types of Errors
Measurement errors may be classified as either random or systematic, depending on how the
measurement was obtained (an instrument could cause a random error in one situation and a
systematic error in another).

Random errors are statistical fluctuations (in either direction) in the measured
data due to the precision limitations of the measurement device. Random errors
can be evaluated through statistical analysis and can be reduced by averaging
over a large number of observations (see standard error).
Systematic errors are reproducible inaccuracies that are consistently in the same
direction. These errors are difficult to detect and cannot be analyzed
statistically. If a systematic error is identified when calibrating against a
standard, applying a correction or correction factor to compensate for the effect
can reduce the bias. Unlike random errors, systematic errors cannot be detected
or reduced by increasing the number of observations.

Our strategy is to reduce as many sources of error as we can, and then to keep track of those
errors that we can’t eliminate. It is useful to study the types of errors that may occur, so that we may
recognize them when they arise.

Department of Physics and Astronomy 3

Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

Common sources of error in physics laboratory experiments:

Incomplete definition (may be systematic or random) - One reason that it is impossible to make
exact measurements is that the measurement is not always clearly defined. For example, if two
different people measure the length of the same rope, they would probably get different results
because each person may stretch the rope with a different tension. The best way to minimize
definition errors is to carefully consider and specify the conditions that could affect the measurement.
Failure to account for a factor (usually systematic) – The most challenging part of designing an
experiment is trying to control or account for all possible factors except the one independent variable
that is being analyzed. For instance, you may inadvertently ignore air resistance when measuring
free-fall acceleration, or you may fail to account for the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field when
measuring the field of a small magnet. The best way to account for these sources of error is to
brainstorm with your peers about all the factors that could possibly affect your result. This
brainstorm should be done before beginning the experiment so that arrangements can be made to
account for the confounding factors before taking data. Sometimes a correction can be applied to a
result after taking data to account for an error that was not detected.
Environmental factors (systematic or random) - Be aware of errors introduced by your immediate
working environment. You may need to take account for or protect your experiment from vibrations,
drafts, changes in temperature, and electronic noise or other effects from nearby apparatus.
Instrument resolution (random) - All instruments have finite precision that limits the ability to
resolve small measurement differences. For instance, a meter stick cannot distinguish distances to a
precision much better than about half of its smallest scale division (0.5 mm in this case). One of the
best ways to obtain more precise measurements is to use a null difference method instead of
measuring a quantity directly. Null or balance methods involve using instrumentation to measure the
difference between two similar quantities, one of which is known very accurately and is adjustable.
The adjustable reference quantity is varied until the difference is reduced to zero. The two quantities
are then balanced and the magnitude of the unknown quantity can be found by comparison with the
reference sample. With this method, problems of source instability are eliminated, and the measuring
instrument can be very sensitive and does not even need a scale.
Failure to calibrate or check zero of instrument (systematic) - The calibration of an instrument
should be checked before taking data whenever possible. If a calibration standard is not available, the
accuracy of the instrument should be checked by comparing with another instrument that is at least
as precise, or by consulting the technical data provided by the manufacturer. When making a
measurement with a micrometer, electronic balance, or an electrical meter, always check the zero
reading first. Re-zero the instrument if possible, or measure the displacement of the zero reading
from the true zero and correct any measurements accordingly. It is a good idea to check the zero
reading throughout the experiment.
Physical variations (random) - It is always wise to obtain multiple measurements over the entire
range being investigated. Doing so often reveals variations that might otherwise go undetected.
These variations may call for closer examination, or they may be combined to find an average value.
Parallax (systematic or random) - This error can occur whenever there is some distance between the
measuring scale and the indicator used to obtain a measurement. If the observer’s eye is not squarely

