Quantifying Uncertainty in Materials Measurement: From Foundational Principles to Advanced Applications in Research and Development

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive framework for understanding and applying uncertainty quantification (UQ) in materials measurement, tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals. It begins by establishing the core concepts of measurement uncertainty, distinguishing between random and systematic errors, and introducing the standard GUM framework. The content then progresses to explore both established and cutting-edge methodological approaches, including Type A/B evaluation and advanced machine learning techniques like Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs). A practical troubleshooting section addresses the identification and mitigation of key uncertainty sources, such as equipment, operator, and environmental factors, while guiding readers on constructing an uncertainty budget. Finally, the article offers a critical comparison of UQ methods—from Gaussian Process Regression to physics-informed models—evaluating their performance through metrics like coverage and interval width. By synthesizing foundational knowledge with modern applications, this guide aims to enhance the reliability, traceability, and decision-making confidence in materials research and pharmaceutical development.

What is Measurement Uncertainty? Core Concepts and the GUM Framework

In the science of metrology, precise communication and conceptual clarity are not merely beneficial—they are fundamental to the integrity of data. The terms "measurand" and "uncertainty" are central to this discourse, representing a sophisticated framework that moves beyond simplistic notions of error. A measurand is formally defined as the specific quantity intended to be measured [1]. This definition carries crucial nuance: the measurand exists in the domain of theory, while measurement results exist in the domain of observable reality [2]. This distinction is not philosophical pedantry but has practical consequences. In materials science and drug development, where conclusions drawn from measurements inform critical decisions, understanding exactly what is being measured—and the context in which it is measured—is essential for interpreting results correctly. The specification of a measurand is inseparable from its measurement method, as the value of a measurand is always understood within the context of a particular measurement procedure [1].

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) provides the complementary framework for characterizing the quality of these measurements. UQ is defined as the science of characterizing what is known and not known in a given analysis, defining the realm of variation in analytical responses given that input parameters may not be well characterized [3]. This approach represents a fundamental shift beyond simple error analysis, which typically focuses on discrepancies from a "true value." Instead, UQ systematically assesses all possible sources of doubt in both measurement and modeling processes, providing a structured approach to risk assessment and decision-making in research and development.

Defining the Core Concepts

The Measurand: What Is Actually Being Measured?

The concept of the measurand requires careful consideration in materials research. A measurand is a physical quantity or health condition under measurement [1]. In biomedical contexts, this could include biopotentials from the body surface (ECG, EEG), blood pressure, flow, medical images, body temperature, or evoked potentials in response to external stimulation [1]. The critical insight is that a measurand is not merely a label but requires precise definitional boundaries. For instance, in nanoparticle analysis using Single Particle-ICP-MS, multiple measurands may exist for the same analyte, including the number concentration of particles, mass of element per particle, or the equivalent spherical diameter when additional assumptions about shape and composition are applied [1].

Table: Classification of Measurands in Biomedical and Materials Science

Category	Definition	Examples
Internal Measurands	Quantities measured within the body	Blood pressure, intracranial pressure
Body Surface Measurands	Biopotentials measured at the body surface	ECG, EMG, EOG, EEG signals
Peripheral Measurands	External manifestations of physiological processes	Infrared radiation from body surfaces
Offline Measurands	Quantities requiring sample extraction	Tissue histology, blood analysis, biopsy results
Nanoparticle Measurands	Properties of particulate materials	Number concentration, element mass per particle, equivalent spherical diameter

A properly defined measurand must be specified with sufficient completeness that it is unaffected by variations in the measurement process that should not influence the measurement result. In synthetic instrumentation systems, this means precisely expressing the measurement through stimulus-response measurement maps, defining abscissas, ordinates, sampling strategies, calibration approaches, and post-processing algorithms [1]. The definition of the measurand thereby becomes synonymous with the complete specification of how the measurement is performed.

Measurement Uncertainty: Beyond Simple Error

Where error represents the difference between a measured value and a "true value," uncertainty quantifies the doubt about the measurement result. The internationally accepted definition describes uncertainty of measurement as "an estimate characterizing the range of values within which the true value of a measurand lies" [1]. This definition acknowledges that the concept of a single "true value" is often problematic in practical measurement scenarios.

Uncertainty arises from multiple potential sources in materials measurement [1]:

• Incomplete definition of the measurand: When the quantity intended to be measured is not defined with sufficient completeness
• Imperfect realization of the measurand: When the measurement does not perfectly correspond to the definition
• Inadequate sampling: When the sample measured may not represent the defined measurand
• Environmental conditions: Imperfect knowledge or control of environmental effects on the measurement
• Instrument resolution: Finite instrument resolution or discrimination threshold
• Reference values: Inexact values of measurement standards and reference materials
• Approximations: Assumptions incorporated in the measurement method and procedure
• Operator effects: Personal bias in reading analogue instruments

A critical distinction in modern uncertainty quantification separates aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty [4]. Aleatoric uncertainty arises from inherent randomness in processes (e.g., similarities in experimental data from the same experiment), while epistemic uncertainty relates to limitations in knowledge due to insufficient data or imperfect models [4]. This distinction is particularly valuable in materials science, where it helps researchers determine whether reducing uncertainty requires more sophisticated models (addressing epistemic uncertainty) or simply more data collection (addressing aleatoric uncertainty).

Uncertainty Quantification Framework

Methodologies for Uncertainty Quantification

In materials science and engineering, several computational approaches have emerged for robust uncertainty quantification. Bayesian methods have gained particular prominence for their ability to provide probabilistic frameworks that capture uncertainties in data-driven models [4]. The table below compares major UQ methodologies applied in materials research:

Table: Comparison of Uncertainty Quantification Methods in Materials Science

Method	Key Features	Strengths	Limitations	Suitable Applications
Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs)	Probabilistic framework capturing uncertainties through posterior distribution of network parameters [4]	High flexibility in model structure; reliable UQ; accommodates physics-informed priors [4]	Computationally intensive; complex implementation	Creep rupture life prediction [4], composite materials property prediction
Gaussian Process Regression (GPR)	Non-parametric Bayesian approach using continuous sample paths [4]	Excellent predictive accuracy; inherent uncertainty estimates; well-established theory	Less suitable for material properties with significant microstructural variations [4]	Conventional material property prediction with smooth variations
Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)	Sampling-based approximation of posterior parameter distributions [4]	More reliable UQ compared to variational inference; asymptotically exact	Computationally expensive for high-dimensional problems	Most promising for creep life prediction when accuracy is prioritized [4]
Deep Ensembles	Multiple neural networks with different initializations trained on same data [4]	Simple implementation; good uncertainty estimates	Computationally expensive; may overestimate uncertainty	Alternative to BNNs when implementation simplicity is valued
Quantile Regression (QR)	Estimates conditional quantiles of response variable [4]	No distributional assumptions; robust to outliers	Lacks closed-form parameter estimation; prone to overestimating uncertainty [4]	Applications requiring quantile estimates rather than full distribution

Implementing Physics-Informed Bayesian Approaches

Physics-informed Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs) represent a cutting-edge approach for UQ in materials property prediction. These networks integrate knowledge from governing physical laws to guide models toward physically consistent predictions [4]. The implementation involves several critical steps:

First, physics-informed features are incorporated based on governing creep laws or other relevant physical principles to estimate uncertainties in model predictions [4]. For creep rupture life prediction, this might include incorporating temperature-stress relationships derived from fundamental materials science principles.

Second, the BNN architecture is designed with stochastic parameters, typically implemented through either Variational Inference (VI) or Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approximation of the posterior distribution of network parameters [4]. Research indicates that MCMC-based BNNs generally provide more reliable results compared to those based on variational inference approximation [4].

The training process then proceeds with these physics-informed constraints, allowing the model to simultaneously learn from experimental data while respecting fundamental physical laws. This approach has demonstrated competitive or superior performance compared to conventional UQ methods like Gaussian Process Regression in predicting properties such as creep rupture life of steel alloys [4].

Experimental Protocols for UQ in Materials Research

Case Study: Creep Rupture Life Prediction

The experimental protocol for UQ in creep rupture life prediction exemplifies rigorous methodology in materials research. The following workflow outlines the comprehensive approach:

Dataset Composition and Feature Selection: The experimental validation utilizes three distinct creep datasets covering multiple material systems [4]:

• Stainless Steel 316 alloys: 617 test samples with 20 features including material composition (C, Si, Mn, P, S, Ni, Cr, Mo, Cu, Ti, Al, B, N, Nb, Ta), material group, testing conditions (applied stress, temperature), test measurements (elongation percentage, area reduction percentage), and recorded creep rupture life in hours.
• Nickel-based superalloys: 153 test samples with 15 features including material composition (Ni, Al, Co, Cr, Mo, Re, Ru, Ta, W, Ti, Nb, T), testing conditions, and creep rupture life.
• Titanium alloys: 177 test samples with 24 features including material composition (Ti, Al, V, Fe, C, H, O, Sn, Mb, Mo, Zr, Si, B, Cr), testing conditions, finishing conditions (solution treated temperature/time, annealing temperature/time), test measurements (steady-state strain rate, strain to rupture), and creep rupture life.

Physics-Informed Feature Engineering: The protocol incorporates physics-informed features based on governing creep laws, which guide the BNNs toward physically consistent predictions [4]. This integration of domain knowledge leverages the models' capacity for improved creep life prediction by ensuring that predictions adhere to fundamental physical principles.

Model Training and Validation: The BNNs are implemented using both Variational Inference and Markov Chain Monte Carlo approximations, with experimental results demonstrating the superiority of MCMC-based approaches for this application [4]. The models are validated against experimental data using both point prediction metrics (R², RMSE, MAE, Pearson Correlation Coefficient) and uncertainty quality metrics (coverage, mean interval width).

Active Learning Integration for Efficient Experimentation

Uncertainty quantification frameworks can be strategically employed in active learning scenarios to accelerate materials discovery and characterization. The active learning process leverages uncertainty estimates to prioritize the most informative experiments:

This approach combines variance reduction techniques with k-means clustering to select the most uncertain and diverse data points for training, introducing an optimal trade-off between exploration and exploitation of the solution space [4]. Research demonstrates that physics-informed BNNs have significant potential to accelerate model training in active learning for material property prediction, potentially reducing experimental costs and time requirements while maintaining robust predictive accuracy.

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Methods and Reagents

Table: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Materials Measurement

Reagent/Method	Function in Measurement Process	Application Context
Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs)	Probabilistic framework for predicting material properties with inherent uncertainty quantification [4]	Creep life prediction, composite materials property estimation
Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)	Sampling method for approximating posterior distributions in Bayesian inference [4]	Parameter estimation for complex materials models
Gaussian Process Regression	Non-parametric Bayesian approach for spatial and temporal data modeling [4]	Conventional material property prediction with smooth variations
Physics-Informed Features	Incorporation of domain knowledge from governing physical laws to constrain predictions [4]	Ensuring physically consistent predictions in creep rupture and other properties
Active Learning Framework	Strategic selection of most informative experiments based on uncertainty estimates [4]	Accelerated materials discovery and characterization
Uncertainty Decomposition	Separation of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty sources [4]	Targeted strategy development for uncertainty reduction
Contrast Metrics	Quantitative measures for evaluating predictive intervals and uncertainty quality [4]	Validation of uncertainty quantification reliability

The toolkit for advanced uncertainty quantification extends beyond traditional laboratory reagents to encompass computational methods and metrics. For experimental validation of UQ in materials research, three creep test datasets serve as essential reference materials: Stainless Steel 316 alloys (617 samples), Nickel-based superalloys (153 samples), and Titanium alloys (177 samples) [4]. These datasets provide benchmark cases for evaluating UQ method performance across different material systems and testing conditions.

Evaluation metrics form another critical component of the researcher's toolkit. For point predictions, standard metrics include the coefficient of determination (R²), root-mean-squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) [4]. For uncertainty quality assessment, coverage and mean interval width provide insights into the calibration and precision of predictive intervals [4]. These metrics enable researchers to quantitatively compare different UQ methods and select the most appropriate approach for their specific materials characterization challenge.

In materials measurements research, all experimental data contains inherent uncertainties that must be rigorously characterized to ensure research validity. The distinction between systematic error (bias) and random error (imprecision) forms the foundational framework for understanding measurement uncertainty in scientific research [5] [6]. For drug development professionals and materials scientists, proper identification, quantification, and control of these error types directly impacts the reliability of research conclusions and the success of development pipelines.

Systematic error refers to consistent, reproducible inaccuracies that skew measurements in a specific direction, while random error constitutes unpredictable statistical fluctuations that create scatter in repeated measurements [5] [7]. The sophisticated management of these errors is particularly crucial in materials characterization, where properties such as tensile strength, thermal conductivity, and surface morphology measurements underpin critical research conclusions and product development decisions.

Theoretical Foundations: Defining Error Types and Characteristics

Systematic Error (Bias)

Systematic error represents a consistent or proportional deviation between observed values and the true value of what is being measured [5]. These errors reproduce consistently across measurements and typically stem from identifiable causes such as instrument calibration issues, methodological flaws, or environmental factors [6] [7]. Unlike random errors, systematic errors cannot be reduced by simply repeating measurements, as they affect all measurements in the same way and direction [8].

Table 1: Characteristics and Examples of Systematic Errors

Characteristic	Description	Example in Materials Research
Direction	Consistently skews measurements in one direction	A miscalibrated analytical balance always reading 0.5 mg high [5]
Consistency	Reproducible across measurements	Microscope with incorrect stage calibration consistently distorting dimensional measurements [7]
Source	Identifiable causes in instrumentation, method, or environment	Temperature-sensitive electronic components in testing equipment causing drift [9]
Elimination	Not reducible through repetition; requires correction	Using reference standards to establish correction factors [7]

Systematic errors manifest in several distinct forms. Offset errors (also called additive errors or zero-setting errors) occur when a measurement instrument isn't properly calibrated to a correct zero point, affecting all measurements by a fixed amount [5] [9]. Scale factor errors (multiplier errors) occur when measurements consistently differ from the true value proportionally, such as by a consistent percentage [5] [9]. In materials testing, this might appear as a load cell consistently overreporting stress by 5% across its measurement range.

Random Error (Imprecision)

Random error comprises unpredictable, statistical fluctuations in measured data that vary in both magnitude and direction between measurements [5] [10]. These errors arise from uncontrollable environmental factors, instrumental sensitivity limits, or subtle variations in experimental execution [8] [10]. Random error primarily affects measurement precision—the degree of reproducibility and consistency in measurements—rather than the average accuracy [5] [8].

Table 2: Characteristics and Examples of Random Errors

Characteristic	Description	Example in Materials Research
Direction	Varies unpredictably (positive and negative)	Slight variations in sample positioning in instrument fixtures [10]
Consistency	Irregular, non-reproducible fluctuations	Electronic noise in detector circuits during spectroscopic analysis [9] [10]
Source	Uncontrollable environmental or instrumental factors	Ambient temperature fluctuations affecting sensitive instrumentation [5]
Reduction	Can be minimized through averaging and increased sample size	Repeating tensile tests and averaging results [5] [10]

Common sources of random error in materials research include natural variations in experimental contexts (e.g., minor temperature fluctuations in a laboratory), imprecise measurement instruments with limited resolution [5], and observer interpretation variations when reading analog instruments or interpreting complex data patterns [5] [8].

Accuracy vs. Precision: The Visual Distinction

The relationship between systematic and random errors is best understood through the framework of accuracy and precision. Accuracy describes how close a measurement is to the true value and is primarily affected by systematic error. Precision refers to how reproducible repeated measurements are and is primarily affected by random error [5] [8].

Diagram 1: Accuracy vs. Precision Relationships. This visualization shows how systematic and random errors combine to affect measurement outcomes. The bullseye represents the true value, while dots represent individual measurements.

Quantitative Analysis: Error Magnitudes and Impacts in Research Data

Comparative Error Significance in Research Outcomes

In scientific research, systematic errors generally pose a more significant threat to validity than random errors [5]. With random error, multiple measurements tend to cluster around the true value, and when collecting data from large samples, errors in different directions often cancel each other out [5]. Systematic errors, however, consistently skew data away from true values, potentially leading to false conclusions about relationships between variables [5].

The mathematical behavior of these errors differs substantially. Random errors in individual measurements, when averaged over many observations, tend toward a mean of zero, following the pattern:

[ \lim{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{\text{random}, i} = 0 ]

where ( \epsilon_{\text{random}, i} ) represents the random error in the i-th measurement [6]. In contrast, systematic error does not diminish with repeated measurements:

[ \frac{1}{n} \sum{i=1}^{n} \epsilon{\text{systematic}, i} = \epsilon_{\text{systematic}} \neq 0 ]

Error Rates in Data Processing Methods

Empirical studies of data quality in clinical research provide quantitative insights into error rates across different data processing methods, with implications for materials research data management:

Table 3: Error Rates in Data Processing Methods (Clinical Research Data)

Data Processing Method	Pooled Error Rate	95% Confidence Interval	Implications for Materials Research
Medical Record Abstraction (MRA)	6.57%	(5.51%, 7.72%)	Manual data transcription introduces significant error potential
Optical Scanning	0.74%	(0.21%, 1.60%)	Automated methods reduce but don't eliminate errors
Single-Data Entry	0.29%	(0.24%, 0.35%)	Single-person data handling maintains moderate error rates
Double-Data Entry	0.14%	(0.08%, 0.20%)	Independent verification significantly reduces errors [11]

These quantitative findings underscore the importance of systematic data handling protocols in materials research, where measurement precision is often critical. The nearly 50-fold difference in error rates between the least and most reliable methods highlights how procedural choices significantly impact data quality [11].

Methodologies for Error Identification and Reduction

Experimental Protocols for Systematic Error Control

Protocol 1: Instrument Calibration and Standardization

Purpose: To identify and correct systematic errors introduced by measurement instrumentation [7].

Procedure:

• Select certified reference materials (CRMs) with known property values traceable to national or international standards
• Conduct measurements on CRMs using identical procedures to those used for test samples
• Compare measured values to certified values across the operational range of the instrument
• Develop correction factors or calibration curves to adjust future measurements
• Document calibration uncertainty and incorporate into overall uncertainty budget [7]

Frequency: Regular calibration intervals based on instrument stability, usage frequency, and criticality of measurements. Typically performed at minimum annually or when results begin to show consistent directional drift.

Protocol 2: Method Comparison Studies

Purpose: To detect systematic methodological errors by comparing results from different measurement techniques [7].

Procedure:

• Select well-characterized test materials representing the typical sample matrix
• Analyze identical samples using multiple measurement techniques (e.g., SEM, AFM, and optical profilometry for surface topography)
• Apply appropriate statistical tests (t-tests, F-tests, ANOVA) to identify significant differences between methods
• Investigate sources of methodological discrepancies through controlled experiments
• Establish correction factors or preference hierarchies for different sample types

Experimental Protocols for Random Error Quantification

Protocol 3: Repeatability and Reproducibility Assessment

Purpose: To quantify random error components through structured repeated measurements [5] [6].

Procedure:

• Design a balanced experiment with multiple factors: operator, instrument, day, and sample preparation batch
• Perform minimum of 10 repetitions for each combination of factors
• Calculate variance components for each factor using appropriate statistical models (e.g., nested ANOVA)
• Determine total measurement uncertainty from variance components
• Establish control limits for ongoing quality control based on reproducibility data

Statistical Analysis: Calculate within-run precision (repeatability) and between-run precision (reproducibility) using:

[ s{\text{total}} = \sqrt{s{\text{repeatability}}^2 + s_{\text{reproducibility}}^2} ]

where ( s ) represents standard deviation of the respective components.

Protocol 4: Statistical Process Control for Ongoing Monitoring

Purpose: To monitor measurement processes for changes in random error patterns over time.

Procedure:

• Establish control measurements using stable reference materials
• Incorporate control samples in each analytical run at predetermined frequency
• Plot results on control charts with limits set at ±2s (warning) and ±3s (action)
• Implement corrective action procedures when control measurements exceed established limits
• Periodically review and update control limits based on accumulated data

Comprehensive Error Reduction Workflow

The interaction between systematic and random error reduction strategies can be visualized as an integrated workflow:

Diagram 2: Comprehensive Error Reduction Workflow. This diagram illustrates the integrated approach to addressing both systematic and random errors throughout the measurement process.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Materials and Methods for Error Management

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for Error Management in Materials Measurement

Tool/Reagent	Function in Error Management	Application Examples
Certified Reference Materials (CRMs)	Quantify and correct systematic errors through calibration	Instrument calibration, method validation, quality control
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)	Minimize random errors from operator variability	Ensuring consistent sample preparation, measurement techniques
Statistical Software Packages	Quantify random errors, perform significance testing	Variance component analysis, control chart creation, uncertainty calculation
Environmental Monitoring Systems	Control random errors from laboratory conditions	Temperature, humidity, and vibration monitoring in sensitive areas
Calibration Standards	Identify and correct systematic instrument errors	Mass weights, dimensional standards, voltage references
Blank Samples	Detect systematic contamination or interference effects	Process blanks, reagent blanks, instrument blanks
Control Charts	Monitor both systematic shifts and random error changes	Ongoing verification of measurement process stability

The rigorous distinction between systematic and random errors provides more than just a theoretical framework—it offers practical guidance for enhancing research quality in materials measurement. By implementing systematic protocols for error identification, quantification, and reduction, researchers can significantly improve the reliability of their findings. The integration of regular calibration procedures, appropriate replication strategies, statistical monitoring, and comprehensive uncertainty analysis creates a robust foundation for producing trustworthy scientific data that advances the field of materials research and drug development.

Through conscious attention to both bias and imprecision, the materials research community can strengthen the validity of structural-property relationships, improve reproducibility across laboratories, and accelerate the development of novel materials with tailored characteristics for specific applications.

The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) establishes internationally standardized rules for evaluating and expressing measurement uncertainty across various accuracy levels and fields, from fundamental research to industrial production [12] [13]. Developed through international collaboration and published in 1993, the GUM provides a systematic framework that ensures measurement results are reliable, comparable, and traceable to national standards [12].

This standardized approach is vital in materials measurement research, where quantifying uncertainty is essential for validating results, ensuring product quality, and supporting scientific claims. The GUM's methodology allows researchers to move beyond simple point measurements and account for all significant uncertainty components affecting their measurements [14] [15].

Core Principles and Framework

Fundamental Concepts and Terminology

The GUM creates a consistent conceptual framework for measurement uncertainty, addressing the historical lack of standardized nomenclature in the field [15]. It defines measurement uncertainty as a parameter that characterizes the dispersion of values attributed to a measured quantity, recognizing that even repeated measurements with the same instrument will yield varying results due to multiple influencing factors [13].

This framework distinguishes between two types of uncertainty evaluation:

• Type A Evaluation: Uncertainty estimated using statistical analysis of repeated measurements
• Type B Evaluation: Uncertainty estimated using means other than statistical analysis of series of observations, such as manufacturer specifications, calibration certificates, or previous measurement data

Standardized Uncertainty Components

The GUM requires identification and quantification of all significant uncertainty sources. The table below outlines common uncertainty components in materials measurement research:

Table: Common Uncertainty Components in Materials Measurement

Uncertainty Component	Description	Typical Evaluation Method
Calibration Uncertainty	Uncertainty in reference standards or calibration process	Type B (from calibration certificates)
Environmental Factors	Effects of temperature, humidity, pressure variations	Type A (statistical) or Type B (model-based)
Measurement Repeatability	Variation under repeated measurement conditions	Type A (statistical analysis of repeats)
Instrument Resolution	Finite resolution of digital display or analog scale	Type B (based on instrument specifications)
Operator Bias	Systematic effects from different operators	Type A (through comparative measurements)
Material Heterogeneity	Non-uniformity in material properties or composition	Type A (multiple sampling measurements)

The GUM Uncertainty Framework Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the systematic workflow for uncertainty analysis according to GUM methodology:

Quantitative Methods and Calculations

Uncertainty Propagation Framework

The GUM provides mathematical tools for combining uncertainty components from various sources. The combined standard uncertainty ( u_c(y) ) for a measured quantity ( y ) is calculated using the root-sum-square method:

[ uc(y) = \sqrt{\sum{i=1}^N \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial xi}\right)^2 u^2(xi)} ]

where ( \frac{\partial f}{\partial xi} ) are sensitivity coefficients quantifying how the output estimate varies with changes in input estimates ( xi ), and ( u(x_i) ) are the standard uncertainties associated with each input quantity [16].