4 University of North Carolina

 Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

aligned with the pointer and scale, the reading may be too high or low (some analog meters have
mirrors to help with this alignment).
Instrument drift (systematic) - Most electronic instruments have readings that drift over time. The
amount of drift is generally not a concern, but occasionally this source of error can be significant and
should be considered.
Lag time and hysteresis (systematic) - Some measuring devices require time to reach equilibrium,
and taking a measurement before the instrument is stable will result in a measurement that is
generally too low. The most common example is taking temperature readings with a thermometer
that has not reached thermal equilibrium with its environment. A similar effect is hysteresis where
the instrument readings lag behind and appear to have a “memory” effect, as data are taken
sequentially moving up or down through a range of values. Hysteresis is most commonly associated
with materials that become magnetized when a changing magnetic field is applied.
Personal errors come from carelessness, poor technique, or bias on the part of the experimenter.
The experimenter may measure incorrectly, or may use poor technique in taking a measurement, or
may introduce a bias into measurements by expecting (and inadvertently forcing) the results to agree
with the expected outcome.

Gross personal errors, sometimes called mistakes or blunders, should be avoided

and corrected if discovered. As a rule, gross personal errors are excluded from
the error analysis discussion because it is generally assumed that the
experimental result was obtained by following correct procedures. The term
human error should also be avoided in error analysis discussions because it is
too general to be useful.

Estimating Experimental Uncertainty for a Single Measurement

Any measurement you make will have some uncertainty associated with it, no matter how precise
your measuring tool. How do you actually determine the uncertainty, and once you know it, how do
you report it?

The uncertainty of a single measurement is limited by the precision and

accuracy of the measuring instrument, along with any other factors that might
affect the ability of the experimenter to make the measurement.

For example, if you are trying to use a meter stick to measure the diameter of a tennis ball, the
uncertainty might be ± 5 mm, but if you used a Vernier caliper, the uncertainty could be reduced to
maybe ± 2 mm. The limiting factor with the meter stick is parallax, while the second case is limited
by ambiguity in the definition of the tennis ball’s diameter (it’s fuzzy!). In both of these cases, the
uncertainty is greater than the smallest divisions marked on the measuring tool (likely 1 mm and 0.1
mm respectively). Unfortunately, there is no general rule for determining the uncertainty in all
measurements. The experimenter is the one who can best evaluate and quantify the uncertainty of a
measurement based on all the possible factors that affect the result. Therefore, the person making the

Department of Physics and Astronomy 5

Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

measurement has the obligation to make the best judgment possible and report the uncertainty in a
way that clearly explains what the uncertainty represents:
Measurement = (measured value ± standard uncertainty) unit of measurement
where the ± standard uncertainty indicates approximately a 68% confidence interval (see sections
on Standard Deviation and Reporting Uncertainties).
Example: Diameter of tennis ball = 6.7 ± 0.2 cm

Estimating Uncertainty in Repeated Measurements

Suppose you time the period of oscillation of a pendulum using a digital instrument (that you
assume is measuring accurately) and find: T = 0.44 seconds. This single measurement of the period
suggests a precision of ±0.005 s, but this instrument precision may not give a complete sense of the
uncertainty. If you repeat the measurement several times and examine the variation among the
measured values, you can get a better idea of the uncertainty in the period. For example, here are the
results of 5 measurements, in seconds: 0.46, 0.44, 0.45, 0.44, 0.41.
The best estimate of the period is the average, or mean, of these N independent measurements:
x1 + x2 + ... + xN
Average (mean) =
N

Whenever possible, repeat a measurement several times and average the results.
This average is the best estimate of the “true” value. The more repetitions you
make of a measurement, the better this estimate will be.

Consider, as another example, the measurement of the width of a piece of paper using a meter
stick. Being careful to keep the meter stick parallel to the edge of the paper (to avoid a systematic
error which would cause the measured value to be consistently higher than the correct value), the
width of the paper is measured at a number of points on the sheet, and the values obtained are
entered in a data table. Note that the last digit is only a rough estimate, since it is difficult to read a
meter stick to the nearest tenth of a millimeter (0.01 cm).
Observation Width (cm)
#1 31.33
#2 31.15
#3 31.26
#4 31.02
#5 31.20

Average = s um of obs erved w idths = 155.96 cm = 31.19 cm

no. of obs ervations 5

6 University of North Carolina

 Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

This average is the best available estimate of the width of the piece of paper, but it is certainly
not exact. We would have to average an infinite number of measurements to approach the true mean
value, and even then, we are not guaranteed that the mean value is accurate because there is still
some systematic error from the measuring tool, which can never be calibrated perfectly. So how do
we express the uncertainty in our average value?
One way to express the variation among the measurements is to use the average deviation. This
statistic tells us on average (with 50% confidence) how much the individual measurements vary from
the mean.
| x1 − x | + | x2 − x | +...+ | xN − x |
Average Deviation, d =
N
However, the standard deviation is the most common way to characterize the spread of a data
set. The standard deviation is always slightly greater than the average deviation, and is used
because of its association with the normal distribution that is frequently encountered in statistical
analyses.

Standard Deviation
To calculate the standard deviation for a sample of 5 (or more generally N) measurements:
1. Sum all the measurements and divide by 5 to get the average, or mean.
2. Now, subtract this average from each of the 5 measurements to obtain 5 “deviations”.
3. Square each of these 5 deviations and add them all up.
4. Divide this result by (N-1) and take the square root.

We can write out the formula for the standard deviation as follows. Let the N measurements be
called x1, x2, ..., xN. Let the average of the N values be called x . Then each deviation is given by
δx i = x i − x , for i = 1, 2, ..., N. The standard deviation is:

s=
(δx2
1 )
+ δx 22 + ... + δx N2
=
∑ δx 2
i

(N − 1) (N − 1)
In our previous example, the average width x is 31.19 cm. The deviations are:
Observation Width (cm) Deviation (cm)
#1 31.33 +0.14 = 31.33 - 31.19
#2 31.15 -0.04 = 31.15 - 31.19
#3 31.26 +0.07 = 31.26 - 31.19
#4 31.02 -0.17 = 31.02 - 31.19
#5 31.20 +0.01 = 31.20 - 31.19

The average deviation is: d = 0.086 cm

Department of Physics and Astronomy 7

Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

(0.14) 2 + (0.04) 2 + (0.07) 2 + (0.01) 2

The standard deviation is: s = = 0.12 cm
5 −1

The significance of the standard deviation is this: if you now make one more measurement using
the same meter stick, you can reasonably expect (with about 68% confidence) that the new
measurement will be within 0.12 cm of the estimated average of 31.19 cm. In fact, it is reasonable to
use the standard deviation as the uncertainty associated with this single new measurement.
However, the uncertainty of the average value is the standard deviation of the mean, which is always
less than the standard deviation.
Consider an example where 100 measurements of a quantity were made. The average or mean
value was 10.5 and the standard deviation was s = 1.83. The figure below is a histogram of the 100
measurements, which shows how often a certain range of values was measured. For example, in 20
of the measurements, the value was in the range 9.5 to 10.5, and most of the readings were close to
the mean value of 10.5. The standard deviation s for this set of measurements is roughly how far
from the average value most of the readings fell. For a large enough sample, approximately 68% of
the readings will be within one standard deviation of the mean value, 95% of the readings will be in
the interval x ± 2s, and nearly all (99.7%) of readings will lie within 3 standard deviations from the
mean. The smooth curve superimposed on the histogram is the gaussian or normal distribution
predicted by theory for measurements involving random errors. As more and more measurements are
made, the histogram will more closely follow the bell-shaped gaussian curve, but the standard
deviation of the distribution will remain approximately the same.

← x ± 1s →

← x ± 2s →

← x ± 3s →

8 University of North Carolina

 Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

Standard Deviation of the Mean (Standard Error)

When we report the average value of N measurements, the uncertainty we should associate with
this average value is the standard deviation of the mean, often called the standard error (SE).

s
Standard Deviation of the Mean, or Standard Error (SE), σ x =
N (3)

The standard error is smaller than the standard deviation by a factor of 1 N . This reflects the
fact that we expect the uncertainty of the average value to get smaller when we use a larger number
of measurements, N. In the previous example, we find the standard error is 0.05 cm, where we have
divided the standard deviation of 0.12 by √5. The final result should then be reported as:
Average paper width = 31.19 ± 0.05 cm

Anomalous Data
The first step you should take in analyzing data (and even while taking data) is to examine the
data set as a whole to look for patterns and outliers. Anomalous data points that lie outside the
general trend of the data may suggest an interesting phenomenon that could lead to a new discovery,
or they may simply be the result of a mistake or random fluctuations. In any case, an outlier requires
closer examination to determine the cause of the unexpected result. Extreme data should never be
“thrown out” without clear justification and explanation, because you may be discarding the most
significant part of the investigation! However, if you can clearly justify omitting an inconsistent data
point, then you should exclude the outlier from your analysis so that the average value is not skewed
from the “true” mean.