Experimental Example: Pendulum Gravity Measurement

To illustrate GUM methodology, consider estimating gravitational acceleration ( g ) using a simple pendulum, where ( g ) is derived from length ( L ) and period ( T ) measurements [16]:

[ \hat{g} = \frac{4\pi^2 L}{T^2} ]

The uncertainty analysis examines how biases in input quantities affect the derived value:

Table: Sensitivity Analysis for Pendulum Experiment

Measurement Parameter	Theorized Bias	Resulting Change in g	Fractional Change
Length (L)	-5 mm	-0.098 m/s²	-1.0%
Period (T)	+0.02 seconds	-0.068 m/s²	-0.7%
Initial Angle (θ)	-5 degrees	+0.006 m/s²	+0.06%

This sensitivity analysis reveals that length measurement bias has the most significant impact on the final result, guiding researchers to prioritize measurement precision for this parameter [16].

Uncertainty Budget Development

Creating a comprehensive uncertainty budget is essential for rigorous materials measurement research:

Table: Example Uncertainty Budget for Load Cell Calibration

Uncertainty Source	Value	Probability Distribution	Standard Uncertainty	Sensitivity Coefficient	Contribution
Calibration Standard	0.05%	Normal	0.025%	1.0	0.025%
Measurement Repeatability	0.1%	Normal	0.1%	1.0	0.1%
Temperature Effect	0.2%	Rectangular	0.115%	0.5	0.058%
Resolution	0.01%	Rectangular	0.0058%	1.0	0.0058%
Combined Standard Uncertainty					0.12%
Expanded Uncertainty (k=2)					0.24%

This systematic approach ensures all significant uncertainty components are properly quantified and combined [14].

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

Step-by-Step GUM Implementation Methodology

For researchers implementing GUM principles in materials measurement studies, the following detailed protocol ensures comprehensive uncertainty analysis:

• Define the Measurand: Precisely specify the parameter being measured and its units of measure [14]. For materials research, this could include Young's modulus, fracture toughness, thermal conductivity, or chemical composition percentage.

• Identify Uncertainty Sources: Document all components of the measurement process and accompanying sources of error [14]. Create a cause-and-effect diagram that maps how each source influences the final result.

• Quantify Uncertainty Components: For each identified source, write an expression for its uncertainty and determine its probability distribution (normal, rectangular, triangular, etc.) [14].

• Calculate Standard Uncertainties: Convert each uncertainty component to a standard uncertainty using appropriate divisors based on the probability distribution [14].

• Construct Uncertainty Budget: Develop a comprehensive budget listing all components, their distributions, standard uncertainties, sensitivity coefficients, and contributions to the combined uncertainty [14].

• Combine and Expand: Calculate the combined standard uncertainty using root-sum-square method, then multiply by a coverage factor (typically k=2 for 95% confidence) to obtain the expanded uncertainty [14].

Advanced Measurement Systems

Modern measurement systems, particularly optical and camera-based techniques, present unique uncertainty challenges that extend beyond traditional point measurements. These systems require specialized consideration of uncertainties that are not linearly related to readings, including spatial calibration uncertainties, pixel-locking effects in digital image correlation, and variations in lighting conditions that affect measurement accuracy [15].

Essential Research Tools and Reagents

Implementation of GUM principles requires specific tools and analytical resources. The following table details key solutions for uncertainty analysis in materials measurement research:

Table: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Measurement Uncertainty Analysis

Tool/Resource	Function in Uncertainty Analysis	Application Context
GUM Document (JCGM 100)	Primary reference for uncertainty evaluation methodology	All measurement applications requiring standardized uncertainty analysis
Monte Carlo Supplement (JCGM 101)	Enables propagation of distributions using computational methods	Complex measurement models where analytical methods are insufficient
Statistical Analysis Software	Facilitates Type A uncertainty evaluation through data analysis	Processing repeated measurement data to quantify random effects
Calibrated Reference Materials	Provides traceable standards for method validation	Establishing measurement accuracy and identifying systematic errors
Urban Institute R Package (urbnthemes)	Open-source tool for creating standardized uncertainty visualizations	Preparing publication-quality charts with consistent formatting [17]
NIST Technical Note 1297	Implementation guidelines for GUM approach	Adapting international standards to specific laboratory contexts [12]

GUM in Conformity Assessment and Regulatory Contexts

The pharmaceutical and biomedical fields increasingly require rigorous uncertainty analysis for regulatory compliance and method validation. GUM principles provide the framework for establishing measurement reliability in drug development, where understanding uncertainty is critical for dosage determination, purity analysis, and clinical measurements [12].

The GUM has been adopted by numerous accreditation bodies including A2LA (American Association for Laboratory Accreditation), NAVLAP (National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program), and EA (European Cooperation for Accreditation), making compliance with its principles essential for international recognition of testing and calibration results [12].

The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement provides materials researchers with a standardized, systematic framework for quantifying and expressing measurement reliability. By implementing GUM methodologies through uncertainty budgets, sensitivity analyses, and comprehensive documentation, scientists can enhance the credibility and comparability of their research findings across international boundaries. The ongoing development of supplementary guides addresses emerging measurement challenges, ensuring the GUM framework remains relevant for advanced materials characterization techniques.

Uncertainty analysis is the process of identifying limitations in scientific knowledge and evaluating their implications for scientific conclusions. It is a non-negative parameter characterising the dispersion of values being attributed to a measurand, based on the information used [18]. This definition distinguishes uncertainty from 'error,' which is formally the difference between a measurement and its reference or true value [18]. In materials science research and drug development, understanding uncertainty is not merely a statistical exercise but a fundamental requirement for reliable decision-making. When comparing experimental results or ensuring regulatory compliance, properly characterized uncertainty provides the essential context for interpreting data and establishing confidence in findings.

The treatment of uncertainty varies significantly across scientific literature, ranging from simple calculations of standard deviation to fully characterized uncertainty trees rooted in fiducial reference measurements [18]. This variability poses particular challenges for materials researchers and drug development professionals who must often reconcile data from multiple sources with differing uncertainty reporting practices. Furthermore, regulatory bodies increasingly require explicit uncertainty analysis, as demonstrated by space agencies mandating per-pixel uncertainty estimates for all Essential Climate Variables they fund [18]. Similar expectations are emerging in pharmaceutical regulation, where uncertainty analysis provides reliable information for decision-making throughout the drug development lifecycle [19].

Fundamental Concepts and Definitions

Types of Uncertainty

Scientific uncertainty manifests in several distinct forms, each with different implications for data comparison and compliance:

• Aleatory Uncertainty: Also known as stochastic uncertainty, this arises from natural variability in the system being measured. In materials science, this might include inherent variations in material properties due to processing conditions or microstructural heterogeneities [20].

• Epistemic Uncertainty: This results from limited knowledge about the system and can theoretically be reduced through further research or improved measurements. Examples include uncertainty in model parameters or incomplete understanding of underlying physical mechanisms [20].

• Parameter Uncertainty: This specifically relates to uncertainty in the input parameters of models used for simulation or prediction. For instance, in modeling ceramic impact performance, parameter uncertainty propagates through both mechanism-based and phenomenological models [20].

Uncertainty can be represented in either parametric or nonparametric ways. Parametric representations assume errors follow a known probability distribution characterized by parameters, such as 'standard uncertainty' (represented after the ± sign), which indicates the standard deviation (σ) of a normal distribution [18]. Nonparametric representations are used when the probability distribution is complex, unknown, or non-symmetric, often expressed as confidence intervals specifying a range of values corresponding to certain probabilities [18].

Uncertainty Versus Variability

A crucial distinction in uncertainty analysis is that between uncertainty and variability. Variability refers to actual differences in attributed values due to heterogeneity, diversity, or temporal changes in the system being studied. In contrast, uncertainty reflects a lack of knowledge about the true value of a quantity [19]. This distinction is particularly important in materials science, where variability in material properties due to processing conditions [20] must be distinguished from uncertainty in measuring those properties. For drug development professionals, confusing these concepts can lead to inappropriate conclusions about drug efficacy or safety.

Methodologies for Uncertainty Analysis

Structured Framework for Uncertainty Analysis

A comprehensive uncertainty analysis follows a structured framework comprising several key elements [19]:

• Identifying uncertainties affecting the assessment in a structured way to minimize overlooking relevant uncertainties.

• Prioritizing uncertainties within the assessment to focus detailed analysis on the most important uncertainties.

• Dividing the uncertainty analysis into manageable parts when dealing with complex assessments.

• Ensuring questions or quantities of interest are well-defined such that the true answer or value could be determined, at least in principle.

• Characterizing uncertainty for parts of the analysis, which may be done quantitatively or qualitatively.

• Combining uncertainty from different parts of the analysis when uncertainty has been quantified separately.

• Characterizing overall uncertainty by expressing quantitatively the overall impact of as many identified uncertainties as possible.

• Reporting uncertainty analysis clearly and unambiguously in a form compatible with decision-makers' requirements.

Quantitative Methods for Uncertainty Quantification

Several technical approaches exist for quantifying uncertainty in scientific assessments:

• Monte Carlo Methods: Traditional approaches requiring repeated sampling from statistical distributions of inputs and subsequent simulation of outputs [20]. These methods are robust but computationally intensive.

• Polynomial Chaos Expansion: Expansion-based methods in which the model is represented as a polynomial expanded over suitable orthogonal basis functions of the random input variables [20]. These can be more efficient than Monte Carlo methods for certain types of problems.

• Neural-Network Based Surrogates: Using artificial neural networks to create surrogate models that map inputs to outputs from expensive computational models [20]. Multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) are particularly advantageous as 'universal approximators' that can handle high-dimensional input.

• Rigorous Uncertainty Quantification: Methods that compute bounds on design uncertainties with knowledge of ranges of input parameters only [20]. This approach is particularly valuable for high-risk applications where conservative estimates are required.

Uncertainty Propagation in Multi-Scale Modeling

In materials science, uncertainty propagation often involves multi-scale analysis, as demonstrated in impact modeling of advanced ceramics [20]. This typically involves three scales and two steps:

• First Step: Connecting parameters that define mesoscopic features of the material ("materials" scale) to continuum-scale representations of sub-scale deformation mechanisms ("phenomenological" scale).

• Second Step: Connecting the phenomenological representation to a performance metric deduced from "structural-scale" simulations.

This multi-scale approach is particularly relevant for materials researchers studying properties that emerge from microstructural characteristics but must be designed for macroscopic performance.

Uncertainty Propagation in Multi-Scale Modeling: This workflow illustrates how uncertainty propagates from microstructural features through computational models to final performance metrics, with formal uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis at key stages.

Uncertainty in Materials Research: Experimental Protocols

Protocol for Mechanism-Based Model Calibration

Advanced ceramics impact modeling demonstrates a rigorous approach to uncertainty quantification [20]:

• Material Selection: Begin with a well-characterized model material system (e.g., silicon carbide for armor applications) with documented properties and processing history.

• Physics-Based Modeling: Implement a validated physics-informed model (e.g., Li and Ramesh 2021 model for SiC) that incorporates statistical defect distribution, rate- and pressure-dependences, and relevant inelastic deformation mechanisms.

• Parameter Mapping: Establish connections between mechanistic quantities (inputs in the physics-based model) and phenomenological representations (within an established phenomenological model like JH-2).

• Surrogate Model Construction: Develop neural-network based surrogates of specific impact simulations to enable uncertainty propagation analysis across parameter sets.

• Uncertainty Propagation: Quantify how uncertainty propagates from the mechanism-based model parameters to the parameters of the phenomenological model using the constructed surrogates.

• Performance Metric Evaluation: Determine uncertainty in impact performance metrics from simulation-surrogates using the phenomenological model with uncertain parameters.

• Sensitivity Analysis: Conduct sensitivity analysis of impact performance over the large parameter space of the mechanism-based model via the phenomenological parameters.

Data Distribution Analysis in Materials Science

Understanding where data resides within research papers is essential for comprehensive uncertainty analysis [21]:

• Paper Selection: Systematically examine materials science papers to discern where key data types reside within textual content, tables, and figures.

• Data Categorization: Categorize data into composition, processing conditions, characterization, and performance properties.

• Interconnection Analysis: Identify cases where data types are isolated or interconnected across different sources to understand uncertainty propagation through the data ecosystem.

• Annotation: Document challenges and limitations faced during the annotation process to improve future data extraction and uncertainty analysis.

This methodology highlights the importance of understanding data distribution within materials science papers, as it has profound implications for data accessibility and integration in the field.

Uncertainty in Regulatory Compliance and Drug Development

Regulatory Requirements for Uncertainty Analysis

Regulatory bodies increasingly require explicit uncertainty analysis in scientific assessments. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) states that "all EFSA scientific assessments must include consideration of uncertainties" [19]. This unconditional requirement means assessments must identify sources of uncertainty and characterize their overall impact on assessment conclusions, reported clearly and unambiguously in a form compatible with decision-makers' requirements.

In the pharmaceutical sector, regulatory uncertainty may arise from factors such as FDA staffing reductions, which can lead to longer review timelines for Biologics License Applications (BLAs), New Drug Applications (NDAs), and Investigational New Drug (IND) applications [22]. This operational uncertainty compounds the scientific uncertainties inherent in drug development.

Strategies for Managing Regulatory Uncertainty

Drug development professionals can employ several strategies to navigate regulatory uncertainty [22]:

• Anticipate and Plan for Delays: Build extra time into clinical trial and drug approval timelines, file applications early, and engage regulatory consultants to navigate potential shifts in FDA processes.

• Strengthen Global Regulatory Strategy: Consider parallel submissions with other regulatory agencies to diversify approval pathways and reduce dependence on any single agency's timeline.

• Increase Communication with Regulators: Proactively engage reviewers early in the process to clarify expectations and minimize unexpected regulatory hurdles.

• Strengthen Internal Compliance & Data Readiness: Ensure clinical trial data and regulatory submissions are well-prepared to reduce the need for additional review cycles.

These strategies highlight the intersection between scientific uncertainty in drug development and regulatory uncertainty in the approval process, both of which must be managed for successful product development.

Practical Applications and Worked Examples

Case Study: Sea Surface Temperature Measurements

A practical example from environmental science illustrates how uncertainty budgets provide deeper insight into dataset construction [18]. The European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative Sea Surface Temperature product provides not only total uncertainty for each measurement but also a breakdown into components with different correlation length scales:

• Uncorrelated Errors: Primarily related to instrument noise and sampling uncertainty, largest in regions with strong SST gradients.
• Synoptic-Scale Correlated Errors: Arising from errors in atmospheric correction data, correlated over weather system scales.
• Large-Scale Systematic Errors: Dominated by instrument calibration errors, consistent across the observed domain.

This case demonstrates that large uncertainties are not necessarily indicative of bad data. Filtering data based solely on uncertainty thresholds can inadvertently introduce bias by preferentially excluding regions with greater natural variability.

Worked Example: Uncertainty Propagation in Data Aggregation

Uncertainty propagation through data aggregation follows specific mathematical rules [18]. For example, when coarsening or merging data, uncertainties must be properly combined. If combining n measurements x₁, x₂, ..., xₙ with associated standard uncertainties u₁, u₂, ..., uₙ, the uncertainty of the mean is given by:

u(mean) = √(∑(uᵢ²)) / n

This formula assumes the uncertainties are uncorrelated. For correlated uncertainties, additional covariance terms must be included. Worked examples of such calculations are essential for researchers applying uncertainty analysis to their specific datasets.

Table 1: Essential Resources for Materials Data and Uncertainty Analysis

Resource Name	Resource Type	Key Features	Application in Uncertainty Analysis
ASM Handbooks Online	Reference Database	Extensive engineering and property data for many metals and non-metallic materials [23]	Provides reference data for uncertainty comparison
Springer Materials	Evaluated Data Collection	Compilation of critically evaluated materials science data, from thermodynamics to physical properties [23]	Offers pre-evaluated data with quality indicators
Data Citation Index	Data Repository Index	Locates quality data sets across disciplines, displaying data within broader research context [23]	Enables assessment of data provenance and reliability
Knovel E-Books	Engineering Reference	Supports property searching and interactive equations [23]	Facilitates uncertainty calculations through tools
NIST Chemistry WebBook	Chemical Property Database	Chemical & physical property data for thousands of compounds [23]	Provides certified reference data for uncertainty assessment
ASTM Standards	Standards Database	Standard test methods and specifications [23]	Establishes standardized measurement protocols
EFSA Uncertainty Analysis Guidance	Methodology Framework	Guidance on characterising, documenting and explaining uncertainties [19]	Provides structured approach to uncertainty analysis

Computational Tools for Uncertainty Quantification

Table 2: Computational Methods for Uncertainty Quantification

Method Category	Specific Methods	Strengths	Limitations
Sampling-Based	Monte Carlo Methods [20]	Robust, widely applicable	Computationally intensive for complex models
Expansion-Based	Polynomial Chaos Expansion [20]	More efficient than Monte Carlo for certain problems	Requires specialized implementation
Surrogate Models	Neural-Network Based Surrogates [20]	Handles high-dimensional input; universal approximators	Requires training data; potential overfitting
Rigorous Bounds	Optimal Uncertainty Quantification [20]	Provides conservative estimates for high-risk applications	May yield overly conservative results

Visualization Techniques for Uncertainty Communication

Uncertainty-Aware Workflow Diagram

Uncertainty-Aware Data Analysis Workflow: This workflow integrates uncertainty identification, prioritization, and propagation throughout the data analysis process, ensuring uncertainties are properly considered in final decision-making.

Best Practices for Uncertainty Presentation

Effective communication of uncertainty information follows several key principles [18]:

• Explicit Representation: Always include uncertainty estimates alongside reported values, using either standard uncertainty (± notation) or confidence intervals.

• Appropriate Precision: Report uncertainties with appropriate significant figures, typically no more than two digits.

• Contextual Explanation: Provide sufficient methodological detail to help users interpret the uncertainty information correctly.

• Visual Clarity: Use visualization techniques that clearly represent uncertainty, such as error bars, probability distributions, or uncertainty maps.

• Transparency About Limitations: Acknowledge incomplete uncertainty budgets while emphasizing they still add value to observations.

Uncertainty analysis is not merely a technical requirement but a fundamental aspect of scientific rigor that enables meaningful data comparison and regulatory compliance. For materials researchers and drug development professionals, a systematic approach to identifying, quantifying, and propagating uncertainties provides the necessary foundation for reliable decision-making. By implementing the methodologies, tools, and visualization techniques outlined in this guide, scientists can enhance the reliability of their conclusions and more effectively navigate both scientific and regulatory challenges. As uncertainty analysis continues to evolve, its integration throughout the research lifecycle will remain essential for advancing materials science and ensuring the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products.

Modern Methods for Uncertainty Quantification: From GUM to Machine Learning

In the domain of materials measurements research, particularly in pharmaceutical development, the completeness of a quantitative result is fundamentally dependent on a rigorous statement of its associated uncertainty. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) laboratory standard, ISO 15189, mandates that pathology laboratories provide estimates of measurement uncertainty for all quantitative test results, a principle that extends directly to materials science and drug development [24]. A measurement result is considered metrologically incomplete if it lacks an interval characterizing the dispersion of values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand—the quantity intended to be measured [25]. The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), established by the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM), provides the globally recognized framework for evaluating and expressing this uncertainty [24] [25]. This guide delineates two primary methods for uncertainty evaluation: Type A and Type B. These classifications do not indicate different natures of the underlying uncertainty components but rather denote the two distinct methodologies for their evaluation [26]. For researchers and scientists, a proficient understanding of these methods is not merely academic; it is essential for asserting the reliability, traceability, and fitness-for-purpose of measurement data upon which critical decisions in research and development are based.

Core Concepts: Uncertainty, Error, and the Measurand

Distinguishing Between Uncertainty and Error

A fundamental precept in modern metrology is the clear distinction between "error" and "uncertainty." These terms are often used interchangeably in casual discourse but possess critically different meanings [24].

• Measurement Error: Defined as the difference between a measured quantity value and a reference quantity value (often considered the "true" value). Error is, in theory, a single value that could be perfectly known and corrected.
• Measurement Uncertainty: A non-negative parameter that characterizes the dispersion of the quantity values being attributed to a measurand. It is an estimate of the possible range of values within which the true value is believed to lie, with a given level of confidence. Unlike error, uncertainty cannot be corrected; it can only be quantified and managed [24] [25].

The GUM procedure operates on the principle that all recognized significant systematic errors (biases) have been corrected, and the remaining uncertainty associated with these corrections, along with all random errors, is what is quantified and combined [24].

Defining the Measurand

The measurand is the specific quantity subject to measurement. A precise definition of the measurand is crucial, as it must encompass the specific measurement system and the conditions under which the measurement is performed [24]. For instance, in materials research, "the tensile strength of Polymer X, measured according to ASTM D638 using a specific universal testing machine at 23°C," defines a measurand more completely than simply "tensile strength." This specificity ensures that the uncertainty evaluation is relevant and correctly scoped.

Type A Evaluation of Uncertainty

Definition and Principle

Type A evaluation of uncertainty is defined as the method of evaluation by a statistical analysis of measured quantity values obtained under defined measurement conditions [26] [24]. In essence, it involves deriving an uncertainty estimate from a series of repeated observations of the same measurand, thereby characterizing the observed frequency distribution. A Type A standard uncertainty is obtained from a probability density function derived from this observed frequency distribution [26].

Standard Evaluation Methodology

The standard methodology for a basic Type A evaluation involves calculating three key statistical parameters from a series of n repeated observations. The following protocol outlines this process for a typical repeatability test in a materials laboratory.

Experimental Protocol 1: Single Repeatability Test

• Objective: To quantify the random uncertainty (repeatability) component of a measurement system.
• Procedure:
  • Under identical conditions (same instrument, operator, location, and short time interval), perform n independent measurements (x₁, x₂, ..., xₙ) of the same measurand.
  • Ensure the measurement process is stable and the sample is homogeneous.
  • Record all individual measurement values.
• Data Analysis:
  • Calculate the arithmetic mean (x̄), which serves as the best estimate of the measurand's value.
  • Calculate the standard deviation (s), which quantifies the dispersion of the individual observations.
  • Calculate the standard uncertainty (u), which is the standard deviation of the mean.
  • Determine the degrees of freedom (ν), which represent the number of independent pieces of information available to estimate the uncertainty.

The calculations for these key parameters are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Statistical Formulas for Type A Evaluation

Parameter	Formula	Description
Arithmetic Mean	x̄ = (Σx_i)/n	The central value or average of the measurement series.
Standard Deviation	s = √[Σ(x_i - x̄)²/(n-1)]	A measure of the dispersion of the data set around the mean.
Standard Uncertainty (u)	u = s/√n	The standard uncertainty of the mean value itself.
Degrees of Freedom (ν)	ν = n - 1	The number of independent values in the calculation of the standard deviation.

Advanced Evaluation: Pooled Variance

For measurement systems that are monitored over time, a more robust estimate of repeatability can be obtained by combining data from multiple experiments. This is achieved using the method of pooled variance.

Experimental Protocol 2: Multiple Repeatability Tests

• Objective: To establish a reliable, long-term estimate of a measurement system's repeatability uncertainty.
• Procedure:
  • Conduct k separate repeatability tests (e.g., monthly), each with nᵢ measurements.
  • For each test i, calculate the standard deviation sᵢ.
• Data Analysis:
  • Calculate the pooled standard deviation (s_pooled), which provides a combined estimate of variability across all experiments.