Fractional Uncertainty Revisited

When a reported value is determined by taking the average of a set of independent readings, the
fractional uncertainty is given by the ratio of the uncertainty divided by the average value. For this
example,
uncertainty
Fractional uncertainty = average = 0.05 cm = 0.0016 ≈ 0.002
31.19 cm
Note that the fractional uncertainty is dimensionless (the uncertainty in cm was divided by the
average in cm). An experimental physicist might make the statement that this measurement “is good
to about 1 part in 500” or “precise to about 0.2%”.
The fractional uncertainty is also important because it is used in propagating uncertainty in
calculations using the result of a measurement, as discussed in the next section.

Department of Physics and Astronomy 9

Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

Propagation of Uncertainty
Suppose we want to determine a quantity f, which depends on x and maybe several other
variables y, z,etc. We want to know the error in f if we measure x, y, ... with errors σx, σy, …

Examples: f = xy (Area of a rectangle)

f = p cosθ (x-component of momentum)
f=x/t (velocity)

For a single-variable function f (x), the deviation in f can be related to the deviation in x using
calculus:
 df 
δf =  δx
 dx 
Thus, taking the square and the average:
2
 df 
δf 2
=   δx 2
 dx 
and using the definition of σ, we get:
df
σf = σx
dx
Examples:
a) f = √x
df 1
=
dx 2 x

σx σf σx
σf = , or =
2 x f 2x
b) f = cosθ
df
= − sin θ
dθ
σf
σ f = sin θ σ θ , or = tan θ σ θ
f
Note: in this situation, σθ must be in radians.

10 University of North Carolina

 Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

In the case where f depends on two or more variables, the derivation above can be repeated with
minor modification. For two variables, f(x, y), we have:
 ∂f   ∂f 
δf =  δx +  δy
 ∂x   ∂y 
∂f
The partial derivative means differentiating f with respect to x holding the other variables fixed.
∂x
Taking the square and the average, we get the law of propagation of uncertainty:

2
 ∂f   ∂f   ∂f  ∂f 
2

(δf ) =   (δx) 2 +   (δy ) 2 + 2  δxδy

2

 ∂x   ∂y   ∂x  ∂y  (4)

If the measurements of x and y are uncorrelated, then δxδy = 0 , and using the definition of σ, we get:
2
 ∂f   ∂f 
2

σ f =   σ x2 +   σ y2
 ∂x   ∂y 
Examples:
a) f = x + y
∂f ∂f
= 1, =1
∂x ∂y

∴σ f = σ x2 + σ y2

When adding (or subtracting), the absolute uncertainty of the sum (or
difference) is the rss of the individual absolute uncertainties. Adding or
subtracting a constant does not change the absolute uncertainty of the value.
b) f = xy
∂f ∂f
= y, =x
∂x ∂y

∴σ f = y 2σ x2 + x 2σ y2

Dividing the above equation by f = xy, we get:

σf σ  σ y 
2 2

=  x  +  

f  x   y 

Department of Physics and Astronomy 11

Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

c) f = x / y
∂f 1 ∂f x
= , =− 2
∂x y ∂y y
2 2
1  x  2
∴σ f =   σ x2 +  2  σ y
 y y 
Dividing the above equation by f = x / y, we get:

σf σ  σ y 
2 2

=  x  +  

f  x   y 
When multiplying (or dividing), the relative uncertainty of the product
(quotient) is the rss of the individual relative uncertainties. Multiplying or
dividing by a constant does not change the relative uncertainty of the value.
Note that the relative uncertainty in f, as shown in (b) and (c) above, has the same form for
multiplication and division: the relative uncertainty in a product or quotient is the square root of the
sum of the squares of the relative uncertainty of each individual term, as long as the terms are not
correlated.
Example: Find uncertainty in v, where v = at with a = 9.8 ± 0.1 m/s 2 , t = 1.2 ± 0.1 s

σv σ  σ 
2 2 2 2
 0.1   0.1 
=  a  + t  =   +  = (0.010)2 + (0.029)2 = 0.031 or 3.1%
v  a   t   9.8   3.4 
Notice that since the relative uncertainty in t (2.9%) is significantly greater than the relative
uncertainty for a (1.0%), the relative uncertainty in v is essentially the same as for t (about 3%).
Graphically, this is like the Pythagorean theorem:
3.1%
The total uncertainty is the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle 1.0%
with legs the length of each uncertainty component. 2.9%

Timesaving approximation: “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.”

If one of the uncertainty terms is more than 3 times greater than the other terms,
the root-squares formula can be skipped, and the combined uncertainty is
simply the largest uncertainty. This shortcut can save a lot of time without losing
any accuracy in the estimate of the overall uncertainty.

12 University of North Carolina

 Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

The Upper-Lower Bound Method of Uncertainty Propagation

An alternative, and sometimes simpler procedure, to the tedious propagation of uncertainty law
is the upper-lower bound method of uncertainty propagation. This alternative method does not
yield a standard uncertainty estimate (with a 68% confidence interval), but it does give a reasonable
estimate of the uncertainty for practically any situation. The basic idea of this method is to use the
uncertainty ranges of each variable to calculate the maximum and minimum values of the function.
You can also think of this procedure as examining the best and worst case scenarios. For example, if
you took an angle measurement: θ = 25° ± 1° and you needed to find f = cosθ, then:
fmax = cos(26°) = 0.8988
fmin = cos(24°) = 0.9135
∴ f ≈ 0.906 ± 0.007
Note that even though θ was only measured to 2 significant figures, f is known to 3 figures. By using
the propagation of uncertainty law: σf = |sinθ|σθ = (0.423)(π/180) = 0.0023

The uncertainty estimate from the upper-lower bound method is generally

larger than the standard uncertainty estimate found from the propagation of
uncertainty law.

The upper-lower bound method is especially useful when the functional relationship is not clear
or is incomplete. One practical application is forecasting the expected range in an expense budget. In
this case, some expenses may be fixed, while others may be uncertain, and the range of these
uncertain terms could be used to predict the upper and lower bounds on the total expense.

Significant Figures
The number of significant figures in a value can be defined as all the digits between and
including the first non-zero digit from the left, through the last digit. For instance, 0.44 has two
significant figures, and the number 66.770 has 5 significant figures. Zeroes are significant except
when used to locate the decimal point, as in the number 0.00030, which has 2 significant figures.
Zeroes may or may not be significant for numbers like 1200, where it is not clear whether two, three,
or four significant figures are indicated. To avoid this ambiguity, such numbers should be expressed
in scientific notation to (e.g. 1.2 x 103 clearly indicates two significant figures).
When using a calculator, the display will often show many digits, only some of which are
meaningful (significant in a different sense). For example, if you want to estimate the area of a
circular playing field, you might pace off the radius to be 9 meters and use the formula area = πr2.
When you compute this area, the calculator might report a value of 254.4690049 m2. It would be
extremely misleading to report this number as the area of the field, because it would suggest that you
know the area to an absurd degree of precision - to within a fraction of a square millimeter! Since the
radius is only known to one significant figure, the final answer should also contain only one
significant figure. A more truthful answer would be to report the area as 300 m2; however, this

Department of Physics and Astronomy 13

Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

format is somewhat misleading, since it could be interpreted to have three significant figures because
of the zeroes. The better way to report the number would be to use scientific notation: 3 × 102 m2.
From this example, we can see that the number of significant figures reported for a value implies
a certain degree of precision. In fact, the number of significant figures suggests a rough estimate of
the relative uncertainty:

The number of significant figures implies an approximate relative uncertainty

1 significant figure suggests a relative uncertainty of about 10% to 100%
2 significant figures suggest a relative uncertainty of about 1% to 10%
3 significant figures suggest a relative uncertainty of about 0.1% to 1%