The formula for the pooled standard deviation is: s_pooled = √[Σ(ν_i * s_i²) / Σν_i] where ν_i = n_i - 1

The standard uncertainty is then u = s_pooled / √n for a future measurement based on n observations.

Type B Evaluation of Uncertainty

Definition and Principle

Type B evaluation of uncertainty is determined by means other than a Type A evaluation. It is an evaluation based on available knowledge and evidence [26] [24]. This knowledge can come from a variety of sources, including:

• Previous measurement data
• Manufacturer's specifications
• Calibration certificates
• Data from handbooks and reference standards
• The scientific literature

Unlike Type A, a Type B standard uncertainty is obtained from an assumed probability density function (PDF) based on the degree of belief that an event will occur, often called subjective probability [26]. The choice of the appropriate PDF is a critical step in a Type B evaluation.

Standard Evaluation Methodology

The methodology for Type B evaluation involves a systematic process of identifying non-statistical uncertainty sources, selecting appropriate probability distributions, and converting the source information into a standard uncertainty. The core of this evaluation lies in dividing the estimated bounds (±a) of the value by a distribution-specific divisor.

Table 2: Type B Evaluation: Common Probability Distributions

Distribution Type	Scenario / Use Case	Divisor	Standard Uncertainty (u)	Degrees of Freedom (ν)
Rectangular (Uniform)	Manufacturer's tolerance, digital resolution, data quantization. Assumes equal probability of value lying anywhere within ±a.	√3	u = a / √3	Often considered infinite
Triangular	Used when values near the center of the range are more likely than those near the extremes.	√6	u = a / √6	Often considered infinite
Normal (Gaussian)	Uncertainty derived from a calibration certificate reporting an expanded uncertainty with a stated coverage factor k (e.g., k=2).	k	u = U / k	Taken from the certificate

Experimental Protocol 3: Type B Evaluation from a Calibration Certificate

• Objective: To determine the standard uncertainty associated with the calibration of a reference material or instrument.
• Procedure:
  • Obtain the calibration certificate for the standard.
  • Identify the expanded uncertainty (U) and its coverage factor (k), which is typically 2 for a 95% confidence level.
• Data Analysis:
  • Calculate the standard uncertainty as u = U / k.

Experimental Protocol 4: Type B Evaluation from Manufacturer's Specification

• Objective: To determine the standard uncertainty associated with an instrument's tolerance or resolution.
• Procedure:
  • Identify the manufacturer's stated tolerance limit (e.g., ±L).
  • Determine the most appropriate probability distribution. For a maximum bound without further information, a rectangular distribution is typically used.
• Data Analysis:
  • For a rectangular distribution, the standard uncertainty is u = L / √3.

Comparative Analysis and Combined Uncertainty

Synthesis of Differences

The practical application of uncertainty analysis requires a clear understanding of the distinctions between Type A and Type B methods. Table 3 provides a structured comparison to guide researchers in selecting the appropriate evaluation method.

Table 3: Comparative Analysis: Type A vs. Type B Evaluation

Feature	Type A Evaluation	Type B Evaluation
Basis of Evaluation	Statistical analysis of repeated observations [26].	Available knowledge and scientific judgment [26].
Source of Data	Current, internal measurement data.	Historical data, certificates, handbooks, manufacturer specs.
Probability Distribution	Observed frequency distribution (often normal).	Assumed based on knowledge (rectangular, triangular, normal, etc.).
Primary Method	Calculation of mean, standard deviation, and standard uncertainty of the mean.	Application of distribution divisor to estimated bounds.
Resource Intensity	Can be resource-intensive (time, materials).	Generally less resource-intensive.
Objectivity Perception	Often perceived as more "objective."	Requires expert judgment, sometimes perceived as "subjective."

The Combined Standard Uncertainty

In a real-world measurement, multiple uncertainty sources, both Type A and Type B, typically contribute to the overall uncertainty of the measurand y. The GUM provides a framework for combining these components into a combined standard uncertainty, denoted u_c(y). For a measurand that is a function of several independent input quantities, y = f(x₁, x₂, ..., x_N), the combined standard uncertainty is calculated using the law of propagation of uncertainty. If the input quantities are uncorrelated, the formula is:

u_c(y) = √[ Σ( (∂f/∂x_i)² * u²(x_i) ) ]

Where (∂f/∂x_i) is the sensitivity coefficient that describes how the output estimate y varies with changes in the input estimate x_i, and u(x_i) is the standard uncertainty associated with x_i.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials for Uncertainty Evaluation

The practical implementation of uncertainty evaluation requires both physical tools and conceptual frameworks. The following table details key "research reagents" and resources essential for robust uncertainty analysis in a materials or drug development laboratory.

Table 4: Essential Toolkit for Measurement Uncertainty Evaluation

Item / Solution	Function in Uncertainty Analysis
Certified Reference Materials (CRMs)	Provides a traceable reference value with a stated uncertainty. Used to evaluate measurement bias (trueness) and its associated uncertainty component.
Calibrated Instrumentation	Equipment with valid calibration certificates provides the foundation for Type B uncertainty evaluations related to the measurement standard itself.
Stable, Homogeneous Control Material	A essential material for conducting Type A repeatability and reproducibility studies over time, enabling the calculation of pooled standard deviations.
Statistical Software Package	Facilitates the computation of means, standard deviations, ANOVA, and the combination of uncertainty components according to the GUM framework.
GUM (JCGM 100:2008) & VIM	The foundational reference documents that provide the definitions, principles, and methodologies for a consistent and internationally accepted uncertainty evaluation.
Uncertainty Budget Template	A structured spreadsheet or document used to systematically list, quantify, and combine all significant uncertainty components (both Type A and Type B).

Application in Materials and Drug Development Research

In materials measurements research, the classification and evaluation of uncertainty sources are paramount. For instance, determining the concentration of an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in a complex formulation involves multiple potential uncertainty sources. A Type A component would arise from the repeatability of the chromatographic peak area measurement (e.g., HPLC). Type B components would include the uncertainty of the CRM used for calibration, the uncertainty in the purity of the internal standard, and the volumetric tolerance of the glassware used for sample preparation.

Adopting a systematic approach to classifying and evaluating these uncertainties as either Type A or Type B allows researchers to construct a comprehensive uncertainty budget. This budget not only provides a quantitative assurance of result quality but also identifies which components contribute most significantly to the overall uncertainty, thereby guiding efforts for methodological improvement. This rigorous practice, framed within the broader thesis of understanding uncertainty, ensures that data generated in materials and drug development is not just precise, but also metrologically sound, traceable, and fit for its intended purpose—whether that is formulation optimization, quality control, or regulatory submission.

In materials measurements research, from advanced nanomaterials to pharmaceutical development, the quantification of measurement reliability is as critical as the measurement result itself. An uncertainty budget provides the formal, structured framework for this quantification. It is an itemized table of all components that contribute to the doubt about a measurement result, providing a systematic method for combining them into a single, comprehensive statement of uncertainty [27]. For researchers and drug development professionals, mastering this framework is essential for validating methods, supporting regulatory submissions, and making high-consequence decisions based on experimental data. This guide details the construction, calculation, and practical application of uncertainty budgets within a materials research context.

Core Concepts and Definitions

• Measurand: The particular quantity subject to measurement [28]. In materials research, this could be the concentration of an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), the thickness of a coating, or the hardness of a metal alloy.
• Measurement Uncertainty: A non-negative parameter characterizing the dispersion of the quantity values attributed to a measurand [28]. It is a quantitative indication of the quality of a measurement.
• Uncertainty Budget: A statement of the complete uncertainty analysis, typically presented in a table that lists all identified sources of uncertainty, their quantified magnitudes, sensitivity coefficients, probability distributions, and the method for combining them [27].
• Standard Uncertainty (u(xi)): The uncertainty of a measurement result expressed as a standard deviation [29].
• Combined Standard Uncertainty (uc(y)): The standard uncertainty of the final result (y), obtained by combining the individual standard uncertainties using the law of propagation of uncertainty, often via root sum of squares (RSS) [27] [29].
• Expanded Uncertainty (U): The final product of the uncertainty analysis, which defines an interval about the measurement result that may be expected to encompass a large fraction of the value distribution. It is calculated by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor (k), typically k=2 for a 95% confidence level [27] [30].

A Step-by-Step Methodology for Budget Construction

The process of creating a robust uncertainty budget can be broken down into a sequence of deliberate steps.

Step 1: Specify the Measurement Process and Equation

The foundation of a valid uncertainty budget is a clear definition of the measurement. This requires documenting what is being measured (the measurand), the specific method or procedure used, the equipment involved, and the relevant measurement range [31]. Crucially, the mathematical model relating the input quantities to the final result must be established.

For a calibration laboratory, this might be straightforward, such as following a standard like ISO 6789 for torque wrenches [31]. For a materials test lab, the process can be more complex, potentially involving multiple sub-measurements and a derived formula. For instance, determining the tensile strength of a polymer sample involves a formula like σ = F / A, where F is the measured force and A is the cross-sectional area of the specimen. This formula immediately identifies force and area as key input quantities for the uncertainty analysis.

Next, a systematic search for all possible uncertainty contributors must be conducted. A "cause and effect" diagram is an excellent tool for this purpose. For a typical material measurement, sources can be broadly categorized as follows [28]:

• Imprecision (Random Effects): Variability observed in repeated measurements under similar conditions, quantified through standard deviations. This includes within-run and between-day imprecision [28].
• Bias (Systematic Effects): A constant or predictable offset in the measurement result. This must be corrected for, and the uncertainty of the correction itself becomes a component in the budget. Bias is often evaluated through proficiency testing or by comparing against a reference method [28].
• Reference Standards and Calibrators: The uncertainty inherent in the reference materials or calibrators used, as stated in their certificates [28].
• Environmental Factors: Variations in temperature, humidity, and other ambient conditions that can influence the measurement outcome.
• Sample-Related Factors: For biological or pharmaceutical materials, within-subject biological variation can be a significant source of uncertainty [28]. For physical materials, sample homogeneity is a critical factor.

Step 3: Quantify the Uncertainty Components

Each identified source must be assigned a numerical value. This evaluation is classified as either Type A or Type B [28].

• Type A Evaluation: Based on the statistical analysis of measured data. For example, the standard deviation of repeated measurements directly provides the standard uncertainty for imprecision. If 20 measurements of a material's thickness yield a mean of 50.2 µm and a standard deviation of 0.5 µm, the standard uncertainty u(thickness) from repeatability is 0.5 µm.
• Type B Evaluation: Determined by means other than statistical analysis. This includes using manufacturer's specifications, calibration certificates, historical data, or literature values. For instance, if a thermometer's certificate states an accuracy of ±0.1°C and you assume a rectangular distribution (meaning the true value is equally likely to be anywhere within the ±0.1°C interval), the standard uncertainty is calculated as u(temperature) = 0.1°C / √3 ≈ 0.058°C.

Step 4: Characterize Components: Type, Distribution, and Divisor

To combine uncertainties fairly, they must be converted into standard uncertainty equivalents. This requires characterizing each component's probability distribution to determine the correct divisor.

Table 1: Common Probability Distributions and Their Divisors

Probability Distribution	Description & Use Case	Divisor
Normal	Used for uncertainties stated with a confidence level (e.g., from a calibration certificate with k=2) or for Type A evaluations.	Divide by the stated k-factor (e.g., 2)
Rectangular	Used when a manufacturer specifies a tolerance limit without a confidence level (e.g., ±a). Assumes the value has equal probability of lying anywhere within the bounds.	√3
Triangular	A more conservative approach than rectangular, used when values near the center of the bounds are more likely than those at the extremes.	√6
U-shaped	Used for modeling the uncertainty of a sinusoidal distribution or certain electrical phenomena.	√2

Step 5: Calculate the Combined Standard Uncertainty

Once all components are expressed as standard uncertainties, they are synthesized into a single value using the root sum of squares (RSS) method, as recommended by the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) [27] [29]. For uncorrelated input quantities, the combined standard uncertainty u_c(y) for a measurement result y is:

u_c(y) = √[ u(x₁)² + u(x₂)² + ... + u(x_n)² ]

This formula effectively provides the "standard deviation" of the final result. The following diagram illustrates the complete workflow from source identification to the calculation of combined uncertainty.

Step 6: Calculate the Expanded Uncertainty

The combined standard uncertainty represents the uncertainty at a confidence level of approximately 68%. To define an interval with a higher confidence, typically 95%, the combined uncertainty is multiplied by a coverage factor, k [27] [30].

U = k × u_c(y)

For a 95% confidence level and where the probability distribution of the result is approximately normal, a coverage factor of k = 2 is standard practice. The final measurement result is then reported as: Result ± U (with units). For example, a reported nanoparticle size might be 105 nm ± 8 nm (k=2), indicating a 95% confidence that the true size lies between 97 nm and 113 nm.

Practical Example: A Medical Materials Case Study

A study on plasma glucose (Glu) measurement provides an excellent example of creating two different uncertainty budgets for different measurement purposes [28]. This is highly relevant in drug development where a measurement may be used for a single patient diagnosis or for monitoring a subject's response to a therapy over time.

Uncertainty Components

The researchers identified and quantified the following key uncertainty components for their glucose measurement system [28]:

• Within-run imprecision (Type A): 1.26%
• Between-day imprecision (Type A): 1.91%
• Calibrator uncertainty (Type B): 0.42%
• Systematic bias (Type B): -2.87%
• Within-subject biological variance - BVw (Type B): 5.70%

Two Different Uncertainty Budgets

The researchers then created two budgets. Budget 1 was for a single specimen (e.g., a one-off diagnostic test), while Budget 2 was for the continuous monitoring of an individual (e.g., a clinical trial participant), where biological variation becomes a major factor [28]. The following diagram visualizes how these components are combined differently for each scenario.

Table 2: Uncertainty Budgets for Plasma Glucose Measurement (adapted from [28])

Uncertainty Component	Value (%)	Budget 1: Single Specimen	Budget 2: Continuous Monitoring
Within-run Imprecision	1.26	Included	Included
Between-day Imprecision	1.91	Included	Included
Calibrator Uncertainty	0.42	Included	Included
Systematic Bias	-2.87	Included	Included
Within-subject Biological Variance (BVw)	5.70	Excluded	Included
Combined Standard Uncertainty, u_c		3.69%	6.79%
Expanded Uncertainty, U (k=2)		7.38%	13.58%

This case study powerfully illustrates that the purpose of the measurement dictates the structure of the uncertainty budget. A researcher must justify which components are relevant for their specific application.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Building a reliable uncertainty budget requires both conceptual understanding and practical tools. The following table lists key "research reagents" – the essential components and resources needed for the process.

Table 3: Essential Toolkit for Uncertainty Budget Development

Tool / Component	Function / Description	Example in Materials Research
Measurement Model/Equation	The mathematical formula defining the relationship between input quantities and the final result.	Formula for calculating tensile strength: σ = F / A.
Reference Material (CRM)	A material with a certified property value and associated uncertainty, used for method validation and bias estimation.	Certified reference material for polymer melting point.
Calibration Certificate	Document providing the traceability and uncertainty of a reference standard or measuring instrument.	Certificate for a microbalance or a pH meter used in dissolution testing.
Statistical Software/Spreadsheet	Tool for performing Type A evaluations (standard deviation) and combining uncertainty components (RSS).	Microsoft Excel, Python (with NumPy/SciPy), R, or specialized uncertainty calculators [27].
Control Material	A stable material run repeatedly to gather data for estimating within-run and between-day imprecision (Type A).	A stable sample of a metal alloy with known hardness, measured daily.
Probability Distributions	Models (Normal, Rectangular, etc.) used to convert a tolerance or range into a standard uncertainty.	Applying a rectangular distribution to a thermometer's stated accuracy of ±0.5°C.
GUM Document (JCGM 100:2008)	The foundational guide ("Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement") defining the international standard method [27].	The primary reference for the methodology described in this guide.

The uncertainty budget is more than a compliance document for ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation; it is a fundamental tool for rigorous scientific research [27]. It provides a transparent, defensible, and rational framework for combining all sources of doubt into a single, meaningful metric. For researchers in materials science and drug development, a well-constructed budget does more than just quantify reliability—it illuminates the path to improvement by identifying the most significant contributors to uncertainty, enabling targeted efforts to optimize measurement processes. By adopting this structured approach, scientists can enhance confidence in their data, strengthen their conclusions, and ultimately drive innovation with greater precision and credibility.

The rapid integration of machine learning (ML) into computational mechanics and materials science has created a paradigm shift in how researchers predict material behavior and design new experiments. However, a significant limitation of traditional deep learning approaches is their inability to provide reliable estimates of predictive uncertainty, which is critical for assessing model reliability, especially when models are applied to out-of-distribution data [32]. In materials discovery applications, where experiments are often costly, time-consuming, and involve complex multi-step synthesis protocols, understanding uncertainty becomes paramount for making informed decisions under limited experimental budgets [33]. Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) provides a framework to address these challenges by distinguishing between different types of uncertainty: aleatoric uncertainty stems from inherent randomness in the process (e.g., randomness in material properties) and is generally irreducible, while epistemic uncertainty arises from incomplete knowledge or limited data and can potentially be reduced by collecting additional data [34]. Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs) represent a powerful approach that combines the flexibility and expressiveness of neural networks with rigorous probabilistic foundations, enabling researchers not only to make predictions but also to quantify the confidence in those predictions, thereby enhancing the reliability of ML methods as predictive tools in computational mechanics and materials science [34].

Fundamental Principles of Bayesian Neural Networks

Bayesian Inference in Neural Networks

Bayesian Neural Networks fundamentally reinterpret neural network parameters as probability distributions rather than deterministic values. This probabilistic approach allows BNNs to naturally quantify uncertainty in their predictions. In a BNN, each weight parameter is assigned a prior distribution before observing any data, representing our initial beliefs about plausible parameter values. After observing data, Bayes' theorem is used to compute the posterior distribution over these weights, which captures how likely different parameter values are given the observed evidence [34]. The predictive distribution for a new input is obtained by integrating over all possible parameter values, weighted by their posterior probability. This integration, known as Bayesian model averaging, enables BNNs to provide not just predictions but full predictive distributions that naturally encapsulate both aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty [35].

The Bayesian formulation for neural networks can be expressed as follows. Given a dataset ( D = {(xi, yi)}_{i=1}^N ), the posterior distribution of the parameters ( \theta ) is given by:

[ p(\theta | D) = \frac{p(D | \theta) p(\theta)}{p(D)} ]

where ( p(\theta) ) is the prior distribution, ( p(D | \theta) ) is the likelihood, and ( p(D) ) is the evidence or marginal likelihood. The predictive distribution for a new input ( x^* ) is then:

[ p(y^* | x^, D) = \int p(y^ | x^*, \theta) p(\theta | D) d\theta ]

Epistemic vs. Aleatoric Uncertainty in BNNs

BNNs provide a natural framework for distinguishing between epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty, which is crucial for materials research applications:

• Epistemic uncertainty (model uncertainty) represents uncertainty in the model parameters and can be reduced by collecting more data. In BNNs, this is captured by the posterior distribution over weights [34]. For example, when predicting stress fields in composite materials with limited training data, epistemic uncertainty would be higher in regions of microstructure space not well represented in the training set [34].

• Aleatoric uncertainty (data uncertainty) stems from inherent stochasticity in the data generation process and cannot be reduced by collecting more data. This is captured by the probabilistic output of the BNN [34]. In materials applications, this might include uncertainty due to random variations in material properties or measurement noise in experimental characterization techniques.

Modern BNN architectures, such as the Residual Bayesian Attention (RBA) framework, implement explicit mechanisms for decoupling and quantifying both types of uncertainty, providing researchers with a more complete understanding of prediction reliability [36].

Methodological Approaches for BNN Implementation

Bayesian Inference Algorithms for BNNs

Implementing BNNs requires approximating the posterior distribution of network parameters, which poses significant computational challenges. Several algorithmic approaches have been developed, each with distinct trade-offs between computational complexity and accuracy:

Table 1: Comparison of Bayesian Inference Algorithms for BNNs

Method	Key Principle	Computational Demand	Uncertainty Quality	Best-Suited Applications
Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC)	Uses Hamiltonian dynamics to sample from posterior [34]	Very high	Most accurate posterior approximation [34]	High-stakes applications where accuracy is critical [34]
Bayes by Backprop (BBB)	Variational inference with Gaussian approximations [34]	Moderate	Consistent uncertainty estimates [34]	Large-scale problems with limited computational resources [34]
Monte Carlo Dropout (MCD)	Approximates Bayesian inference by maintaining dropout during inference [34]	Low (minimal overhead)	Less interpretable, design-dependent [34]	Rapid prototyping and applications with strict computational constraints [34]
Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC)	Gradient-free approach using subset simulation [35]	Moderate to high	Flexible, non-parametric uncertainty representation [35]	Problems with complex likelihoods or gradient instability [35]
Deep Ensembles	Trains multiple models with different initializations [32]	High (multiple training runs)	Effective uncertainty separation [32]	When computational resources permit parallel training [32]

Advanced BNN Architectures

Recent research has developed specialized BNN architectures that enhance uncertainty quantification capabilities:

The Residual Bayesian Attention (RBA) framework integrates Bayesian inference with Transformer architectures through three core components: (1) Bayesian feedforward layers that establish differentiable propagation mechanisms for parameter-level uncertainty; (2) multi-layer residual Bayesian attention that embeds radial basis function kernels into attention computation; and (3) Bayesian covariance construction modules that generate mathematically rigorous covariance representations [36]. This architecture has demonstrated strong performance in regression tasks, achieving a coefficient of determination of 0.972 and good calibration quality (ECE = 0.1877) in engineering optimization benchmarks [36].

Bayesian U-Net architectures have been successfully applied to full-field material response prediction, providing image-to-image mapping from initial microstructure to stress field with epistemic uncertainty estimates [34]. These architectures are particularly valuable for computational mechanics applications where the goal is to predict stress and deformation fields across diverse material microstructures.

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

Workflow for BNN Implementation in Materials Research

The implementation of BNNs for materials research follows a systematic workflow that integrates domain knowledge with probabilistic modeling:

Case Study: Full-Field Material Response Prediction

A comprehensive study demonstrates the application of BNNs for predicting stress fields in composite materials, providing a template for experimental implementation:

Objective: Predict full-field stress distributions and quantify uncertainty for fiber-reinforced composites and polycrystalline microstructures based on initial microstructure input [34].

Dataset Preparation:

• Generate synthetic datasets using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) simulations for diverse material microstructures
• For fiber-reinforced composites: simulate various fiber arrangements, volume fractions, and material properties
• For polycrystalline materials: simulate different grain structures, orientations, and boundary conditions
• Split data into training (70%), validation (15%), and test (15%) sets

Model Architecture:

• Implement a modified Bayesian U-Net architecture for image-to-image regression
• Encoder pathway: convolutional layers with increasing filters (32, 64, 128, 256) to extract hierarchical features
• Decoder pathway: transpose convolutional layers with skip connections to recover spatial resolution
• All convolutional layers use Bayesian parameterization with Gaussian priors

Training Protocol:

• Implement three inference algorithms: HMC, BBB, and MCD
• For HMC: use 1000 burn-in steps followed by 2000 sampling steps with adaptive step size
• For BBB: use Gaussian variational distributions with the reparameterization trick
• For MCD: apply dropout with probability 0.2 during both training and inference
• Optimize using Adam optimizer with learning rate 1e-4 and batch size 16
• Training duration: 500 epochs with early stopping if validation loss plateaus for 50 epochs

Evaluation Metrics:

• Predictive accuracy: Mean Squared Error (MSE) relative to FEA solutions
• Uncertainty quality: calibration curves and proper scoring rules
• Computational efficiency: training time and inference speed

Comparative Analysis of BNN Performance

Quantitative Performance Assessment

Table 2: Performance Comparison of BNN Methods in Materials Applications

Method	Predictive Accuracy (MSE)	Uncertainty Calibration	Computational Cost	Implementation Complexity	Recommended Use Cases
HMC	Highest (closest to FEA solutions) [34]	Most accurate and interpretable [34]	10-100x standard training [34]	High (requires tuning of dynamics) [34]	Benchmark studies and high-fidelity applications [34]
BBB	High (comparable to HMC) [34]	Consistent uncertainty estimates [34]	2-5x standard training [34]	Medium (straightforward variational framework) [34]	Large-scale problems requiring Bayesian uncertainty [34]
MCD	Moderate (slight degradation) [34]	Highly design-dependent [34]	1.5-3x standard training [34]	Low (minimal code changes) [34]	Rapid prototyping and existing codebase extension [34]
ABC with Subset Simulation	High (accurate predictions) [35]	Realistic and coherent confidence bounds [35]	5-10x standard training [35]	Medium (gradient-free implementation) [35]	Problems with gradient instability or complex likelihoods [35]
Deep Ensembles	High (competitive with BNNs) [32]	Effective separation of uncertainty types [32]	5-10x standard training (parallelizable) [32]	Low (independent model training) [32]	Applications benefiting from model diversity [32]

Application-Specific Performance Insights

The comparative effectiveness of BNN methods varies significantly across different materials research applications:

In full-field stress prediction for composite materials, HMC and BBB generally provide the most accurate predictions and well-calibrated uncertainty estimates, with HMC achieving the closest agreement with FEA solutions [34]. However, for large-scale problems or when computational resources are limited, BBB offers a favorable trade-off between accuracy and efficiency [34].

For machine learning interatomic potentials, systematic comparisons on TiO₂ structures show that both variational BNNs and deep ensembles provide effective uncertainty quantification, with their relative performance depending on data representation and diversity [32]. When trained on comprehensive datasets that adequately represent the configurational space, both methods demonstrate strong predictive accuracy and uncertainty estimation capabilities [32].

In materials discovery and optimization, information-based acquisition strategies such as InfoBAX and MeanBAX have demonstrated significantly higher efficiency compared to state-of-the-art approaches, enabling researchers to identify target regions of materials design space with fewer experiments [33]. These methods are particularly valuable for navigating complex, multi-dimensional processing conditions to find specific subsets that meet user-defined criteria [33].

Computational Frameworks and Datasets

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for BNN Implementation in Materials Science

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Datasets	Key Features/Capabilities	Application Context
BNN Implementation Frameworks	PyTorch with Bayesian layers [32]	Flexible architecture design, automatic differentiation	General BNN implementation and experimentation
	TensorFlow Probability	Probabilistic modeling primitives, MCMC methods	Production deployment and scalable inference
	aenet-PyTorch with variational inference [32]	Specialized for machine learning interatomic potentials	Atomistic simulations and molecular modeling
Uncertainty Quantification Libraries	Uncertainty Toolbox	Calibration metrics, visualization tools	Model evaluation and comparison
	BayesianOptimization	Bayesian optimization with Gaussian processes	Experimental design and materials discovery
Materials-Specific Datasets	Full-field material response dataset [37]	FEA simulations for fiber composites and polycrystals	Benchmarking stress prediction models
	TiO₂ structures dataset [32]	7,815 structures for interatomic potential development	Testing uncertainty in atomistic simulations
	Magnetic materials characterization data [33]	High-throughput measurement data	Validating materials discovery frameworks

Experimental Design and Optimization Tools

For materials researchers implementing BNNs in discovery workflows, several specialized strategies have demonstrated particular effectiveness:

The Bayesian Algorithm Execution (BAX) framework enables researchers to express experimental goals through user-defined filtering algorithms, which are automatically converted into intelligent data collection strategies [33]. The framework includes three specific approaches:

• InfoBAX: Targets information gain about specific properties or regions of interest
• MeanBAX: Uses model posteriors to guide exploration of promising regions
• SwitchBAX: Dynamically switches between InfoBAX and MeanBAX based on data characteristics

These approaches have shown significant efficiency improvements over state-of-the-art methods in nanoparticle synthesis and magnetic materials characterization, enabling more targeted exploration of complex design spaces [33].

Visualization of BNN Comparative Analysis

Future Directions and Research Challenges

The integration of BNNs in materials research continues to evolve, with several promising research directions emerging:

Knowledge-Driven Bayesian Learning: Recent approaches focus on integrating prior scientific knowledge and physics principles with BNNs to enhance learning efficiency and physical consistency [38]. This includes encoding physical constraints directly into model architectures, incorporating domain knowledge through informative priors, and developing hybrid models that combine data-driven learning with physics-based simulations [38].

Multi-Fidelity Modeling and Transfer Learning: Combining data from multiple sources with varying fidelity and cost represents an important frontier. BNNs are particularly well-suited for multi-fidelity modeling as they can naturally quantify uncertainties associated with different data sources and automatically balance their contributions to predictions [34].

Scalable Inference for Complex Architectures: As BNNs are applied to increasingly complex problems, developing more scalable inference methods remains a critical challenge. Recent work on architectures like Residual Bayesian Attention Networks demonstrates progress in integrating Bayesian principles with sophisticated neural architectures while maintaining computational feasibility [36].

Uncertainty-Aware Experimental Design: Bayesian optimization and active learning strategies that leverage BNN uncertainty estimates are becoming increasingly sophisticated, enabling more efficient navigation of materials design spaces [33]. Future developments will likely focus on multi-objective optimization and constraint handling for real-world materials development campaigns.

In conclusion, Bayesian Neural Networks represent a powerful methodology for uncertainty quantification in materials research, offering rigorous probabilistic foundations that enhance the reliability of machine learning predictions. As these methods continue to mature and integrate more deeply with materials science domain knowledge, they hold significant promise for accelerating the discovery and development of novel materials with tailored properties and performance characteristics.

Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) is a cornerstone of reliable scientific modeling, providing a framework to assess the reliability and interpretability of computational models. In the specific context of materials measurements research—from the discovery of new high-entropy alloys to the prediction of complex elasto-plastic material responses—effectively quantifying uncertainty is essential for informed decision-making and risk assessment [39]. Traditional machine learning (ML) models often operate as black boxes, providing predictions that may be physically inconsistent or lack reliable uncertainty estimates, especially in data-sparse regimes commonly encountered in scientific applications [40] [39].

Physics-Informed Machine Learning (PIML) represents a paradigm shift, integrating prior physical knowledge—often expressed as governing differential equations, conservation laws, or thermodynamic principles—directly into the ML learning process [41]. This integration enforces physical consistency and significantly enhances the model's ability to generalize, particularly in scenarios with sparse or noisy experimental data [39]. For materials research, where data acquisition can be costly and time-consuming, PIML offers a path toward more robust, interpretable, and data-efficient predictive models. This technical guide explores core PIML methodologies, detailing their theoretical underpinnings, implementation protocols, and applications for UQ in materials science.

Theoretical Foundations of PIML for UQ

This section delineates the primary technical frameworks for incorporating physical laws into machine learning models to improve their predictive uncertainty estimates.

Physics-Informed Kernel Learning (PIKL)

Physics-Informed Kernel Learning operates within a Gaussian Process (GP) regression framework, providing a structured, probabilistic approach to solving linear partial differential equations (PDEs) under known boundary conditions [41].

• Governing Problem Formulation: Consider an s-th order linear differential operator ( \mathcal{D}: C^{s}(\Omega) \to C^{0}(\Omega) ). The goal is to find a function ( f ) that solves the Dirichlet boundary value problem: [ \mathcal{D}f(x) = g(x) \text{ for } x \in \Omega, \quad f(x) = h(x) \text{ for } x \in \partial\Omega ] This is equivalent to minimizing the energy functional [41]: [ \mathcal{E}(f) \coloneqq \|\mathcal{D}f - g\|{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{2} + \|f - h\|{L^{2}(\partial\Omega)}^{2} ]
• Uncertainty-Aware Diagnostics: The multi-objective nature of PIML—balancing data fidelity with physical constraint adherence—creates ambiguity in measuring model quality. The Physics-Informed Log Evidence (PILE) score has been introduced as a single, uncertainty-aware metric for hyperparameter selection and model comparison within the PIKL framework. The PILE score helps identify models that achieve an optimal balance between fitting observational data and satisfying the underlying physical laws, thereby providing a robust model selection criterion that bypasses the ambiguities of test losses [41].

Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) and Enhancements

Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) embed physical laws by incorporating the residuals of governing PDEs directly into the loss function of a neural network.

• Standard PINN Loss Function: The typical loss function for a PINN is: [ \mathcal{L}_{\text{PINN}} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{Data}} + \lambda \mathcal{L}_{\text{Physics}} ] where ( \mathcal{L}_{\text{Data}} ) is the discrepancy between model predictions and observed data (e.g., mean squared error), and ( \mathcal{L}_{\text{Physics}} ) is the residual of the PDE evaluated on a set of collocation points within the domain. The parameter ( \lambda ) controls the trade-off [39].

• Sobolev Training for PINNs: A significant enhancement to the standard PINN framework is Sobolev training, which proposes a novel loss function that guides the neural network to reduce the error in the corresponding Sobolev space [42]. Instead of relying solely on the ( L^2 ) norm (e.g., MSE), Sobolev-PINNs incorporate derivative information into the loss function. This ensures that not only the function itself but also its derivatives (which are critical for satisfying PDE constraints) are accurately learned, leading to a substantially faster and more robust convergence [40] [42]. This approach is particularly valuable for producing sufficiently smooth energy functionals and tangent operators necessary for numerical predictions in fields like elastoplasticity [40].

Deep Gaussian Processes and Multi-Task GPs for Bayesian Optimization

For materials discovery and design, Bayesian Optimization (BO) is a powerful, data-efficient strategy. Deep Gaussian Processes (DGPs) and Multi-Task Gaussian Processes (MTGPs) enhance BO by modeling complex, hierarchical relationships and exploiting correlations between material properties.

• Deep Gaussian Processes (DGPs): A DGP is a hierarchical composition of multiple GP layers. This structure allows the model to capture highly non-stationary and complex functions by learning latent representations at each layer. Formally, a DGP can be viewed as: [ f(\mathbf{x}) = f_L( \dots f_2(f_1(\mathbf{x})) ), \quad f_l \sim \mathcal{GP}(m_l(\cdot), k_l(\cdot, \cdot)) ] where each ( f_l ) represents a GP layer. This architecture provides superior uncertainty quantification by propagating uncertainty through successive layers, making it particularly effective for modeling complex materials data [43] [44].

• Multi-Task Gaussian Processes (MTGPs): MTGPs model correlations between distinct but related tasks (e.g., different material properties like thermal expansion and bulk modulus). Instead of using independent GPs for each property, an MTGP uses a shared covariance function to model the joint distribution of all tasks, allowing information from one property to inform predictions about others. This is crucial for multi-objective optimization where properties are often correlated [43].

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of PIML-UQ Frameworks

Framework	Core Mechanism	Uncertainty Quantification Method	Key Advantage	Ideal Use Case in Materials Research
Physics-Informed Kernel Learning (PIKL) [41]	Gaussian Process regression constrained by PDEs	Native Bayesian posterior distribution from GPs	Provides rigorous UQ and the PILE score for model selection	Solving linear(ized) forward and inverse problems governed by PDEs
Sobolev-PINNs [40] [42]	Neural network trained with derivative-based loss functions	Often requires Bayesian extensions (e.g., BNNs) for full UQ	Ensures high-order derivative accuracy, leading to faster convergence	Learning smooth energy functionals and elasto-plasticity models [40]
Deep Gaussian Processes (DGP) [43] [44]	Hierarchical stack of GP layers	Uncertainty propagation through latent layers	Captures complex, non-stationary relationships in data	High-entropy alloy design with non-linear property relationships [44]
Multi-Task GPs (MTGP) [43]	Shared kernel across correlated output tasks	Multi-variate Gaussian posterior over all tasks	Leverages correlations between material properties for efficiency	Multi-objective optimization (e.g., low CTE & high bulk modulus) [43]
Physics-Guided BNNs (PG-BNN) [39]	Bayesian Neural Networks with physics-based loss terms	Posterior distribution over network parameters via Bayes' theorem	Enforces physical consistency while providing probabilistic predictions	Dynamic system modeling with sparse, noisy data and physical constraints [39]

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

This section provides detailed methodologies for implementing key PIML-UQ experiments cited in the literature.

Protocol: Sobolev Training for Thermodynamic-Informed Neural Networks

This protocol is adapted from the application of Sobolev training to develop interpretable elasto-plasticity models with level set hardening [40].

• Problem Definition and Data Generation:

  • Objective: Train a deep learning framework to model smoothed elastoplasticity, including the stored elastic energy, yield surface, and plastic flow.
  • Data Generation: Use a high-fidelity solver (e.g., a 3D FFT solver) to generate a polycrystal stress-strain database under various loading paths (e.g., cyclic stress paths). This database serves as the ground truth for training and validation.

• Neural Network Architecture and Sobolev Loss:

  • Architecture: Design separate deep neural networks (DNNs) for each interpretable component (energy, yield function, etc.). Use higher-order activation functions to ensure the necessary degree of continuity [40].
  • Sobolev Loss Function: The loss function for each component is designed to gain control over the derivatives of the learned functions. For example, when learning the hyperelastic energy functional ( \psi ), the loss includes terms that minimize the error between the predicted stress ( \mathbf{P} = \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \mathbf{F}} ) and the stress data, in addition to the error in the energy itself [40]. This is the essence of Sobolev training. [ \mathcal{L}_{\text{Sobolev}} = \lambda_1 \|\psi - \psi_{\text{data}}\|^2 + \lambda_2 \|\mathbf{P} - \mathbf{P}_{\text{data}}\|^2 + \lambda_3 \mathcal{L}_{\text{Physics}} ] where ( \mathcal{L}_{\text{Physics}} ) enforces additional physical constraints, such as thermodynamic consistency.

• Training and Validation:

  • Training: Optimize the DNNs using the Sobolev loss function. The training benefits from the additional derivative information, leading to more accurate and physically consistent models.
  • Validation: Verify the implementation of each component individually. Assess the model's forward predictive capacity on unseen stress paths (e.g., cyclic loading) and compare its performance and robustness against black-box models like recurrent neural networks (RNNs) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) [40].

Protocol: DGP-Bayesian Optimization for High-Entropy Alloy Discovery

This protocol outlines the use of Deep Gaussian Process-based Bayesian Optimization for multi-objective materials design campaigns, as demonstrated in refractory HEA spaces [43] [44].

• Problem Setup and Initial Data:

  • Objective: Discover HEA compositions that optimize multiple target properties (e.g., minimize thermal expansion coefficient (CTE) and maximize bulk modulus (BM)).
  • Initial Design: Start with a small initial dataset of HEA compositions and their corresponding properties, typically obtained from high-throughput atomistic simulations or initial experiments.

• Surrogate Model Selection and Training:

  • Model Choice: Employ a Deep Gaussian Process (DGP) as the surrogate model. The DGP is trained on the available (composition, properties) data.
  • Heterotopic Data Handling: The DGP can seamlessly incorporate heterotopic data, where different properties or fidelities of data are available for different samples [44]. This allows the use of both expensive high-fidelity data (e.g., experimental yield strength) and cheaper low-fidelity data (e.g., computational hardness) within the same model.

• Cost-Aware Batch Acquisition:

  • Acquisition Function: Use a multi-objective, cost-aware acquisition function, such as a cost-weighted variant of the Expected Hypervolume Improvement (qEHVI) [44]. This function calculates the expected gain in the Pareto hypervolume from evaluating a batch of candidate materials.
  • Batch Selection: The acquisition function proposes a small batch of candidate compositions for the next evaluation cycle. It strategically balances:
    • Exploration: Sampling in under-characterized regions of the design space.
    • Exploitation: Sampling near current best-performing compositions.
    • Cost-Efficiency: Favoring cheaper queries (e.g., CALPHAD calculations) for broad exploration and reserving expensive evaluations (e.g., experiments) for the most promising candidates [44].

• Iterative Loop:

  • Evaluation: The batch of candidates is evaluated (via simulation or experiment) to obtain their target properties.
  • Update: The DGP surrogate model is updated with the new data.
  • Convergence: The process repeats until a convergence criterion is met, such as a diminishing return in hypervolume improvement or the exhaustion of a predefined budget. The output is a Pareto front of optimal HEA compositions trading off the target properties.

DGP-BO Workflow for HEA Discovery

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Key Computational Tools and Frameworks for PIML-UQ

Tool/Reagent	Function/Description	Application in PIML-UQ Experiment
High-Fidelity Simulator (e.g., 3D FFT Solver, Atomistic Simulator)	Generates high-quality synthetic data for training and validation where physical experiments are scarce or expensive.	Used to create a polycrystal database for training the Sobolev-trained elastoplasticity model [40] and for high-throughput property calculation in HEA discovery [43].
Gaussian Process (GP) Library (e.g., GPyTorch, GPflow)	Provides the core infrastructure for building PIKL, MTGP, and DGP surrogate models with built-in UQ.	Essential for constructing the DGP and MTGP surrogates in Bayesian Optimization for materials discovery [43] [44].
Automatic Differentiation (AD) Engine (e.g., JAX, PyTorch, TensorFlow)	Automatically computes derivatives of model outputs with respect to inputs, which is crucial for evaluating PDE residuals in PINNs and for Sobolev training.	Used in the return mapping algorithm for stress integration in elastoplasticity models and to compute derivatives for the Sobolev-PINNs loss function [40] [42].
Differentiable Programming Framework	A programming paradigm that enables the integration of AD, neural networks, and physical models into a single, trainable system.	Forms the foundation for implementing Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) and their variants, such as Physics-Guided BNNs [39].
Bayesian Optimization Suite (e.g., BoTorch, Trieste)	Offers implementations of state-of-the-art acquisition functions (e.g., qEHVI) and supports advanced surrogate models like DGPs for efficient optimization.	Used to implement the cost-aware, batch Bayesian optimization loop for HEA design [44].

The integration of governing physical laws into machine learning models represents a significant leap forward for Uncertainty Quantification in materials measurements research. Frameworks such as Physics-Informed Kernel Learning with robust diagnostics, Sobolev-trained Neural Networks, and hierarchical Deep Gaussian Processes provide a powerful, principled approach to developing models that are not only predictive but also physically consistent, interpretable, and data-efficient. As demonstrated in applications ranging from elastoplasticity modeling to the accelerated discovery of high-entropy alloys, these PIML techniques directly address core challenges like data sparsity and multi-objective optimization. The continued development and adoption of these methods, supported by the experimental protocols and tools outlined in this guide, will be instrumental in advancing the reliability and pace of innovation in materials science and beyond.

The pursuit of reliable materials property prediction is fundamentally intertwined with the robust analysis of datasets, a process significantly compromised by the pervasive challenge of incomplete data. Missing values, arising from measurement errors, experimental limitations, or data collection inconsistencies, can severely compromise the accuracy of subsequent analyses and introduce substantial bias into predictive models [45]. Within the broader context of understanding uncertainty in materials measurements, the handling of missing data is not merely a preprocessing step but a critical component of the research methodology. The choice of imputation strategy directly influences the uncertainty quantification of the final predictions, impacting the confidence in model outputs and the validity of scientific conclusions drawn from them [46]. This guide provides an in-depth examination of advanced imputation techniques, with a specific focus on their application, efficacy, and integration within materials science research for predicting properties such as formation energy and band gaps.

Understanding Missing Data and Its Impact on Materials Science

The initial step in addressing incomplete data involves characterizing its nature. The mechanism of missingness, as defined by Rubin's framework, falls into three primary categories, each with distinct implications for analysis [47] [48]:

• Missing Completely at Random (MCAR): The probability of data being missing is unrelated to both observed and unobserved data. An example would as a lost laboratory sample due to a random equipment fault [47]. While simpler to handle, this scenario is rare in practice.
• Missing at Random (MAR): The missingness is related to other observed variables in the dataset but not to the missing value itself. For instance, the likelihood of a missing adsorption energy measurement might depend on the observed synthesis temperature, but not on the unrecorded adsorption energy value [47] [49].
• Missing Not at Random (MNAR): The fact that a value is missing is directly related to the unobserved missing value itself. This is the most challenging scenario; an example would be a tensile strength test not being performed on a material batch because its preliminary quality control indicated it was too brittle, and thus likely to have a low value [47] [48].

The presence of missing data, if ignored, can lead to biased predictions, a reduction in statistical power, and an underestimation of variability in model confidence intervals [48]. For many machine learning algorithms used in materials informatics, such as deep neural networks, the presence of missing values in the input data can preclude model training altogether, necessitating effective handling strategies [45] [49].

A Systematic Comparison of Imputation Methods

A wide array of imputation techniques exists, ranging from simple statistical replacements to sophisticated machine learning-based approaches. The following table provides a structured comparison of these methods, summarizing their core principles, advantages, and limitations, which is crucial for selecting an appropriate strategy.

Table 1: Comprehensive Comparison of Data Imputation Methods

Method Category	Specific Technique	Core Principle	Key Advantages	Primary Limitations
Simple Statistical	Mean/Median/Mode Imputation [49]	Replaces missing values with a central tendency statistic (mean, median, or mode) of the observed data for that variable.	Simple, fast, and easy to implement.	Distorts the data distribution and variance, ignores correlations between variables.
Simple Statistical	Conditional Mean Imputation [47]	Imputes missing values using the mean conditioned on other observed variables (e.g., via regression).	More accurate than simple mean imputation as it uses more information.	Treats imputed values as known with certainty, artificially strengthens relationships.
Advanced Statistical	Multiple Imputation (MICE) [47] [50]	Creates multiple plausible versions of the complete dataset by chained equations, analyzes each, and pools results.	Accounts for uncertainty in the imputation process, produces valid statistical inferences.	Computationally intensive; complex to implement and interpret for a single new prediction [50].
Machine Learning	K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) Imputation [45] [49]	Replaces a missing value with the average value from the k most similar data points (neighbors) in the dataset.	Preserves data variability and relationships better than mean imputation.	Computationally expensive for large datasets; performance depends on choice of k and distance metric [45].
Machine Learning	Deep Learning (Autoencoders, GANs) [49]	Uses neural networks to learn complex, low-dimensional data representations to reconstruct missing values.	Highly effective for complex, high-dimensional data like spectra or images.	Requires very large datasets and substantial computational resources; complex to tune.
Hybrid	Optimized KNN with DNN Modeling [45]	Combines a KNN imputer with hyperparameter tuning for optimal k and distance metric, followed by a Deep Neural Network for prediction.	Enhances data integrity and prediction accuracy; shown to outperform standard methods.	Complex workflow; requires careful optimization at both the imputation and modeling stages.

The selection of the most appropriate method is not one-size-fits-all and must be guided by the missing data mechanism, the pattern and ratio of missingness, and the overall goal of the analysis [48]. For example, a systematic review of clinical data (a domain with analogous missing data challenges) found that 45% of studies employed conventional statistical methods, 31% used machine/deep learning, and 24% applied hybrid techniques, highlighting the context-dependent nature of the choice [48].

Experimental Protocols for Key Imputation Strategies

Protocol for Optimized K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) Imputation

The KNN imputation method has been noted for its effectiveness in handling numerical datasets typical of material science [45]. The following workflow details the steps for its optimized implementation.

Detailed Methodology Formulation [45]:

• Data Preparation: Let ( X \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times m} ) be the material dataset with ( n ) records and ( m ) features, where some elements are missing. Define the set of observed data points ( X{obs} ) and missing data points ( X{mis} ).