To understand this connection more clearly, consider a value with 2 significant figures, like 99,
which suggests an uncertainty of ±1, or a relative uncertainty of ±1%. (Actually some people might
argue that the implied uncertainty in 99 is ±0.5 since the range of values that would round to 99 are
98.5 to 99.4. But since the uncertainty here is only a rough estimate, there is not much point arguing
about the factor of two.) The smallest 2-significant figure number, 10, also suggests an uncertainty of
±1, which in this case is a relative uncertainty of ±10%. The ranges for other numbers of significant
figures can be reasoned in a similar manner.
Use of Significant Figures for Simple Propagation of Uncertainty
By following a few simple rules, significant figures can be used to find the appropriate precision
for a calculated result for the four most basic math functions, all without the use of complicated
formulas for propagating uncertainties.

For multiplication and division, the number of significant figures that are
reliably known in a product or quotient is the same as the smallest number of
significant figures in any of the original numbers.

Example: 6.6 (2 significant figures)

x 7328.7 (5 significant figures)
48369.42 = 48 x 103 (2 significant figures)

For addition and subtraction, the result should be rounded off to the last
decimal place reported for the least precise number.

Examples: 223.64 5560.5

+54 + 0.008
278 5560.5

14 University of North Carolina

 Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

If a calculated number is to be used in further calculations, it is good practice to keep one extra
digit to reduce rounding errors that may accumulate. Then the final answer should be rounded
according to the above guidelines.
Uncertainty and Significant Figures
For the same reason that it is dishonest to report a result with more significant figures than are
reliably known, the uncertainty value should also not be reported with excessive precision.
For example, if we measure the density of copper, it would be unreasonable to report a result
like:
measured density = 8.93 ± 0.4753 g/cm3 WRONG!
The uncertainty in the measurement cannot be known to that precision. In most experimental
work, the confidence in the uncertainty estimate is not much better than about ±50% because of all
the various sources of error, none of which can be known exactly. Therefore, to be consistent with
this large uncertainty in the uncertainty (!) the uncertainty value should be stated to only one
significant figure (or perhaps 2 sig. figs. if the first digit is a 1).

Experimental uncertainties should be rounded to one, or at most two, significant

figures.

To help give a sense of the amount of confidence that can be placed in the standard deviation, the
following table indicates the relative uncertainty associated with the standard deviation for various
sample sizes. Note that in order for an uncertainty value to be reported to 3 significant figures, more
than 10,000 readings would be required to justify this degree of precision!
Relative Sig.Figs. Implied
N Uncert.* Valid Uncertainty
2 71% 1 ± 10% to
3 50% 1 ± 10% to
4 41% 1 ± 10% to
5 35% 1 ± 10% to
10 24% 1 ± 10% to
20 16% 1 ± 10% to
30 13% 1 ± 10% to
50 10% 2 ± 1% to
10 7% 2 ± 1% to
10 0.7% 3 ± 0.1% to

σσ 1
*The relative uncertainty is given by the approximate formula: =
σ 2( N − 1)

When an explicit uncertainty estimate is made, the uncertainty term indicates how many
significant figures should be reported in the measured value (not the other way around!). For
example, the uncertainty in the density measurement above is about 0.5 g/cm3, so this tells us that the

Department of Physics and Astronomy 15

Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

digit in the tenths place is uncertain, and should be the last one reported. The other digits in the
hundredths place and beyond are insignificant, and should not be reported:
measured density = 8.9 ± 0.5 g/cm3 RIGHT!

An experimental value should be rounded to an appropriate number of

significant figures consistent with its uncertainty. This generally means that the
last significant figure in any reported measurement should be in the same
decimal place as the uncertainty.

In most instances, this practice of rounding an experimental result to be consistent with the
uncertainty estimate gives the same number of significant figures as the rules discussed earlier for
simple propagation of uncertainties for adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing.
Caution: When conducting an experiment, it is important to keep in mind that precision is
expensive (both in terms of time and material resources). Do not waste your time trying to obtain a
precise result when only a rough estimate is required. The cost increases exponentially with the
amount of precision required, so the potential benefit of this precision must be weighed against the
extra cost.