• Distance Calculation: For each missing value ( x{ij} \in X{mis} ), compute the distance between its record and all other records with observed values for that feature using a chosen metric (e.g., Euclidean distance): [ d(x{i}, x{k}) = \sqrt{\sum{l=1}^{m} (x{il} - x_{kl})^2 } ] (Note: The summation is typically over other observed variables for a robust multivariate distance.)

• Neighbor Identification and Imputation: Identify the ( k )-nearest neighbors of the record with the missing value. Impute the missing value ( x{ij} ) as the weighted average of the corresponding feature's values from these ( k )-neighbors: [ \hat{x}{ij} = \frac{\sum{l \in Nk} \omega{l} x{lj}}{\sum{l \in Nk} \omega{l}} ] where ( Nk ) is the set of indices of the ( k )-nearest neighbors and ( \omega_{l} ) is the weight (often the inverse of the distance).

• Hyperparameter Tuning: A critical step is the optimization of parameters via a grid search strategy. This involves:

  • Defining the Parameter Grid: The number of neighbors ( k ) is typically varied from 1 to 20. Distance metrics like Euclidean and Manhattan are evaluated.
  • Model Evaluation: Performance for each parameter combination is evaluated using k-fold cross-validation, with the Mean Squared Error on Cross-Validation (MSECV) serving as the primary metric.

Protocol for Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE)

Multiple Imputation is a powerful statistical approach that accounts for the uncertainty of the imputed values [47] [50].

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Data Imputation

Reagent / Software Solution	Type	Primary Function in Imputation
Scikit-learn's KNNImputer	Python Library	Implements KNN-based imputation for missing values, allowing seamless integration into machine learning pipelines.
Scikit-learn's IterativeImputer	Python Library	Implements MICE, using regression models to impute missing values in an iterative, round-robin fashion.
R mice Package	R Library	A comprehensive package for performing Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) with a wide variety of modeling options.
Statsmodels test_mcar	Python Library	Provides statistical tests, such as Little's MCAR test, to help diagnose the mechanism of missing data.
Pandas & NumPy	Python Library	Foundational tools for data manipulation, cleaning, and handling of missing value placeholders (e.g., NaN).

Detailed Methodology [47]:

• Specify Imputation Models: For each variable with missing data, specify an appropriate imputation model (e.g., linear regression for continuous variables, logistic regression for binary variables).

• Initialize: Fill in missing values with simple random draws from the observed data.

• Iterative Imputation Cycle: For each variable with missing data (cycle through them one by one):

  • a. The currently chosen variable is treated as the response. It is regressed on all other variables, using subjects for whom the response is observed and using the most recently imputed values for the other predictors.
  • b. The regression coefficients and their variance-covariance matrix are extracted.
  • c. The regression coefficients are randomly perturbed to reflect the uncertainty in their estimation.
  • d. For each subject with a missing value in the response variable, the conditional distribution of the response given their other covariates and the perturbed coefficients is determined.
  • e. A new value for the missing response is drawn from this conditional distribution and imputed.

• Repeat Cycles: Steps 3a-e are repeated for multiple cycles (e.g., 5-20) for one imputed dataset. The final imputed values after the last cycle are retained.

• Create Multiple Datasets: The entire process from Step 2 is repeated ( M ) times (e.g., M=20) to create ( M ) completed datasets.

• Analysis and Pooling: The desired analysis (e.g., training a DNN) is performed on each of the ( M ) datasets. The results (e.g., regression coefficients, performance metrics) are then combined into a single set of estimates using Rubin's rules, which account for both the within-imputation and between-imputation variance.

Integrating Imputation with Predictive Modeling and Uncertainty Quantification

The ultimate goal of imputation in materials science is to enable accurate and reliable prediction of properties. The integration of the imputed data with powerful models like Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) has been shown to yield high accuracy [45]. The complete workflow, from raw, incomplete data to final property prediction, can be visualized as follows.

A critical consideration in this pipeline is Uncertainty Quantification (UQ). It is essential to recognize that the imputed values are estimates, not true measurements, and this introduces an additional source of error. UQ methods aim to quantify this to build robust and generalizable models [46]. Benchmark studies have shown that the popular ensemble methods for UQ are not necessarily the best choice for materials property prediction, underscoring the need for careful evaluation of UQ techniques in this domain [46]. When validating a model or applying it to a new individual patient or material sample, the missing data method must be transferable. This means the procedure should depend only on the original development data and be applicable to a single new case, precluding the direct use of methods like MICE that require a full dataset for imputation [50]. Alternative strategies for this scenario include using submodels based on observed data only, marginalizing over the missing variables, or using single imputation based on pre-trained models from the development data [50].

The effective handling of incomplete data is a non-negotiable aspect of modern materials science research, directly impacting the validity of predictive models and the quantification of uncertainty in measurements. While simple imputation methods offer speed, they often distort data structures and introduce bias. Advanced techniques, particularly Optimized KNN and Multiple Imputation, provide more robust solutions by preserving multivariate relationships and accounting for imputation uncertainty. The integration of these sophisticated imputation strategies with high-performance models like Deep Neural Networks represents the state of the art in materials property prediction. The choice of method must be guided by a careful diagnosis of the missing data mechanism, the data structure, and the ultimate research goal. By adopting these rigorous approaches, researchers can significantly enhance the integrity of their data, the accuracy of their predictions, and the reliability of the scientific insights derived from their work.

Identifying and Mitigating Key Sources of Measurement Uncertainty

In materials science and drug development, measurement data forms the critical foundation for research conclusions, formulation development, and regulatory decisions. Unlike purely theoretical constructs, every experimental measurement possesses an inherent margin of doubt—its uncertainty. Properly quantifying this uncertainty is not merely a technical formality but a fundamental scientific responsibility that dictates the reliability and reproducibility of research outcomes. This guide provides a comprehensive framework for identifying, evaluating, and combining the seven key sources of uncertainty that affect every measurement process in materials research. By systematically addressing these factors, researchers can produce more reliable data, make more confident material selection decisions, and build a stronger evidence base for drug development pipelines.

The Six Categories of Measurement Influence

Before examining the seven specific sources, it is useful to understand the broader categories that influence measurement uncertainty. According to metrology guidance, all uncertainty factors belong to one of six main categories that influence every measurement process [51].

Table 1: Categories of Measurement Influence

Category	Description of Influence
Equipment	Uncertainty originating from the measurement instruments, standards, and reference materials themselves, including their resolution, stability, and inherent limitations.
Unit Under Test (UUT)	Uncertainty arising from the specific material sample being measured, including its homogeneity, stability, and representativeness of the larger material population.
Operator	Variability introduced by different personnel performing measurements, including their technique, skill level, and interpretation of procedures.
Method	Uncertainty inherent in the measurement procedure itself, including approximations in theoretical models, procedural limitations, and environmental corrections.
Calibration	Uncertainty component from the traceability chain, reference standards used, and the calibration process of measurement equipment.
Environment	Effects of laboratory conditions on measurements, including temperature fluctuations, humidity, vibration, and atmospheric pressure variations.

These categories provide a systematic framework for identifying potential uncertainty sources when developing measurement protocols for materials characterization or pharmaceutical analysis.

The following seven sources represent the core contributors to measurement uncertainty that should be quantified in virtually every uncertainty budget for materials research. These factors typically influence every measurement and are commonly required by accreditation bodies [51].

Repeatability

Definition and Context: Repeatability represents the precision of measurements under repeatability conditions—where the same operator uses the same equipment, the same method, in the same environment, over a short period of time [51]. In materials testing, this might involve repeatedly measuring the hardness of the same metal sample or the dissolution profile of the same drug batch.

Experimental Protocol:

• Select a representative material sample (UUT) for testing.
• Using a single measurement system and consistent instrument settings, perform repeated back-to-back measurements (n times) without altering any parameters.
• Record all measurement results in a structured format.
• Calculate the standard deviation of the n measurements using the formula below or the STDEV function in spreadsheet software.
• The resulting standard deviation represents the uncertainty component due to repeatability, characterized as a Type A uncertainty with a normal distribution (k=1) [51].

Evaluation Method: Standard deviation of repeated measurements under identical conditions.

Formula:

Where:

• s = standard deviation (repeatability)
• xi = individual measurement value
• x̄ = mean of all measurements
• n = number of measurements

Sample Size Considerations: While 20-30 samples are often recommended, practical constraints in materials research may limit this to 3-5 replicates. The Central Limit Theorem indicates that more samples yield a smaller standard deviation, but researchers should balance statistical ideals with practical feasibility [51].

Reproducibility

Definition and Context: Reproducibility represents measurement precision under reproducibility conditions—where different operators, equipment, methods, or environments obtain results for the same material sample [51]. For pharmaceutical development, this might involve different technicians analyzing the same active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) concentration across different laboratories.

Experimental Protocol:

• Perform an initial repeatability test as described in Section 3.1 and calculate the mean value.
• Change one controlled variable (operator, equipment, method, time, or environment).
• Perform a new repeatability test with the changed variable and calculate the mean value.
• Calculate the standard deviation of the means obtained under different conditions.
• This standard deviation represents the reproducibility uncertainty, characterized as a Type A uncertainty with a normal distribution (k=1) [51].

Evaluation Method: Standard deviation of means obtained under different conditions.

Types of Reproducibility Tests:

Table 2: Reproducibility Test Configurations

Test Type	Variable Changed	Typical Application Context
Operator vs Operator	Different analysts or technicians	Laboratories with multiple research staff
Equipment vs Equipment	Different instruments or measurement systems	Laboratories with multiple equivalent instruments
Method vs Method	Different analytical procedures	Method validation studies
Day vs Day	Different time periods	Single-operator laboratories
Environment vs Environment	Different laboratory conditions	Field measurements vs. controlled lab settings

Stability

Definition and Context: Stability refers to the property of a measuring instrument whereby its metrological properties remain constant in time [51]. In materials research, this might involve monitoring the long-term performance of a spectrophotometer used for polymer characterization or the drift in a thermal analyzer for phase transition studies.

Experimental Protocol (Method B - Calibration History):

• Collect at least 3-4 consecutive calibration certificates for the measurement equipment.
• Record the as-found calibration result from each certificate for a specific measurement point.
• Calculate the standard deviation of these historical calibration values.
• Divide the standard deviation by √2 to account for the uncertainty in the calibration process itself.
• The result represents the stability uncertainty component, characterized with a normal distribution [51].

Evaluation Methods:

• Method A: Manufacturer's specifications (less precise, may overstate uncertainty)
• Method B: Calibration history (preferred, uses actual performance data)
• Method C: Dedicated stability experiments (resource-intensive but most accurate)

Formula (Method B):

Uncertainty Quantification and Advanced Applications

Structured Data Tables for Uncertainty Budget

Table 3: Quantitative Comparison of Uncertainty Sources

Uncertainty Source	Evaluation Method	Distribution Type	Probability Distribution	Sensitivity Coefficient	Contribution to Combined Uncertainty
Repeatability	Type A (statistical)	Normal	Standard deviation of measurements	1	var(repeatability)
Reproducibility	Type A (statistical)	Normal	Standard deviation of means	1	var(reproducibility)
Stability	Type A or B	Normal	Standard deviation of calibration history	1	var(stability)
Resolution	Type B	Rectangular	Resolution/√12	1	var(resolution)
Reference Standard	Type B	Normal	Calibration certificate value	1	var(reference)
Environmental Factors	Type B	Rectangular or Normal	Temperature coefficient × variation/√3	1	var(environment)
Operator Bias	Type A	Normal	Difference from reference value	1	var(operator)

Advanced Uncertainty Quantification in Materials Research

Emerging methodologies are enhancing uncertainty quantification in complex materials characterization. Recent approaches include:

Symbolic Regression and Probabilistic Programming: Advanced frameworks now use symbolic regression to generate empirical equations with unknown coefficients for determining material properties, combined with probabilistic programming to quantify uncertainty in complex parameters like rock joint roughness coefficients [52]. This approach demonstrates better generalization performance than traditional deterministic equations.

LLM-Enhanced Data Extraction: The ChatExtract method utilizes large language models (LLMs) with purposefully engineered prompts to extract materials data from research literature while quantifying associated uncertainties [53]. This approach achieves precision and recall both close to 90% by incorporating uncertainty-inducing redundant prompts that encourage negative answers when appropriate, overcoming tendencies toward factual inaccuracy.

Interactive Structured Data Systems: Systems like SciDaSynth leverage LLMs within retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) frameworks to interpret user queries, extract multimodal information from scientific documents, and generate structured tabular output with built-in uncertainty tracking [54]. This approach dynamically integrates up-to-date, domain-specific information to reduce hallucinations and improve factual accuracy.

Experimental Protocols for Comprehensive Uncertainty Analysis

Repeatability Testing Protocol

Research Reagent Solutions and Materials:

Table 4: Essential Materials for Uncertainty Evaluation Experiments

Material/Equipment	Specification	Function in Uncertainty Analysis
Reference Material	Certified, traceable standard	Provides ground truth for measurement accuracy assessment
Stable Test Sample	Homogeneous, representative material	Serves as Unit Under Test (UUT) for repeatability studies
Measurement Instrument	Appropriate resolution for application	Primary equipment under evaluation
Environmental Monitor	Temperature, humidity sensors	Quantifies environmental influence factors
Data Collection System	Spreadsheet or specialized software	Records measurement results for statistical analysis

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Preparation: Ensure the measurement system is properly calibrated and conditioned. Select a stable, homogeneous reference material sample.
• Environmental Stabilization: Allow the sample and equipment to equilibrate to standard laboratory conditions (typically 20°C ±1°C, unless specified otherwise).
• Measurement Sequence: Perform n repeated measurements (where n ≥ 10 ideally) without adjusting instrument settings or repositioning the sample between measurements.
• Data Recording: Document each result with appropriate significant figures, noting any environmental fluctuations or observational notes.
• Statistical Analysis: Calculate the mean, standard deviation, and relative standard deviation (RSD) of the measurement series.
• Documentation: Record all experimental conditions, including date/time, operator identification, instrument settings, and environmental conditions.

Reproducibility Testing Protocol

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Baseline Establishment: Conduct an initial repeatability test as described in Section 5.1 with Operator A using Instrument A.
• Variable Modification: Introduce one controlled change to the measurement system:
  • Operator Variation: Different trained analyst using the same protocol
  • Instrument Variation: Equivalent measurement system of the same model
  • Temporal Variation: Measurements conducted on different days
  • Environmental Variation: Different laboratory locations or controlled environmental changes
• Secondary Testing: Perform a complete repeatability test under the modified condition.
• Comparative Analysis: Calculate the standard deviation between the means obtained under different conditions.
• Root Cause Investigation: For significant reproducibility variations, conduct additional experiments to identify contributing factors.

Stability Monitoring Protocol

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Historical Data Collection: Gather 3-4 consecutive calibration certificates for the instrument under evaluation.
• Data Extraction: Record the as-found calibration results at representative measurement points across the instrument's range.
• Trend Analysis: Plot historical values over time to identify directional drift versus random variation.
• Statistical Quantification: Calculate the standard deviation of historical values at each calibration point.
• Uncertainty Calculation: Apply appropriate divisor (typically √2) to account for calibration uncertainty.
• Predictive Modeling: For instruments showing significant drift, establish a recalibration interval based on the observed stability performance.

Workflow Visualization

Uncertainty Analysis Workflow

Reproducibility Test Types

In materials science and drug development, the reliability of any experimental conclusion is fundamentally constrained by measurement uncertainty. Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R) are two core components of measurement precision that quantify this uncertainty [55]. Within a broader thesis on understanding uncertainty in materials research, R&R studies provide a critical, standardized framework for distinguishing actual material property variations from noise inherent in the measurement process itself. This guide provides researchers with detailed protocols to quantitatively evaluate their measurement systems, thereby ensuring that decisions in materials design or drug development are based on reliable data.

Core Definitions and Conceptual Framework

Defining Repeatability and Reproducibility

• Repeatability refers to the precision of measurements obtained under repeatability conditions—where the same measurement procedure, same operator, same measuring system, same operating conditions, and same physical location are used over a short period of time [55] [56]. It captures the inherent short-term variability of the measurement system.
• Reproducibility refers to the precision of measurements obtained under reproducibility conditions—where different operators, different measuring systems, and different locations may be used, but measurements are made on the same or similar objects [55] [56]. It captures the long-term variability encountered during a laboratory's routine operations.

The Relationship Between R&R and Total Measurement Variation

The total variation (TV) observed in a measurement study is a combination of the variation from the measurement system itself (R&R) and the actual variation between the parts or samples being measured (part-to-part variation, or PV). This relationship is expressed as [55]: Total Variation (TV) = √(R&R² + PV²) A core objective of R&R analysis is to isolate and quantify the measurement system variation (R&R) to ensure it is small enough to reliably detect the actual signal of interest—the differences between materials or samples.

Experimental Protocols for R&R Studies

The choice of experimental protocol depends primarily on whether the measurement process is destructive or non-destructive.

Crossed GR&R Study (For Non-Destructive Tests)

This is the most common and robust design, used when the same part or sample can be measured multiple times without being altered.

• Objective: To determine how much process variation is due to the measurement system by having multiple operators measure the same set of parts [55].
• Protocol:
  • Select p parts that represent the entire expected process variation.
  • Select o operators who normally perform the measurement.
  • Each operator measures each part r times in a randomized order.
  • The total number of measurements is p × o × r.

The diagram below illustrates this crossed experimental design and its core output.

Nested GR&R Study (For Destructive Tests)

This design is used when the act of measurement consumes, alters, or destroys the sample, making it impossible to measure the same item twice.

• Objective: To assess measurement system variation when each "part" can only be measured once [55].
• Protocol:
  • The key is to identify a homogeneous batch of material that can be assumed to be identical for the purpose of the study.
  • Select o operators.
  • Each operator is assigned a different sample from the same homogeneous batch and measures it.
  • This process is replicated r times with new samples from new, identical batches.
  • The design is "nested" because the specific samples measured are unique to each operator and replication, and are nested within the factor being studied.

Step-by-Step Calculation Methods

Quantitative Data from a Case Study

The following table summarizes quantitative R&R data from a study on permeation-tube moisture generators, illustrating typical values for repeatability and reproducibility standard deviations [57].

Table: Repeatability and Reproducibility Standard Deviations in Moisture Measurement (nL/L) [57]

Nominal Concentration (nL/L)	Repeatability Standard Deviation (Approx.)	Reproducibility Standard Deviation (Approx.)
10	1 to 2	2 to 8
20	1 to 2	2 to 8
40	1 to 2	2 to 8
60	1 to 2	2 to 8
80	1 to 2	2 to 8
100	1 to 2	2 to 8

Calculating the Standard Deviation (ISO 5725-3 Method)

This method evaluates R&R as a standard deviation and is widely recommended by metrology guides [56].

• Select a Test Function: Choose a representative test or calibration.
• Determine Reproducibility Condition: Choose one factor to evaluate (e.g., different operators, days, or equipment).
• Perform Measurements: Conduct a balanced experiment where multiple measurements are taken under each condition.
• Calculate Statistics:
  • Repeatability Standard Deviation (σₑ): Calculate the average range (R̄) of repeated measurements from all operators and divide by a statistical constant (d₂) which depends on the sample size. The formula is: σₑ = R̄ / d₂ [55].
  • Reproducibility Standard Deviation (σ₀): Calculate the overall average for each operator, find the range (R₀) of these operator averages, and divide by a statistical constant (d₂*). The formula is: σ₀ = R₀ / d₂* [55].
• Compute Gage R&R: Combine the components to find the total measurement system variation: σ_R&R = √(σₑ² + σ₀²) [55].

The workflow for this calculation method is shown below.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

The following table details key items used in a typical R&R study for materials research, based on the case studies and methodologies reviewed.

Table: Key Research Reagent Solutions for R&R Studies

Item Name / Category	Function in R&R Analysis
Homogeneous Reference Materials	Stable, well-characterized samples (e.g., calibrated gage blocks, standard solutions) used as "parts" to isolate measurement system variation from part variation.
Permeation-Tube Moisture Generators	A calibrated source of water vapor mixtures used as a reference standard in humidity studies, as cited in the case study [57].
Low Frost-Point Generator (LFPG)	A primary standard based on thermodynamic principles, used to provide reference values for validating other measurement systems, as done at NIST [57].
Qualified Measurement Systems	The gauging instruments, sensors, or test equipment under evaluation (e.g., radiometers [58], quartz-crystal-micro-balances [57]).
Data Collection Protocol	A standardized document detailing the exact measurement procedure, environmental conditions, and sample handling to ensure consistency across operators and trials.

R&R in the Context of Modern Materials Science Research

In modern materials informatics, R&R is not merely a quality control exercise. It is a foundational element for building trustworthy predictive models and guiding experimental campaigns. The "Materials by Design" paradigm, championed by initiatives like the Materials Project, relies on high-quality, reproducible data to virtually screen thousands of compounds [59]. Furthermore, Active Learning frameworks in materials discovery use uncertainty quantification—of which R&R is a key part—to decide which experiment or simulation to perform next, thereby accelerating the discovery of materials with targeted properties [60] [61]. Formal uncertainty analysis, including R&R, allows researchers to move beyond trial-and-error and strategically reduce the most significant sources of error in their pursuit of new materials [58].

In the realm of materials measurement research, understanding and quantifying uncertainty is paramount for ensuring data integrity and reproducibility. Among the various contributors to measurement uncertainty, stability and drift represent critical factors that can systematically influence results over time. Stability refers to the property of a measuring instrument whereby its metrological properties remain constant in time, while drift describes the gradual change in a measurement system's output when the measured quantity remains constant [51]. For researchers and drug development professionals, uncontrolled drift can lead to erroneous conclusions, compromised product quality, and ultimately, failed regulatory submissions. This technical guide provides a comprehensive framework for assessing these temporal factors, enabling scientists to better characterize their measurement processes and reduce uncertainty in materials research.

The significance of monitoring stability extends beyond simple equipment calibration. In materials science, where measurements often involve sophisticated techniques like optical emission spectrometry (OES) and X-ray fluorescence analysis (XRF), understanding long-term instrument behavior is essential for validating experimental findings [62]. Similarly, in pharmaceutical development, analytical instruments must demonstrate stability throughout validation studies to ensure accurate assessment of drug properties. By implementing systematic stability monitoring protocols, researchers can distinguish true material property changes from artificial drift-induced variations, thereby enhancing the reliability of their scientific conclusions.

Theoretical Foundations: Defining Stability and Drift

Conceptual Definitions

According to metrological standards defined in the Vocabulary in Metrology (VIM), stability is formally defined as the "property of a measuring instrument, whereby its metrological properties remain constant in time" [51]. In practical terms, stability represents the ability of a measurement system to maintain consistent performance characteristics over extended periods under specified conditions. Drift, while related, refers specifically to the gradual change in a measurement system's output when the measured quantity remains constant, representing a systematic uncertainty that can be particularly challenging to identify and quantify [51].

The distinction between these concepts is crucial for proper uncertainty budgeting. Stability is generally considered a random uncertainty component, as it evaluates variability over time, whereas drift typically represents a systematic uncertainty that may follow a predictable pattern. In materials research, both factors must be characterized to establish valid measurement uncertainty estimates, especially for long-term studies where temporal effects can significantly impact results.

Impact on Measurement Uncertainty

Stability and drift contribute directly to the overall uncertainty budget of measurements, one of the fundamental pillars of metrological practice. When left uncharacterized, these temporal factors can introduce significant errors that compromise data quality and experimental validity. In precision-dependent fields such as pharmaceutical development, where material characterization must meet rigorous regulatory standards, uncontrolled drift can invalidate months of research and development efforts.

The recently published research on instrumentation drift effects demonstrates that environmental factors, particularly temperature-induced drift, adversely affect measurement accuracy in sophisticated optical systems [63]. This research highlights that traditional methods for drift suppression, such as forward-backward sequential scanning, provide limited effectiveness against nonlinear low-frequency drift while suffering from low measurement efficiency. Advanced strategies that transform low-frequency drift into higher-frequency components that can be effectively filtered represent promising approaches for mitigating these effects in high-precision materials measurement applications [63].