Combining and Reporting Uncertainties

In 1993, the International Standards Organization (ISO) published the first official worldwide
Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Before this time, uncertainty estimates were
evaluated and reported according to different conventions depending on the context of the
measurement or the scientific discipline. Here are a few key points from this 100-page guide, which
can be found in modified form on the NIST website (see References).
When reporting a measurement, the measured value should be reported along with an estimate of
the total combined standard uncertainty of the value. The total uncertainty is found by combining
the uncertainty components based on the two types of uncertainty analysis:
Type A evaluation of standard uncertainty – method of evaluation of uncertainty by the
statistical analysis of a series of observations. This method primarily includes random errors.
Type B evaluation of standard uncertainty – method of evaluation of uncertainty by means
other than the statistical analysis of series of observations. This method includes systematic errors
and any other uncertainty factors that the experimenter believes are important.
The individual uncertainty components should be combined using the law of propagation of
uncertainties, commonly called the “root-sum-of-squares” or “RSS” method. When this is done, the
combined standard uncertainty should be equivalent to the standard deviation of the result, making
this uncertainty value correspond with a 68% confidence interval. If a wider confidence interval is
desired, the uncertainty can be multiplied by a coverage factor (usually k = 2 or 3) to provide an
uncertainty range that is believed to include the true value with a confidence of 95% or 99.7%
respectively. If a coverage factor is used, there should be a clear explanation of its meaning so there
is no confusion for readers interpreting the significance of the uncertainty value.
You should be aware that the ± uncertainty notation might be used to indicate different
confidence intervals, depending on the scientific discipline or context. For example, a public opinion

16 University of North Carolina

 Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

poll may report that the results have a margin of error of ±3%, which means that readers can be
95% confident (not 68% confident) that the reported results are accurate within 3 percentage points.
In physics, the same average result would be reported with an uncertainty of ±1.5% to indicate the
68% confidence interval.

Conclusion: “When do measurements agree with each other?”

We now have the resources to answer the fundamental scientific question that was asked at the
beginning of this error analysis discussion: “Does my result agree with a theoretical prediction or
results from other experiments?”
Generally speaking, a measured result agrees with a theoretical prediction if the prediction lies
within the range of experimental uncertainty. Similarly, if two measured values have standard
uncertainty ranges that overlap, then the measurements are said to be consistent (they agree). If the
uncertainty ranges do not overlap, then the measurements are said to be discrepant (they do not
agree). However, you should recognize that these overlap criteria can give two opposite answers
depending on the evaluation and confidence level of the uncertainty. It would be unethical to
arbitrarily inflate the uncertainty range just to make a measurement agree with an expected value. A
better procedure would be to discuss the size of the difference between the measured and expected
values within the context of the uncertainty, and try to discover the source of the discrepancy if the
difference is truly significant. To examine your own data, try out the Measurement Comparison
tool available on the lab website: http://www.physics.unc.edu/labs

A = 1.2 ± 0.4
Measurements and their uncertainties
B = 1.8 ± 0.4
A
B These measurements agree within their
uncertainties, despite the fact that the percent
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 difference between their central values is 40%.

These measurements do not agree since their Measurements and their uncertainties
uncertainties do not overlap. Further investigation
would be needed to determine the cause for the A
B
discrepancy. Perhaps the uncertainties were
underestimated, there was a systematic error that
was not detected, or the difference may be real! 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Department of Physics and Astronomy 17

Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis

References:
Taylor, John. An Introduction to Error Analysis, 2nd. ed. University Science Books: Sausalito, 1997.
Baird, D.C. Experimentation: An Introduction to Measurement Theory and Experiment Design, 3rd.
ed. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, 1995.
Lichten, William. Data and Error Analysis., 2nd. ed. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999.
Bevington, Phillip and Robinson, D. Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences,
2nd. ed. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1991.
ISO. Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the International Committee on Weights and Measures (CIPM):
Switzerland, 1993.
NIST. Essentials of Expressing Measurement Uncertainty. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Uncertainty/

18 University of North Carolina