Methodologies for Assessing Stability and Drift

Experimental Design for Stability Assessment

Proper experimental design is essential for meaningful stability assessment. The fundamental approach involves repeated measurements of a stable reference material over time under controlled conditions. A robust stability study should incorporate the following elements:

• Reference Standards: Select stable, well-characterized reference materials that closely match the properties of test samples. For materials research, this may include certified reference materials, calibrated artifacts, or stable production samples with known historical performance.

• Measurement Interval: Establish a regular measurement schedule that captures potential short-term, medium-term, and long-term variations. Initial intensive monitoring (e.g., daily measurements) may transition to less frequent monitoring (e.g., weekly or monthly) once stability patterns are established.

• Environmental Control: Document and control environmental conditions, particularly temperature and humidity, as these factors often contribute significantly to observed drift [63].

• Data Collection Volume: Collect sufficient repeated measurements at each time point to enable statistical analysis of variability. While recommendations often suggest 20-30 replicates, practical constraints may allow for smaller sample sizes, with the understanding that statistical power will be correspondingly reduced [51].

The experimental workflow for a comprehensive stability assessment follows a systematic process that can be visualized as follows:

Quantitative Assessment Methods

Multiple analytical approaches exist for quantifying stability and drift, each with specific applications and limitations. The appropriate method depends on the observed behavior of the measurement system and the available historical data.

Stability from Historical Calibration Data

For instruments with established calibration histories, stability can be quantified by analyzing successive calibration results. The preferred approach involves:

• Collecting calibration results from multiple calibration events
• Calculating the standard deviation of the values obtained for the same reference standard
• Using this standard deviation as the stability uncertainty component [51]

This method directly reflects the instrument's real-world performance over time and incorporates all sources of variation affecting stability.

Manufacturer's Specifications

When historical calibration data is unavailable, such as with new equipment, manufacturer stability specifications provide a conservative estimate. The implementation method involves:

• Obtaining the manufacturer's stated stability specification
• Converting this specification to a standard uncertainty based on the specified distribution (typically rectangular or normal)
• Including this value in the uncertainty budget [51]

While this approach tends to overestimate the actual stability contribution, it provides a defensible initial estimate until experimental data becomes available.

Controlled Stability Experiments

For critical applications or when manufacturer data is unavailable, designed experiments can directly quantify stability. The protocol involves:

• Repeatedly measuring a stable reference standard over an extended period
• Controlling or monitoring environmental conditions to identify correlation factors
• Calculating the standard deviation of the measurement results
• Performing regression analysis to identify significant trends indicating drift

This approach was effectively demonstrated in a materials science study evaluating color stability of resin composites, where measurements were taken at baseline, after thermocycling, and at 7, 15, and 30-day intervals using a spectrophotometer [64].

Table 1: Stability Assessment Methods Comparison

Method	Data Requirements	Uncertainty Estimate	Limitations
Calibration History	Multiple calibration certificates	Based on actual performance	Requires established calibration history
Manufacturer Specifications	Equipment documentation	Conservative estimate	Often overstates actual uncertainty
Designed Experiment	Extended measurement series	Specific to actual conditions	Time and resource intensive

Advanced Drift Detection and Suppression

Recent research has demonstrated innovative approaches to drift suppression that move beyond traditional methods. Rather than attempting to average out drift effects through forward-backward sequential scanning, advanced techniques focus on altering the frequency-domain characteristics of drift. This approach transforms low-frequency drift into higher-frequency components that can be effectively filtered, providing superior suppression of nonlinear low-frequency drift while improving measurement efficiency [63].

Implementation of these advanced strategies involves:

• Random Sampling: Introducing random sampling patterns to transform low-frequency drift
• Optimized Path Scanning: Designing measurement paths that optimize sampling step scales to balance precision and efficiency
• Multi-objective Optimization: Analyzing relationships between sampling parameters and measurement accuracy to determine optimal configurations

Experimental validation of these methods on optical measurement systems demonstrated control of drift errors at 18 nrad RMS while reducing single-measurement cycles by 48.4% compared to traditional forward-backward sequential scanning [63].

Practical Implementation in Materials Research

Stability Assessment Protocol for Materials Characterization

Implementing a structured stability assessment protocol is essential for materials research applications. The following step-by-step methodology provides a framework applicable to various characterization techniques:

• Reference Standard Selection: Identify appropriate reference materials that represent critical measurement parameters. For spectroscopic methods, this may include certified optical standards; for mechanical testing, calibrated reference specimens.

• Baseline Establishment: Conduct an initial measurement series (minimum 10 repetitions) to establish baseline performance and short-term variability.

• Time-series Data Collection: Implement a scheduled measurement regimen, with frequency determined by criticality and historical performance. Intensive studies may require daily measurements, while routine monitoring may occur weekly or monthly.

• Environmental Correlation: Record environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, etc.) during each measurement session to identify potential correlations.

• Data Analysis: Calculate stability metrics, including mean values, standard deviations, and control limits for each time interval.

• Trend Analysis: Perform statistical analysis to identify significant trends indicating drift, using regression analysis or control chart methodologies.

A recent study on color stability of dental composites exemplifies this approach, where researchers measured color change (ΔE00) using a Vita Easyshade spectrophotometer after immersion in various solutions and employed the CIEDE2000 color difference formula for quantitative analysis [64].

Case Study: Stability in Resin Composite Characterization

A 2025 study provides a comprehensive example of stability assessment in materials research, investigating the color stability and surface roughness of smart monochromatic resin composites [64]. The experimental protocol included:

• Preparation of 99 disc samples (8mm diameter, 2mm thickness) from three composite materials
• Division into groups and subgroups based on material and immersion solution
• Baseline measurements using spectrophotometry and profilometry
• Thermocycling (1000 cycles at 5°/55°C with 15-second dwell time) to simulate aging
• Periodic measurements at 7, 15, and 30-day intervals during immersion in staining solutions
• Statistical analysis of color change (ΔE00) and surface roughness (Ra) values

This systematic approach enabled researchers to quantify material stability differences, with results showing Omnichroma composite had significantly lower color change values across all immersion solutions and time intervals (p < 0.001) [64].

Table 2: Essential Materials for Stability Assessment Experiments

Research Reagent/Material	Function in Stability Assessment	Application Examples
Certified Reference Materials	Provides stable, traceable reference for measurement comparison	Instrument calibration, method validation
Stable Control Samples	Monitors system performance over time	Daily system suitability tests
Environmental Monitoring Equipment	Quantifies laboratory conditions	Temperature/humidity data loggers
Data Analysis Software	Statistical analysis of stability data	Trend analysis, control chart generation

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Statistical Analysis of Stability Data

Proper statistical analysis transforms raw stability data into actionable information about measurement system performance. Key analytical approaches include:

• Descriptive Statistics: Calculation of mean, standard deviation, and variance for stability measurements at each time point provides baseline understanding of variability [65] [66].

• Control Charts: Graphical representation of measurement results over time with established control limits enables visual identification of trends, shifts, or outliers.

• Regression Analysis: Fitting trend lines to time-series data helps identify and quantify systematic drift components, distinguishing them from random variation.

• Variance Component Analysis: Partitioning total variability into within-session and between-session components provides insight into sources of instability.

For inferential analysis, hypothesis testing determines whether observed changes are statistically significant. The null hypothesis (H₀) typically states that no significant change has occurred, while the alternative hypothesis (H₁) states that a significant change is present. The p-value, compared against a significance level (typically α=0.05), determines whether to reject the null hypothesis [66].

Incorporating Stability into Uncertainty Budgets

Once quantified, stability must be properly incorporated into the measurement uncertainty budget. The standard approach involves:

• Expressing as Standard Uncertainty: Convert stability assessment results to a standard deviation, which represents the standard uncertainty component due to stability.

• Determining Distribution: Characterize the probability distribution of the stability component, typically normal for well-behaved systems.

• Combining with Other Uncertainty Components: Combine the stability uncertainty with other sources (repeatability, reproducibility, calibration, etc.) using root-sum-square methods.

• Calculating Expanded Uncertainty: Multiply the combined standard uncertainty by an appropriate coverage factor (typically k=2 for 95% confidence) to obtain the expanded measurement uncertainty.

The relationship between various uncertainty components and their contribution to the overall measurement uncertainty can be visualized as follows:

Systematic assessment of stability and drift represents an essential practice for ensuring measurement reliability in materials research and pharmaceutical development. By implementing the methodologies outlined in this guide—including rigorous experimental design, appropriate statistical analysis, and proper uncertainty budgeting—researchers can effectively characterize temporal influences on their measurement systems. The resulting understanding enhances data quality, supports method validation, and strengthens scientific conclusions by providing defensible estimates of measurement uncertainty attributable to stability and drift factors. As measurement technologies advance and regulatory requirements evolve, robust stability assessment protocols will continue to play a critical role in generating trustworthy materials characterization data.

In materials measurement and drug development, controlling measurement risk is paramount for ensuring product quality and research validity. The Test Accuracy Ratio (TAR) has been a historical cornerstone for calibration, with the 4:1 rule serving as a traditional benchmark. However, modern standards increasingly reveal its limitations in managing false acceptance risk. This guide details the critical transition from TAR to the more comprehensive Test Uncertainty Ratio (TUR) and Measurement Capability Index (Cm), providing researchers with a rigorous framework for quantifying uncertainty, calculating statistical risk, and optimizing measurement processes to enhance data reliability and decision-making.

The Legacy of the 4:1 TAR Rule

The Test Accuracy Ratio (TAR) is a historically significant metric in metrology, defined as the ratio of the accuracy tolerance of the Unit Under Test (UUT) to the accuracy of the reference standard used to calibrate it [67] [68]. For decades, a TAR of 4:1 was the gold standard, implying that the reference standard was four times more accurate than the device being calibrated.

Historical Origins and Context

The 4:1 TAR rule originated in mid-20th century U.S. military specifications, such as MIL-C-45662 (1960), which explicitly mandated a 10:1 ratio [67]. This was later revised to a 4:1 requirement in documents like MIL-STD-45662A (1988), which stated that "the collective uncertainty of the measurement standards shall not exceed 25 percent of the acceptable tolerance"—a 25% threshold being mathematically equivalent to a 4:1 ratio [67]. The rule was championed by figures like Jerry L. Hayes of the U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory as a pragmatic solution for managing measurement risk in complex systems like missiles, given the period's limited computational power for more sophisticated uncertainty analyses [67] [68]. It was intended as a temporary fix until better methods became available [68].

Fundamental Flaws and Limitations

While simple to apply, TAR has critical shortcomings that make it inadequate for modern high-precision research and development [67].

• Confusion of Accuracy with Uncertainty: TAR relies on "accuracy" specifications, which are often single-value claims from manufacturers. In contrast, measurement uncertainty is a detailed, quantified evaluation of doubt that accounts for all potential error sources in a measurement process [68]. Accuracy alone does not capture the full picture of measurement quality [69].
• Omission of Critical Uncertainty Contributors: TAR ignores key factors that affect real-world measurements, such as measurement reproducibility, environmental influences, resolution of the UUT, and operator bias [67] [69]. By focusing only on the reference standard's accuracy, TAR provides a false sense of security.
• Susceptibility to Specification Manipulation: Manufacturers may publish aggressive "marketing specifications" based on averages or ideal conditions, masking the true performance of the standard under typical laboratory conditions [67].

These flaws mean that a process with an apparently acceptable 4:1 TAR can still carry a significant, and often unquantified, risk of making incorrect measurement decisions.

The Critical Shift from TAR to TUR and Cm

The evolution beyond TAR is marked by the adoption of the Test Uncertainty Ratio (TUR) and the Measurement Capability Index (Cm), which are mathematically equivalent but represent a fundamental philosophical shift from simple accuracy comparisons to comprehensive uncertainty budgeting [67].

Defining TUR and Cm

Test Uncertainty Ratio (TUR) is formally defined in standards like ISO/IEC 17025 as the ratio of the span of the UUT's tolerance to twice the Calibration Process Uncertainty (CPU) [68]. The CPU is the expanded uncertainty (typically with a coverage factor k=2, representing a 95% confidence level) of the entire calibration process, not just the reference standard [67] [68].

TUR = |UUT Tolerance| / (2 × Calibration Process Uncertainty)

The Measurement Capability Index (Cm) is outlined in JCGM 106:2012 and is often used interchangeably with TUR, particularly in manufacturing contexts where it is treated as a process capability index for measurement systems [67].

Why TUR is Metrologically Superior

TUR offers a more robust foundation for risk management for several key reasons:

• Comprehensive Scope: It incorporates a complete uncertainty budget, including Type A (random) and Type B (systematic) uncertainties from all relevant sources, such as the calibration standard, environmental conditions, repeatability, and resolution [69].
• Foundation for Traceability: Proper uncertainty calculation is a requirement for establishing metrological traceability to the International System of Units (SI) through an unbroken chain of calibrations [68]. Relying on TAR alone cannot guarantee true traceability.
• Direct Enabler for Risk Calculation: The TUR value is a direct input into statistical models that calculate the Probability of False Acceptance (PFA), allowing for quantitative risk management [67] [68].

Table 1: Core Differences Between TAR and TUR

Feature	Test Accuracy Ratio (TAR)	Test Uncertainty Ratio (TUR)
Definition	Ratio of UUT accuracy to reference standard accuracy [67]	Ratio of UUT tolerance to calibration process uncertainty [68]
Basis	Manufacturer's accuracy specifications [67]	Formally evaluated measurement uncertainty budget [69]
Scope	Considers only the reference standard [67]	Considers the entire calibration process (environment, operator, equipment, method) [69]
Primary Use	Quick equipment selection; historical compliance [67]	Modern risk management and decision-making [68]
Risk Management	Qualitative and implicit [67]	Quantitative and explicit via PFA calculation [68]

Quantifying and Minimizing False Acceptance Risk

A false acceptance occurs when a UUT that is actually out-of-tolerance is incorrectly accepted as being in-tolerance based on calibration results. This decision risk is a direct function of the TUR.

The Mathematics of Probability of False Acceptance (PFA)

The Probability of False Acceptance (PFA) is the statistical likelihood that an out-of-tolerance device will be mistakenly accepted. As TUR decreases, the PFA increases dramatically because the "guard band" provided by the more accurate standard erodes.

Table 2: Relationship Between TUR, Guard Band, and Statistical PFA

TUR	Effective Guard Band (±)	Implied PFA (Approximate)	Risk Level
4:1	25% of Tolerance	~1% [68]	Low (Traditional Standard)
3:1	33% of Tolerance	~1% [68]	Low
2:1	50% of Tolerance	~3%	Moderate
1:1	100% of Tolerance	>7%	High

Practical Strategies for Risk Mitigation

To minimize false acceptance in your research and calibration processes:

• Adopt TUR Formally: Transition from TAR-based requirements to TUR-based calibration contracts and standard operating procedures. Require calibration providers to state their measurement uncertainty clearly on certificates [69] [68].
• Implement Guard Banding: Proactively reduce risk by using a guard band—a tolerance zone smaller than the specification limit. A common practice is to adjust equipment to within 70% of its stated tolerance, creating a safety buffer that accounts for measurement uncertainty [69].
• Prioritize High-TUR Calibrations: Focus resources on ensuring that measurements with the highest consequence of failure (e.g., critical quality attributes in drug development) are supported by the highest achievable TURs.
• Conform to Modern Standards: Adhere to standards that mandate uncertainty-based approaches, such as ISO/IEC 17025:2017, ANSI/NCSL Z540.3, and ISO 10012 [67].

TUR, TAR, and Uncertainty in Materials Research

The principles of uncertainty quantification are universal. In materials science, the shift from TAR to TUR mirrors a broader movement away from deterministic models and toward the rigorous Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) of material properties and behaviors [70] [20].

Parallels in Materials Modeling

Just as TAR ignores full measurement uncertainty, deterministic materials models ignore stochastic variations in microstructures and processing, which can lead to deviations in expected properties and even system failures [70] [20]. UQ techniques, including Monte Carlo methods and polynomial chaos expansion, are now essential for propagating input uncertainties (e.g., in constitutive model parameters) to performance metrics (e.g., penetration depth in impact simulations) [20]. This allows for more reliable material selection and design, directly analogous to using TUR for reliable equipment acceptance.

An Experimental Protocol for UQ-Guided Material Impact Testing

The following workflow, adapted from a UQ study on silicon carbide ceramics, illustrates how uncertainty-aware methodologies are applied in materials research [20].

Objective: To quantify the uncertainty in the impact performance (e.g., penetration depth) of an advanced ceramic (e.g., Silicon Carbide, SiC) due to stochastic variations in material microstructure and model parameters [20].

Materials and Computational Reagents:

• Material Specimens: Sintered Silicon Carbide samples.
• High-Velocity Impact Testing Facility: Gas gun or powder gun for experimental validation.
• Computational Solver: A finite element or hydrocode package (e.g., ABAQUS, LS-DYNA) capable of simulating high-strain-rate events [20].
• High-Fidelity Constitutive Model: A physics-based model (e.g., the Li and Ramesh 2021 model) that incorporates underlying deformation mechanisms like micro-cracking and lattice plasticity [20].
• Phenomenological Constitutive Model: A computationally efficient model (e.g., the Johnson-Holmquist JH-2 model) for running large numbers of simulations required for UQ [20].
• UQ Software Framework: Python or R environment with libraries for surrogate modeling (e.g., TensorFlow/PyTorch for neural networks) and sampling (e.g., Chaospy, SALib).

Procedure:

• Identify Input Uncertainties: Define the statistical distributions for key microstructural inputs to the high-fidelity model (e.g., initial defect density, grain size distribution, Weibull modulus) [20].
• Model Connection: Establish a numerical link between the parameters of the high-fidelity physics-based model and the parameters of the phenomenological JH-2 model. This is achieved by running the high-fidelity model over a designed input space and fitting the JH-2 parameters to match its output [20].
• Surrogate Model Training: Replace the computationally expensive high-fidelity model with a neural network-based surrogate. Train the surrogate on a dataset of input-output pairs generated by the high-fidelity model [20].
• Uncertainty Propagation: Using the trained surrogate, perform Monte Carlo simulations (e.g., 10,000+ runs) by sampling from the defined input distributions. This generates a probability distribution for the output performance metric (penetration depth) [20].
• Sensitivity Analysis: Calculate global sensitivity indices (e.g., Sobol indices) from the Monte Carlo results to rank the contribution of each input uncertainty to the variance of the output. This identifies which material properties most critically influence impact performance [20].

Table 3: The Scientist's Toolkit for UQ in Materials Impact Testing

Tool / Reagent	Function / Description	Role in UQ Workflow
High-Fidelity Model	Physics-based constitutive model (e.g., Li-Ramesh) incorporating mechanisms like defect-driven failure [20].	Provides the "ground truth" simulation from which phenomenological parameters and surrogate models are derived.
Phenomenological Model	Simplified, efficient model (e.g., JH-2) implemented in commercial solvers [20].	Enables rapid, large-scale simulations for uncertainty propagation and design iteration.
Neural Network Surrogate	A multi-layer perceptron (MLP) trained to approximate the high-fidelity model's input-output relationship [20].	Replaces the expensive model during Monte Carlo sampling, making large-scale UQ computationally feasible.
Monte Carlo Sampler	Algorithm for randomly sampling input parameters from their probability distributions.	Propagates input uncertainties through the model to generate a statistical distribution of the output.
Sensitivity Analysis	Mathematical method (e.g., Polynomial Chaos, Sobol indices) to quantify input contribution to output variance [20].	Identifies critical material parameters, guiding processing improvements and focused experimental characterization.

The adherence to the simplistic 4:1 TAR rule is an outdated practice that introduces unquantified and potentially significant risk into research and quality control processes. For researchers and drug development professionals, the path to optimization lies in embracing the principles of modern metrology: the rigorous evaluation of measurement uncertainty, the formal adoption of Test Uncertainty Ratio (TUR), and the active management of false acceptance risk. This transition is not merely a technicality but a fundamental component of a robust quality culture. It aligns perfectly with the broader scientific imperative for Uncertainty Quantification across all fields, from materials design to clinical trials, ensuring that decisions are based on a complete and honest assessment of what is truly known and, just as importantly, what is not.

In materials measurements research, epistemic uncertainty arises from a lack of knowledge or insufficient data about the system under investigation. Unlike aleatoric uncertainty, which stems from inherent randomness, epistemic uncertainty is reducible through additional information and can be quantified using methods from statistical inference and machine learning [71] [72]. In the context of materials science and drug development, this type of uncertainty manifests when predicting material properties from chemical composition and processing parameters, particularly for regions of the design space where experimental data is sparse or nonexistent.

Active Learning (AL) represents a transformative approach to experimental design that strategically prioritizes which data points to acquire next, thereby maximizing the information gain while minimizing experimental costs. This methodology operates through an iterative feedback loop where a surrogate model guides the selection of subsequent experiments based on the current state of knowledge and its associated uncertainties [61]. The core premise of AL is that by intelligently selecting the most informative experiments—those where the model exhibits high epistemic uncertainty—researchers can dramatically accelerate the discovery and optimization of new materials and pharmaceutical compounds while establishing robust uncertainty quantification (UQ) frameworks.

Theoretical Foundations of Epistemic UQ

Defining Epistemic Uncertainty

Epistemic uncertainty, also known as model uncertainty, originates from limitations in the model itself, often due to inadequate training data in specific regions of the input space or inappropriate model architectures [71] [72]. In formal terms, for a pre-trained model with parameters θ* providing a probability vector p(y|x, θ*) for classification tasks, epistemic uncertainty represents the model's lack of knowledge about specific inputs x. The ideal Bayesian approach to quantifying this uncertainty involves calculating the mutual information between the target variable y and model parameters θ:

ℐ(y; θ|x, 𝒟) = 𝔼p(θ|𝒟)[KL(p(y|x, θ)||p(y|x, 𝒟))]

where KL represents the Kullback-Leibler divergence, and p(y|x, 𝒟) is the posterior predictive distribution [72]. This formulation captures the expected disagreement between individual model predictions and the Bayesian model average, providing a theoretically grounded measure of epistemic uncertainty.

Methodologies for Quantifying Epistemic Uncertainty

Several probabilistic methodologies have been developed to estimate epistemic uncertainty in practical applications:

• Gaussian Process Regression (GPR): A non-parametric Bayesian approach that provides natural uncertainty estimates through its posterior predictive distribution. GPR has demonstrated strong performance in creep rupture life prediction of ferritic steels, achieving Pearson correlation coefficients >0.95 with meaningful uncertainty estimates (94-98% coverage for test sets) [71].

• Ensemble Methods: Multiple model variants are trained, and epistemic uncertainty is quantified through the variance in their predictions. This approach can be computationally expensive but provides robust uncertainty estimates [73].

• Monte Carlo Dropout (MCDO): A variational inference approximation that enables uncertainty estimation by applying multiple random dropout masks during prediction, effectively simulating an ensemble from a single model [73].

• Quantile Regression: This approach estimates conditional quantiles of the response variable (e.g., 10% and 90% quantiles), with uncertainty calculated as half the range between upper and lower bounds [71] [73].

• Gradient-Based Methods: Recent approaches analyze the gradients of model outputs relative to parameters to assess epistemic uncertainty without requiring model retraining or access to original training data [72].

Table 1: Comparison of Epistemic Uncertainty Quantification Methods

Method	Theoretical Foundation	Computational Cost	Key Advantages
Gaussian Process Regression	Bayesian non-parametrics	High for large datasets	Natural uncertainty estimates, strong theoretical guarantees
Model Ensembles	Bayesian model averaging	High (multiple models)	Simple implementation, state-of-the-art performance
Monte Carlo Dropout	Variational inference	Moderate	Reasonable approximation with single model
Quantile Regression	Frequentist statistics	Low to moderate	Provides prediction intervals, no distributional assumptions
Gradient-Based Methods	Local sensitivity analysis	Low	Applicable to any pre-trained model, no data access needed

Active Learning Framework for Uncertainty Reduction

The Active Learning Loop

The Active Learning framework operates through an iterative process that systematically reduces epistemic uncertainty by strategically selecting experiments. The core AL loop consists of four key components [61]:

• Initial Model Training: A surrogate model is trained on initially available data, which may be sparse or imbalanced across the design space.

• Uncertainty-Based Acquisition: An acquisition function leverages the model's uncertainty estimates to prioritize the most informative unexplored data points.

• Targeted Experimentation: The selected experiments are performed, generating new ground-truth data.

• Model Update: The new data is incorporated into the training set, and the model is retrained, refining its predictions and uncertainty estimates.

This process creates a virtuous cycle where each iteration simultaneously improves model accuracy and reduces epistemic uncertainty, focusing resources on the most valuable experiments.

Acquisition Functions for Epistemic Uncertainty Reduction

Acquisition functions are critical components of AL that balance exploration (sampling in high-uncertainty regions) and exploitation (sampling near promising candidates). For reducing epistemic uncertainty, several utility functions have proven effective:

• Uncertainty Sampling: Selects data points where the model exhibits maximum predictive uncertainty, often measured as predictive variance or entropy [61] [73].

• Expected Improvement: Balances the probability of improvement with the magnitude of improvement, particularly useful for optimization tasks [61].

• Variance Reduction: Chooses points that are expected to most significantly reduce the model's overall uncertainty [71].

• Query-by-Committee: Leverages disagreements between ensemble models to select contentious data points [61].

In practical implementations, many AL frameworks employ a batch-mode approach with clustering to ensure diversity in selected samples. This approach groups unexplored data using algorithms like k-means, then selects the most uncertain sample from each cluster, enhancing both informativeness and diversity [71].

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

Process-Synergistic Active Learning for Al-Si Alloys

A sophisticated implementation of AL for materials design is demonstrated in the Process-Synergistic Active Learning (PSAL) framework for developing high-strength Al-Si alloys [74]. This approach addresses data imbalance across different processing routes (PRs) through five integrated components:

• Dataset Construction: Compiling experimental and literature data (140 composition-process-property entries) covering seven alloying elements (Mg, Cu, Ni, Zn, Fe, Mn, Cr) and four distinct PRs: gravity casting (GC), GC with T6 heat treatment, GC with hot extrusion, and GC with combined hot extrusion and T6 treatment.

• Composition Generation: Employing a conditional Wasserstein autoencoder (c-WAE) to generate potential Al-Si alloy compositions tailored to different processing requirements. PRs are encoded as conditional variables, enabling process-specific compositional clusters.

• Surrogate Model Development: Building an ensemble model combining neural networks and extreme gradient boosting decision trees (XGBDT), with hyperparameters fine-tuned via Bayesian optimization.

• Candidate Selection: Implementing a ranking criterion based on exploration-exploitation strategy, balancing mean predicted strength (exploitation) and standard deviation (exploration). Selected compositions maintain a minimum 0.5% mass percent differential for at least one element to ensure diversity.

• Experimental Validation: Top-ranked candidates (typically three per cycle) are experimentally validated, with results iteratively incorporated into the database for model refinement.

This framework achieved remarkable results: ultimate tensile strength of 459.8 MPa for gravity casting with T6 heat treatment within three iterations and 220.5 MPa for gravity casting with hot extrusion in just one iteration [74].

Figure 1: Process-Synergistic Active Learning (PSAL) Workflow for Al-Si Alloy Design

Batch-Mode Active Learning for Ferritic Steels

For creep rupture life prediction of 9-12 wt% Cr ferritic-martensitic steels, researchers implemented a batch-mode, pool-based active learning framework to address the challenge of expensive and time-consuming experiments [71]:

• Initial Model Training: Gaussian Process Regression models are trained on available creep rupture data, incorporating chemical compositions and processing parameters.

• Uncertainty Quantification: Epistemic uncertainty is quantified using the posterior predictive distribution of the GPR model.

• Clustering of Unexplored Space: The pool of unexplored compositions is partitioned using k-means clustering to ensure diversity.

• Batch Selection: The most uncertain candidates from each cluster are selected, optimizing for both informativeness and diversity.

• Parallel Experimental Validation: Selected candidates are tested in parallel rather than sequentially, significantly accelerating the discovery process.

This approach demonstrated that GPR yielded highly accurate predictions (Pearson correlation coefficient >0.95) with meaningful uncertainty estimates (94-98% coverage for test sets) while efficiently guiding experimental efforts [71].

Uncertainty-Based Molecular Screening

In drug discovery applications, AL guides the exploration of vast chemical spaces for molecular property prediction. A comprehensive evaluation of UQ methods for predicting aqueous solubility and redox potential revealed several key protocols [73]:

• Model Architecture Selection: Choosing between molecular descriptor models (fully-connected neural networks using pre-derived fingerprints) and graph neural networks (operating directly on molecular graphs).

• Uncertainty Estimation: Applying ensemble methods, Monte Carlo Dropout, or distance-based approaches to quantify prediction uncertainty.

• Active Learning Loop:

  • Initial training on available molecular property data
  • Uncertainty-based selection of additional molecules for characterization
  • Iterative model refinement
  • Evaluation of generalization to new molecular scaffolds

This study found that while active learning based on density-estimation approaches led to improvements in generalizing to new molecule types, the enhancements were modest, indicating the need for further development of UQ methods for out-of-distribution detection [73].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Table 2: Performance Metrics of Active Learning implementations Across Materials Systems

Material System	AL Framework	Key Performance Metrics	Data Efficiency	Uncertainty Quantification Method
Al-Si Alloys [74]	Process-Synergistic Active Learning (PSAL)	UTS: 459.8 MPa (GC+T6, 3 iterations), 220.5 MPa (GC+HE, 1 iteration)	140 initial entries, 3 candidates/cycle	Ensemble variance (NN + XGBDT)
Ferritic Steels [71]	Batch-mode AL with GPR	Pearson correlation >0.95, 94-98% coverage intervals	Reduced experiments via clustering	Gaussian Process posterior
Molecular Properties [73]	Uncertainty-guided screening	Improved generalization to new scaffolds	~70% top hits with 0.1% cost (docking)	Ensemble, MCDO, distance-based
Electrolyte Design [73]	Deep learning with UQ	Varied performance across UQ methods	Large datasets (17K-77K molecules)	Multiple methods compared

Table 3: Comparison of Uncertainty Quantification Methods in Molecular Property Prediction

UQ Method	Category	Aqueous Solubility Prediction	Redox Potential Prediction	OOD Detection Performance
Model Ensemble	Ensemble	Strong in-domain performance	Consistent across architectures	Moderate
Monte Carlo Dropout	Ensemble	Computationally efficient	Reasonable approximation	Limited
Quantile Regression (GBM)	Baseline	Provides prediction intervals	Fast training and prediction	Varies by dataset
Distance-Based Methods	Distance	Depends on feature representation	Sensitive to descriptor choice	Strongest performance
Mean-Variance Estimation	Union	Learns uncertainty directly	Architecture-dependent	Inconsistent

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Computational Tools and Algorithms for Active Learning Implementation

Tool/Algorithm	Category	Function in Active Learning	Implementation Considerations
Gaussian Process Regression	Surrogate Model	Provides probabilistic predictions with inherent uncertainty quantification	Computational cost scales O(n³) with dataset size
Neural Network Ensembles	Surrogate Model	Captures complex nonlinear relationships, robust uncertainty via disagreement	High computational cost for training multiple models
Conditional WAE [74]	Generative Model	Generates novel compositions conditioned on processing routes	Requires careful balancing of reconstruction and adversarial losses
Bayesian Optimization	Acquisition Function	Balances exploration and exploitation for global optimization	Sensitive to choice of kernel and acquisition function
K-means Clustering	Diversity Mechanism	Ensures diverse batch selection in pool-based AL	Requires pre-specification of cluster number k
XGBoost [74]	Surrogate Model	Gradient boosting with regularization, handles feature importance	Less computationally intensive than deep learning models
Monte Carlo Dropout [73]	Uncertainty Method	Approximates Bayesian inference in neural networks	Requires dropout layers in architecture
Graph Neural Networks [73]	Surrogate Model	Learns directly from molecular graph structure	Expressive but computationally demanding

Visualization of Uncertainty-Aware Candidate Selection

Figure 2: Uncertainty-Aware Candidate Selection Process

Active Learning for epistemic uncertainty quantification represents a paradigm shift in materials measurement research, moving beyond traditional trial-and-error approaches toward intelligent, data-driven experimental design. The frameworks and methodologies discussed demonstrate how strategic prioritization of experiments based on uncertainty measures can dramatically accelerate materials discovery and optimization while providing rigorous quantification of predictive confidence.

Key insights from current research indicate that process-synergistic approaches that leverage data across multiple processing routes, batch-mode selection that balances informativeness with diversity, and ensemble methods that provide robust uncertainty estimates are particularly effective strategies for reducing epistemic uncertainty in materials science applications. As these methodologies continue to evolve, integrating deeper physical principles with data-driven models and improving out-of-distribution detection will further enhance the impact of Active Learning in uncertainty quantification for materials research and drug development.

Evaluating and Comparing UQ Methods: Metrics and Real-World Performance

Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) has emerged as a critical methodology in materials science and engineering, providing researchers with the tools to determine the level of confidence in predictions made by computational models. In the field of materials informatics, where data-driven approaches increasingly accelerate the discovery and development of novel materials, reliable UQ is essential for informed decision-making [4]. The multi-scale and multi-physics nature of materials, combined with intricate interactions between numerous factors and limited availability of large curated datasets, creates unique challenges for UQ in material property prediction [4]. Without proper UQ, predictions made by machine learning (ML) models can be difficult to trust, particularly when these models extrapolate beyond the range of training data, potentially leading to suboptimal or erroneous decisions in materials design [75].

UQ methods generally categorize uncertainties into two main types: aleatoric uncertainty, which arises from inherent process randomness (e.g., similarities in experimental data from the same experiment), and epistemic uncertainty, related to discrepancies due to lack of training data or imperfections in computational models [4]. For researchers in materials science and drug development, understanding and quantifying both types of uncertainty is crucial for assessing the reliability of predictions related to material properties, behaviors, and performance characteristics.

This technical guide focuses on the core validation metrics required to evaluate the effectiveness of UQ methodologies, specifically coverage, interval width, and predictive accuracy metrics including R² and RMSE. These metrics provide the foundational framework for researchers to validate UQ implementations and communicate the reliability of their findings to the scientific community.

Core Theoretical Framework for UQ Validation Metrics

The Interrelationship of UQ Validation Components

A comprehensive validation strategy for uncertainty quantification in materials measurements requires simultaneous assessment of three interconnected components: predictive accuracy, uncertainty calibration, and uncertainty precision. These components form an integrated framework where each element provides distinct but complementary information about model performance.

The relationship between these core components can be visualized as a hierarchical framework where each metric contributes to an overall assessment of UQ reliability:

Mathematical Foundations of UQ Validation

The validation of uncertainty quantification methods requires precise mathematical definitions for each metric. For a dataset with (n) samples, where (yi) represents the true value, (\hat{y}i) represents the predicted value, and (U_i) represents the predicted uncertainty interval for sample (i), the core metrics can be formally defined as follows:

Predictive Accuracy Metrics:

• Coefficient of determination: (R^2 = 1 - \frac{\sum{i=1}^{n}(yi - \hat{y}i)^2}{\sum{i=1}^{n}(y_i - \bar{y})^2})
• Root Mean Square Error: (RMSE = \sqrt{\frac{\sum{i=1}^{n}(yi - \hat{y}_i)^2}{n}})
• Mean Absolute Error: (MAE = \frac{\sum{i=1}^{n}|yi - \hat{y}_i|}{n})

Uncertainty Calibration Metrics:

• Coverage: (Coverage = \frac{1}{n}\sum{i=1}^{n} \mathbf{1}{yi \in [\hat{y}i - kUi, \hat{y}i + kUi]})
• Mean Interval Width: (MeanWidth = \frac{1}{n}\sum{i=1}^{n} 2kUi)

Where (\bar{y}) represents the mean of true values, (\mathbf{1}) is the indicator function, and (k) is the coverage factor (typically 1.96 for 95% confidence intervals).

Comprehensive UQ Validation Metrics Framework

Predictive Accuracy Metrics

Predictive accuracy metrics evaluate the point prediction capability of models without considering uncertainty estimates. These metrics provide the foundational assessment of how well model predictions match observed values, which is particularly important in materials science applications where precise property predictions drive discovery and development decisions.

Table 1: Predictive Accuracy Metrics for UQ Validation

Metric	Mathematical Formula	Optimal Value	Interpretation in Materials Context	Strengths	Limitations
R² (Coefficient of Determination)	(1 - \frac{\sum(yi - \hat{y}i)^2}{\sum(y_i - \bar{y})^2})	1.0	Proportion of variance in material property explained by model	Scale-independent, intuitive interpretation	Sensitive to outliers, can be misleading with nonlinear relationships
RMSE (Root Mean Square Error)	(\sqrt{\frac{\sum(yi - \hat{y}i)^2}{n}})	0.0	Absolute measure of prediction error in original units	Punishes large errors, same units as response	Sensitive to outliers, scale-dependent
MAE (Mean Absolute Error)	(\frac{\sum|yi - \hat{y}i|}{n})	0.0	Average magnitude of prediction errors	Robust to outliers, intuitive interpretation	Does not penalize large errors as severely

In experimental validation for predicting creep rupture life of steel alloys, Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs) based on Markov Chain Monte Carlo approximation demonstrated competitive predictive performance with traditional methods, achieving high R² values and low RMSE across three distinct material datasets [4]. The incorporation of physics-informed features based on governing creep laws further improved predictive accuracy by guiding models toward physically consistent predictions.

Uncertainty Quality Metrics

While predictive accuracy metrics evaluate point estimates, uncertainty quality metrics specifically assess the calibration and precision of uncertainty estimates. These metrics are essential for determining whether the predicted uncertainty intervals accurately reflect the true variability in the predictions.

Table 2: Uncertainty Quality Metrics for UQ Validation

Metric	Calculation Method	Optimal Value	Interpretation	Application Context
Coverage	Proportion of true values falling within predicted uncertainty intervals	Matches confidence level (e.g., 0.95 for 95% CI)	Measures reliability and calibration of uncertainty intervals	Critical for risk assessment and decision-making under uncertainty
Mean Interval Width	Average width of prediction intervals across dataset	Balance between precision and coverage	Quantifies the precision of uncertainty estimates	Determines practical utility of uncertainty estimates
Calibration Plots	Graphical comparison of expected vs. observed confidence levels	Diagonal line	Visual assessment of calibration across probability levels	Diagnostic tool for identifying miscalibration patterns

In materials informatics, coverage quantifies the proportion of target values that fall within the predicted uncertainty interval, providing a direct measure of how well the uncertainty estimates match their intended confidence level [4]. For example, a 95% prediction interval should contain approximately 95% of the observed values. The simultaneous evaluation of coverage and interval width enables researchers to balance reliability against precision – a critical consideration when using UQ to guide materials selection or experimental prioritization.

Experimental Protocols for UQ Validation

Standardized Workflow for UQ Validation

Implementing a robust UQ validation protocol requires a systematic approach that integrates both predictive accuracy and uncertainty assessment. The following workflow provides a standardized methodology for validating UQ approaches in materials measurement research:

Case Study Protocol: Creep Rupture Life Prediction

A comprehensive experimental validation of UQ methods for predicting creep rupture life in steel alloys demonstrates the application of these validation metrics [4]. The protocol can be adapted for various materials measurement contexts:

Dataset Description: Three distinct material datasets were utilized:

• Stainless Steel 316 alloys: 617 test samples with 20 features including material composition, testing conditions, and measurements
• Nickel-based superalloys: 153 test samples with 15 features
• Titanium alloys: 177 test samples with 24 features

UQ Methodologies Compared:

• Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs) with Variational Inference approximation
• BNNs with Markov Chain Monte Carlo approximation
• Gaussian Process Regression
• Traditional neural networks with probabilistic outputs (Deep Ensembles, MC Dropout)
• Conventional machine learning models (Quantile Regression, NGBoost)

Validation Procedure:

• Data preprocessing and physics-informed feature engineering incorporating knowledge from governing creep laws
• Dataset partitioning with stratified sampling to ensure representative material compositions
• Model training with appropriate UQ method hyperparameter optimization
• Prediction generation including both point estimates and uncertainty intervals
• Comprehensive metric computation for predictive accuracy and uncertainty quality
• Statistical comparison of method performance across multiple trials

Results: The experimental validation demonstrated that BNNs based on MCMC approximation provided the most reliable UQ for creep life prediction, with performance competitive with or exceeding conventional UQ methods like Gaussian Process Regression [4]. The physics-informed approach further improved model performance by incorporating domain knowledge to guide predictions.

The Researcher's UQ Validation Toolkit

Essential Computational Tools for UQ Validation

Implementing effective UQ validation requires specialized computational tools and methodologies. The following toolkit outlines essential resources for researchers evaluating UQ in materials measurements:

Table 3: Essential UQ Validation Tools and Methods

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Primary Function	Application in UQ Validation
Bayesian Neural Networks	MCMC-based BNNs, VI-based BNNs	Probabilistic deep learning with uncertainty estimation	Flexible UQ modeling with different approximation methods for posterior distribution of parameters [4]
Traditional UQ Methods	Gaussian Process Regression, Quantile Regression	Conventional statistical UQ approaches	Benchmarking performance of advanced UQ methods [4]
Probabilistic NNs	Deep Ensembles, MC Dropout	Modified neural networks with probabilistic outputs	Alternative approach for uncertainty assessment in deep learning models [4]
Model Validation Frameworks	Forward-holdout validation, k-fold forward cross-validation	Specialized validation for discovery applications	Estimating look-ahead prediction errors with validation sets containing superior FOM samples [76]
Calibration Techniques	Conformal prediction, temperature scaling	Post-processing for improving uncertainty calibration	Enhancing reliability of uncertainty intervals after model training [77]

Implementation Considerations for Materials Research

When implementing UQ validation in materials science contexts, several domain-specific considerations are essential:

Data Quality and Quantity: Materials datasets are often characterized by limited samples with high-dimensional features. In such "small data" regimes, Gaussian process surrogate models provide good predictive capability based on relatively modest data needs while offering objective measures of credibility [78]. Methods like Bayesian Neural Networks with preconditioned stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics (pSGLD) have demonstrated higher R² performance than conventional machine learning models in data-limited scenarios [75].

Physics-Informed Priors: Incorporating domain knowledge through physics-informed features significantly enhances UQ reliability. In creep rupture life prediction, integrating knowledge from governing materials laws guided models toward physically consistent predictions and improved uncertainty estimates [4].

Multi-Scale Modeling Challenges: Materials science often requires bridging multiple scales from atomic to macroscopic levels. Latent variable approaches, such as latent variable Gaussian processes and variational autoencoders, can learn low-dimensional, interpretable representations of complex microstructures, enabling effective cross-scale property modeling [78].

Benchmarking and Comparison: Utilizing multiple UQ methods with standardized validation metrics enables robust comparison. Studies consistently show that different UQ methods excel in different scenarios – for example, BNNs with MCMC approximation outperformed variational inference methods for creep life prediction [4], highlighting the importance of method-specific evaluation.

Advanced UQ Validation Applications in Materials Discovery

UQ for Active Learning and Materials Discovery

Uncertainty quantification plays a pivotal role in accelerating materials discovery through active learning scenarios. In these applications, UQ metrics guide the iterative selection of the most promising experiments by identifying data points with high uncertainty and diversity [4]. The evaluation of UQ methods in active learning contexts requires specialized metrics beyond conventional validation:

Discovery Precision: A metric designed to evaluate the efficiency of ML models for material discovery in terms of probability, focusing on the model's ability to identify novel materials with superior figures of merit compared to known materials [76].

Predicted Fraction of Improved Candidates: A metric that identifies discovery-rich design spaces by predicting the fraction of candidates likely to exceed current performance thresholds [79].

Sequential Learning Success: Quantified as the number of iterations required to find an improved candidate in the design space, this metric directly correlates with UQ effectiveness in discovery applications [79].

Experimental validations demonstrate that physics-informed BNNs have significant potential to accelerate model training in active learning for material property prediction by effectively prioritizing the most informative samples for experimental validation [4].

Interpretation and Explainability of UQ Results

Advanced UQ validation must consider not only quantitative metrics but also interpretability and explainability. As models grow more complex, maintaining transparency in UQ reasoning becomes increasingly important for scientific trust and adoption [80].

Explainable AI Techniques: Methods like SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) provide post hoc local explainers that quantify feature importance levels when analyzing opaque ML models [80]. These approaches help materials scientists understand which input features most significantly contribute to both predictions and associated uncertainties.

Language-Centric Representations: Emerging approaches use human-readable text-based descriptions automatically generated from materials data as representations that balance predictive accuracy with interpretability [80]. These methods can provide explanations consistent with domain expert rationales while maintaining competitive predictive performance.

Uncertainty Decomposition: Advanced UQ validation should differentiate between epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty components, as each has different implications for materials discovery strategies. Epistemic uncertainty (from model limitations) can be reduced with additional data, while aleatoric uncertainty (inherent process variability) represents fundamental limits to prediction accuracy.

The comprehensive validation of uncertainty quantification methods requires integrated assessment of predictive accuracy metrics and uncertainty quality metrics. Coverage, interval width, R², and RMSE collectively provide the foundational framework for evaluating UQ reliability in materials measurements research. Through standardized experimental protocols and specialized metrics tailored for materials discovery contexts, researchers can effectively quantify and communicate the uncertainty associated with their predictions, enabling more informed decision-making in materials design and development.

As UQ methodologies continue to evolve, particularly with advances in Bayesian deep learning and physics-informed machine learning, the validation framework presented in this guide provides a structured approach for assessing their effectiveness in practical materials science applications. By adopting these validation practices, researchers can enhance the reliability and trustworthiness of data-driven approaches in materials informatics, ultimately accelerating the discovery and development of novel materials with tailored properties and performance characteristics.

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) has become a cornerstone of reliable materials measurements research, where understanding the confidence and potential error in predictions is as crucial as the predictions themselves. In data-driven materials science, two traditional statistical methods stand out for their robust approach to UQ: Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) and Quantile Regression (QR). While GPR provides a full Bayesian probabilistic framework, QR enables the estimation of conditional quantiles, offering a different perspective on uncertainty. Within materials research, uncertainties originate from various sources, primarily categorized as aleatoric (inherent noise or randomness in data) and epistemic (model uncertainty due to limited data or knowledge) [81] [82] [4]. The choice between GPR and QR depends on the specific UQ task, data characteristics, and research objectives. This technical guide provides an in-depth benchmarking of these methodologies, framed within the context of materials measurement research, to equip scientists with the knowledge to select and implement the appropriate UQ technique for their specific applications.

Theoretical Foundations of Uncertainty in Materials Measurements

In materials measurements, uncertainty arises from multiple sources, including inherent material variability, measurement errors, and model simplifications. Aleatoric uncertainty is irreducible and often manifests as heteroscedasticity in data, where noise levels vary with input parameters—a common occurrence in materials data such as the relationship between microstructural features and effective stress [82]. Epistemic uncertainty, conversely, can be reduced by collecting more data or improving models. GPR naturally quantifies both types of uncertainty: predictive variance encapsulates epistemic uncertainty, while the likelihood function can be tailored to model aleatoric noise [81] [82]. QR addresses uncertainty by modeling the conditional distribution of the response variable, providing quantile estimates that capture intervals where future observations will fall with a specified probability, which is particularly effective for characterizing aleatoric uncertainty in non-Gaussian, heavy-tailed distributions common in materials data [83].

The mathematical framework of GPR defines a prior over functions, updated with data to form a posterior distribution. For a dataset ( D = {(\mathbf{x}i, yi)}{i=1}^n ), the model is typically specified as ( y = f(\mathbf{x}) + \epsilon ), where ( f(\mathbf{x}) \sim \mathcal{GP}(m(\mathbf{x}), k(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}')) ) and ( \epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigman^2) ). The choice of covariance kernel ( k(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}') ) is critical, with common selections including the squared exponential and Matérn kernels [81]. The predictive distribution for a new point ( \mathbf{x}_* ) is Gaussian with closed-form expressions for mean and variance, providing intuitive uncertainty estimates.

QR, introduced by Koenker and Bassett, minimizes a pinball loss function to estimate conditional quantiles. The ( \tau )-th quantile, for ( \tau \in (0,1) ), is given by ( q\tau(\mathbf{x}) = \mathbf{x}^\top \beta\tau ), where ( \beta\tau ) is obtained by minimizing ( \sum{i=1}^n \rho\tau(yi - \mathbf{x}i^\top \beta) ) and ( \rho\tau(u) = u(\tau - \mathbb{I}(u < 0)) ) is the check function [83]. Unlike GPR, QR makes no distributional assumptions about the response variable, making it robust to outliers and applicable to diverse data types, including zero-inflated microbiome data [84].

Gaussian Process Regression: Methodology and Applications

Core GPR Methodology and Experimental Protocol

Implementing GPR for materials property prediction involves several methodical steps, from data preparation to model deployment. The following workflow outlines the standard protocol for a Homoscedastic GPR, with modifications for heteroscedastic cases.

Step 1: Data Preparation and Kernel Selection

• Data Preparation: Curate a dataset of material features (e.g., composition, processing conditions) and target properties (e.g., yield strength, creep life). Perform feature scaling and split into training and testing sets [4].
• Kernel Selection: Choose an appropriate covariance function. The Matérn kernel is often preferred in materials applications due to its flexibility in modeling rough surfaces, as opposed to the infinitely differentiable squared exponential kernel [4].

Step 2: Hyperparameter Optimization and Model Training

• Hyperparameter Optimization: Estimate kernel parameters (length scales, variance) and noise level by maximizing the marginal log-likelihood using gradient-based optimizers like L-BFGS [81].
• Heteroscedastic GPR (HGPR): For input-dependent noise, model the noise variance ( \sigma_n^2(\mathbf{x}) ) using a separate function. A common approach uses polynomial regression to predict the log of the noise variance, which is then incorporated into the GPR likelihood [82].

Step 3: Prediction and Validation

• Prediction: Use the posterior predictive distribution to make predictions on test data. The predictive mean provides the point estimate, while the predictive variance quantifies total uncertainty [81].
• Validation: Assess model performance using metrics for predictive accuracy (R², RMSE) and uncertainty quality (coverage, mean interval width) [4].

Advanced GPR Implementations and Materials Applications

Advanced GPR implementations address computational and dimensional complexity. For high-dimensional problems with derivative information, Sorokin et al. demonstrated a method reducing the GP fitting cost from ( \mathcal{O}(n^3 m^3 + n^2m^2d) ) to ( \mathcal{O}(m^2 n \log n+m^3n + n m^2 d) ) by exploiting structure in the Gram matrix when using low-discrepancy sequences [85]. In saddle point searches for molecular reactions, GPR acceleration reduced the number of electronic structure calculations by an order of magnitude, demonstrating its efficiency for complex, high-dimensional optimization [86] [87].

In a structural analysis of AISI 316 stainless steel chimney systems, GPR achieved exceptional accuracy (R² > 0.999) in predicting Von Mises stress with an error rate below 3% compared to finite element analysis, though it was less sensitive to predicting total deformation [88]. This highlights GPR's potential as a reliable surrogate model for specific critical parameters in engineering design.

Quantile Regression: Methodology and Applications

Core QR Methodology and Experimental Protocol

Quantile Regression provides a comprehensive view of the relationship between variables by estimating conditional quantiles, making it particularly valuable for materials data exhibiting heterogeneity, skewness, or heavy tails.

Step 1: Data Preparation and Quantile Selection

• Data Preparation: Prepare materials data without assuming Gaussian distribution. QR is robust to outliers, so extensive cleaning is less critical, but heteroscedasticity should be preserved as QR naturally captures it [83] [84].
• Quantile Selection: Select multiple quantiles of interest (e.g., τ = 0.1, 0.5, 0.9). The 0.5 quantile corresponds to the median, while symmetric quantiles (e.g., 0.1 and 0.9) form an 80% prediction interval [83].

Step 2: Model Fitting via Loss Minimization

• Loss Function: For each quantile τ, estimate coefficients ( \beta\tau ) by minimizing the pinball loss: ( \min{\beta\tau} \sum{i=1}^n \rho\tau(yi - \mathbf{x}i^\top \beta\tau) ) [83].
• Optimization: Use linear programming methods, interior point algorithms, or stochastic gradient descent for large-scale problems [83].

Step 3: Prediction and Validation

• Prediction: Generate predictions for each quantile. The range between different quantiles provides prediction intervals that capture aleatoric uncertainty [83].
• Validation: Assess quantile reliability using coverage probability and interval width. Good calibration ensures that the (τ₁, τ₂) interval contains approximately (τ₂ - τ₁) × 100% of observations [83].

Advanced QR Implementations and Materials Applications

For large-scale materials data, distributed QR methods are essential. The divide-and-conquer approach partitions data into subsets, computes local QR estimates on each machine, and aggregates them into a final estimator [83]. For streaming data, online updating methods update parameter estimates using current data batches and summary statistics from historical data without storing raw data [83].

Composite QR has been successfully applied to correct batch effects in microbiome data, which share characteristics with materials data such as high zero-inflation and over-dispersion [84]. By adjusting operational taxonomic unit distributions to a reference batch, QR effectively addresses non-systematic batch variations that traditional negative binomial models struggle with [84].

Benchmarking Comparison: GPR vs. Quantile Regression

The table below summarizes the key characteristics of GPR and QR for direct comparison in materials research contexts.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of GPR and Quantile Regression for Materials Research

Aspect	Gaussian Process Regression (GPR)	Quantile Regression (QR)
Mathematical Foundation	Bayesian non-parametric approach; places a prior over functions [81]	Frequentist approach; minimizes pinball loss function [83]
Uncertainty Types Handled	Naturally captures both epistemic (via predictive variance) and aleatoric (via likelihood) uncertainty [81] [82]	Primarily captures aleatoric uncertainty through quantile estimates [83]
Distributional Assumptions	Assumes Gaussian process for the function and typically Gaussian noise [81]	Distribution-free; no assumptions about error distribution [83]
Output Provided	Full predictive distribution (mean and variance) [81]	Multiple conditional quantiles [83]
Computational Complexity	O(n³) for exact inference; becomes expensive for large datasets [85]	O(n) for linear QR; efficient for large-scale problems [83]
Robustness to Outliers	Sensitive to outliers due to Gaussian assumptions [81]	Highly robust; loss function gives less weight to outliers [83]
Interpretability	Kernel parameters provide interpretable length scales [81]	Direct interpretation of covariate effects on distribution [83]
Best-Suited Materials Applications	Expensive computer simulations, small datasets, uncertainty propagation [81] [86]	Heteroscedastic materials data, risk assessment, large-scale problems [83]

Table 2: Performance Comparison in Material Property Prediction Case Studies

Case Study	Method	Predictive Accuracy (R²)	Uncertainty Quantification Performance	Key Findings
Creep Rupture Life Prediction [4]	GPR	Competitive with best methods	Reliable uncertainty estimates	Works well with limited data; standard kernels may be suboptimal for microstructural variations
Creep Rupture Life Prediction [4]	Bayesian Neural Networks	Competitive or exceeds GPR	More reliable than VI-based BNNs	MCMC-based BNNs provided most reliable results
Effective Stress Prediction in Porous Materials [82]	Heteroscedastic GPR	High accuracy	Effectively captures input-dependent noise	Superior to homoscedastic GPR for heteroscedastic data
Structural Analysis of Steel Chimney [88]	GPR	R² > 0.999 for stress	Less accurate for deformation prediction	Excellent for critical parameters (stress) but limited for small deformations
Batch Effect Correction in Microbiome Data [84]	Composite Quantile Regression	Effective correction	Handles non-systematic batch effects	Outperforms traditional methods for zero-inflated count data

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for UQ in Materials Research

Category	Item	Function/Application	Example Use Case
Computational Tools	ANSYS Workbench/SolidWorks Simulation	Finite Element Analysis for generating training data [88]	Structural analysis of AISI 316 stainless steel chimney systems [88]
Computational Tools	EON Software Package	GPR-accelerated saddle point searches [86] [87]	Locating transition states in molecular reactions [86]
Computational Tools	Sella Software	Internal coordinate-based saddle point searches [86]	Benchmarking against GPR-dimer method [86]
Programming Libraries	GPyTorch, scikit-learn (GPR)	Implementing GPR and Heteroscedastic GPR models [82]	Material property prediction with uncertainty [82] [4]
Programming Libraries	QuantReg (R), statsmodels (Python)	Fitting quantile regression models [83]	Analyzing heterogeneous materials data [83] [84]
Experimental Datasets	NIMS Creep Data Data	Experimental validation for creep life prediction [4]	Benchmarking UQ methods for material lifetime prediction [4]
Experimental Datasets	Microstructure Simulation Data	Training and validating surrogate models [82]	Predicting effective stress in porous materials [82]

Gaussian Process Regression and Quantile Regression offer complementary approaches to uncertainty quantification in materials measurements research. GPR excels in scenarios with limited data, providing full probabilistic uncertainty decomposition and making it ideal for guiding experimental design and optimizing computational resources. QR offers unparalleled robustness to non-Gaussian distributions and outliers, efficiently handling large-scale, heterogeneous materials data. The choice between these methods should be guided by the specific nature of the materials research problem, data characteristics, and the type of uncertainty information required. Future directions include hybrid approaches that leverage the strengths of both methods, advanced computational techniques for scaling GPR, and enhanced interpretability for complex materials models. As materials research continues to embrace data-driven methodologies, the thoughtful application of these benchmarking traditional methods will be crucial for advancing reliable, uncertainty-aware materials design and discovery.

In the field of materials science and drug development, the ability to quantify uncertainty is not merely a statistical nicety but a fundamental requirement for reliable research. Traditional deterministic neural networks (DNNs), despite their remarkable predictive accuracy in tasks ranging from property prediction of materials to molecular activity forecasting, provide no estimate of how confident they are in their predictions [89] [90]. This lack of uncertainty quantification poses significant risks in high-stakes applications, where overconfident predictions on out-of-distribution samples can lead to erroneous conclusions in materials design or drug candidate selection [32] [91].

Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs) and Deep Ensembles (DE) have emerged as two powerful frameworks addressing this critical limitation. By treating model parameters as probability distributions rather than fixed values, BNNs offer a principled Bayesian framework for uncertainty decomposition [89] [90]. Deep Ensembles, while not strictly Bayesian in foundation, provide a practical and robust alternative through multiple deterministic models [92] [93]. Within materials measurement research, where data is often scarce and the cost of experimental validation high, understanding the relative strengths and limitations of these approaches becomes paramount for building trustworthy predictive models [89].

This technical guide provides an in-depth analysis of BNNs and Deep Ensembles as alternatives to deterministic networks, with a specific focus on their application in uncertainty-aware materials research and drug development. We examine their theoretical foundations, practical implementation, and performance characteristics to equip researchers with the knowledge needed to select appropriate uncertainty quantification methods for their specific challenges.

Theoretical Foundations and Methodological Approaches

Deterministic Neural Networks (DNNs)

Core Architecture: Deterministic neural networks, the standard in deep learning, employ fixed-point estimates for weights and biases. During training via backpropagation, these parameters converge to specific values that minimize a loss function, typically without any inherent mechanism to estimate predictive reliability [89] [90]. The forward pass in a deterministic network can be represented as ( \hat{y} = f(x, \theta) ), where ( \theta ) represents the fixed network parameters, ( x ) is the input, and ( \hat{y} ) is the point estimate prediction.

Uncertainty Limitations: The fundamental limitation of this approach lies in its inability to distinguish between different types of uncertainty. When presented with data outside the training distribution, these models often produce dangerously overconfident predictions [92]. In materials modeling, this could manifest as an unrealistically precise prediction of a material property based on a chemical structure that differs significantly from those in the training set.

Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs)

Probabilistic Framework: BNNs redefine network parameters as probability distributions, introducing a prior distribution over weights ( p(\theta) ) which is updated to a posterior distribution ( p(\theta|D) ) given training data ( D ) using Bayes' theorem [89] [93]. This Bayesian formulation allows BNNs to naturally quantify both epistemic uncertainty (model uncertainty due to limited data) and aleatoric uncertainty (inherent noise in the data) [89] [91].

The predictive distribution for a new input ( x^* ) is obtained by integrating over all possible parameters:

[ p(y^|x^, D) = \int p(y^|x^,\theta)p(\theta|D)d\theta ]

Inference Techniques: Exact inference in BNNs is computationally intractable for complex models, leading to the development of approximate methods:

• Variational Inference (VI): Approximates the true posterior with a simpler variational distribution ( q_\phi(\theta) ), whose parameters ( \phi ) are optimized to minimize the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence to the true posterior [89] [93].
• Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC): Provides a more accurate approximation of the posterior through sampling but is computationally demanding for large networks [89].
• Monte Carlo Dropout (MC-Dropout): A practical approximation where dropout applied during both training and inference performs approximate variational inference [92] [94].

Deep Ensembles (DE)

Ensemble Approach: Deep Ensembles employ multiple deterministic neural networks trained independently with different random initializations [92] [93]. The final prediction is an average across ensemble members, while the variance between their predictions serves as a practical measure of uncertainty.

The predictive uncertainty is quantified as:

[ \sigmaE = \sqrt{\frac{1}{M-1}\sum{i=1}^M(E_i-\bar{E})^2} ]

where ( M ) represents the number of networks in the ensemble, ( E_i ) is the prediction of the ( i )-th network, and ( \bar{E} ) is the ensemble mean [93].

Bayesian Interpretation: While not strictly Bayesian, DE can be interpreted as approximating the posterior with a mixture of Dirac delta functions: ( q{\phi}(\theta | D) = \sum{\theta{i} \in \phi} \alpha{\theta{i}} \delta{\theta_{i}}(\theta) ) [92]. This approach often produces well-calibrated uncertainties in practice, though it lacks the theoretical foundation of true Bayesian methods [93].

The diagram below illustrates the fundamental architectural and operational differences between these three approaches.

Experimental Comparison and Performance Analysis

Quantitative Performance Metrics

The comparative performance of deterministic NNs, BNNs, and Deep Ensembles can be evaluated across multiple dimensions, including predictive accuracy, uncertainty calibration, computational efficiency, and robustness to data scarcity.

Table 1: Comparative Performance Metrics Across Uncertainty Quantification Methods

Metric	Deterministic NN	Bayesian NN (VI)	Deep Ensemble	MC-Dropout
Predictive Accuracy	High on in-distribution data	Moderate to High	Very High	Moderate to High
Uncertainty Calibration	None	Good, can be improved	Generally Well-Calibrated	Variable, requires tuning
Computational Cost (Training)	Low	Moderate to High	High (multiple networks)	Low (single network)
Computational Cost (Inference)	Very Low	High (multiple samples)	High (multiple forward passes)	Moderate (multiple passes with dropout)
Robustness to Data Scarcity	Poor	Good	Good	Moderate
Theoretical Foundation	Frequentist	Bayesian (principled)	Practical approximation	Approximate Bayesian
Uncertainty Decomposition	Not Available	Epistemic & Aleatoric	Combined Uncertainty	Primarily Epistemic

Application-Specific Performance

Recent empirical studies across various domains provide insights into the practical performance characteristics of these methods:

Materials Science Applications: In machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) for TiO₂ structures, both Deep Ensembles and Variational BNNs demonstrated effective uncertainty quantification. Deep Ensembles offered simplicity and straightforward implementation, while BNNs provided a more principled Bayesian framework but with higher computational complexity [32] [93].

Spectral Data Processing: For mango dry matter prediction using spectral data, MC-Dropout provided a good balance between accuracy and uncertainty estimation at low computational cost. Stochastic Weight Averaging-Gaussian (SWAG) emerged as a consistent performer, while model averaging offered robust performance at the expense of greater training time and storage [94].

Aerospace Engineering: In multi-output regression for predicting aerodynamic performance, Deep Ensembles showed superior performance compared to Gaussian Process Regression (GPR), with 55-56% higher regression accuracy, 38-77% better reliability of estimated uncertainty, and 78% improved training efficiency [95].

Intelligent Transportation Systems: For parking availability prediction, BNNs outperformed traditional LSTM models, achieving an average accuracy improvement of 27.4% in baseline conditions. The models demonstrated consistent gains under limited and noisy data scenarios, with uncertainty thresholding further improving reliability through selective, confidence-based decision making [91].

Table 2: Experimental Results Across Different Application Domains

Application Domain	Best Performing Method	Key Performance Findings	Data Conditions
Materials Science (MLIPs)	Deep Ensembles & BNNs	Both effectively quantify uncertainty; DE simpler to implement	7,815 TiO₂ structures; full and reduced datasets
Spectral Data Analysis	MC-Dropout & SWAG	Good accuracy-uncertainty balance with low computational cost	Mango dry matter prediction dataset
Aerospace Engineering	Deep Ensembles	55-56% higher accuracy than GPR; better uncertainty reliability	Multi-output regression for aerodynamic performance
Intelligent Transportation	Bayesian Neural Networks	27.4% average accuracy improvement over LSTM	Parking occupancy data with scarcity and noise

Implementation Protocols

Experimental Workflow for Uncertainty Quantification

Implementing a robust uncertainty quantification framework requires careful attention to experimental design and methodology. The following workflow outlines a standardized approach for comparing different methods in materials measurement research.

Detailed Methodologies

Bayesian Neural Network Implementation (Variational Inference):

• Network Specification: Define a prior distribution over weights (typically Gaussian) and initialize the variational parameters [89] [93].
• Loss Function: Implement the evidence lower bound (ELBO) objective combining data fit and KL divergence regularization: ( \mathcal{L}(\phi) = \mathbb{E}{q\phi(\theta)}[\log p(D|\theta)] - \text{KL}(q_\phi(\theta)||p(\theta)) )
• Training Procedure: Optimize variational parameters using Bayes-by-Backprop or similar algorithms, with reparameterization tricks for gradient estimation [89] [96].
• Inference: Perform multiple stochastic forward passes to generate samples from the predictive distribution [89].

Deep Ensemble Implementation:

• Ensemble Generation: Train multiple networks independently with different random initializations. Typical ensemble sizes range from 5-10 models [92] [95].
• Diversity Promotion: Employ different random seeds and optionally vary mini-batch ordering or use bootstrap sampling of the training data [92].
• Prediction Aggregation: Compute the mean prediction across ensemble members for point estimates and standard deviation for uncertainty quantification [92] [93].

Evaluation Metrics Protocol:

• Predictive Accuracy: Standard metrics (RMSE, MAE, R²) applied to point estimates (mean prediction for probabilistic methods) [94] [95].
• Uncertainty Calibration: Assess using coverage probabilities (e.g., proportion of test points falling within predictive intervals) and calibration plots [94] [95].
• Out-of-Distribution Detection: Evaluate ability to identify novel samples through uncertainty escalation on data not represented in training [91].

The Researcher's Toolkit

Essential Computational Frameworks

Table 3: Key Research Tools and Frameworks for Uncertainty Quantification

Tool/Framework	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
Pyro	Probabilistic Programming	Flexible BNN implementation with VI support	General Bayesian modeling [93]
TensorFlow Probability	Library	BNNs and probabilistic layers	Production-scale deployment
PyTorch	Deep Learning Framework	Base implementation for Deep Ensembles	Research prototyping [92] [93]
Ænet-PyTorch	Specialized Framework	MLIPs with uncertainty quantification	Materials science applications [93]
TyXe	Library	Conversion of standard NNs to BNNs	Rapid Bayesian model development [93]

Implementation Considerations for Materials Research

Data Scarcity Mitigation: In materials science, where experimental data is often limited, BNNs particularly excel due to their inherent regularization through priors and their ability to quantify epistemic uncertainty, which directly reflects the lack of data [89]. Deep Ensembles also perform well in low-data regimes, though they may require careful architecture selection to prevent overfitting [32].

Active Learning Integration: Both BNNs and Deep Ensembles can naturally guide experimental design by identifying regions of high uncertainty where additional data would be most informative [93]. This is particularly valuable in drug development and materials discovery where experimental resources are constrained.

Hardware Considerations: For BNNs using MCMC sampling, computational requirements can be substantial, making variational inference the more practical choice for most applications [89]. Deep Ensembles benefit from trivial parallelization across multiple GPUs but require significant memory for storing multiple models [95].

The comparative analysis of Bayesian Neural Networks and Deep Ensembles reveals a nuanced landscape for uncertainty quantification in materials measurement research. BNNs offer a principled Bayesian framework with strong theoretical foundations and the ability to decompose uncertainty into epistemic and aleatoric components, making them particularly valuable in data-scarce environments common in materials science and drug development [89]. Deep Ensembles provide a robust, practical alternative with excellent empirical performance and simpler implementation, often serving as a strong baseline [95] [93].

The choice between these approaches ultimately depends on the specific research context: BNNs are preferable when uncertainty decomposition and theoretical rigor are paramount, while Deep Ensembles offer a more straightforward path to well-calibrated uncertainties with high predictive accuracy. For researchers in materials science and pharmaceutical development, where both predictive reliability and resource efficiency are critical, adopting these uncertainty-aware methods represents an essential step toward more reproducible and trustworthy scientific outcomes.

As the field advances, emerging techniques such as Boosted Bayesian Neural Networks (BBNNs) that enhance variational inference through mixture densities promise to further bridge the gap between approximate and exact Bayesian methods [96]. Similarly, hardware-aware implementations using memtransistors and other specialized hardware may alleviate the computational burdens associated with these approaches [90]. For now, both BNNs and Deep Ensembles offer mature, effective pathways to incorporating essential uncertainty quantification into materials measurement and drug development pipelines.

Predicting the creep rupture life of high-temperature steel alloys is a fundamental challenge in materials science and engineering, with direct implications for the safety and efficiency of power plants and aerospace components. Traditional deterministic models often fail to capture the significant variability inherent in long-term creep data, leading to potentially unreliable predictions. This case study explores the integration of probabilistic machine learning and uncertainty quantification (UQ) to address these limitations, providing a framework for predicting rupture life with quantifiable confidence intervals. Within a broader thesis on understanding uncertainty in materials measurement, this approach emphasizes the critical shift from point estimates to probabilistic forecasts, enabling more informed risk assessment and material design decisions.

Core UQ Methodologies in Creep Life Prediction

Probabilistic Machine Learning Frameworks

Three principal probabilistic methodologies have shown significant promise in quantifying uncertainty for creep rupture life prediction.

• Gaussian Process Regression (GPR): A non-parametric Bayesian approach that defines a distribution over possible functions that fit the data. A study on ferritic steels demonstrated that GPR yielded a Pearson correlation coefficient > 0.95 for a holdout test set and produced meaningful uncertainty estimates, with coverage ranges of 94–98% for the test set [71]. Its key advantage is the inherent provision of a predictive variance alongside the mean estimate.

• Quantile Regression Forests: This non-parametric method estimates conditional quantiles (e.g., the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles) of the creep life distribution, thus providing a prediction interval. It is often implemented using Gradient Boosting Decision Trees (GBDT) and optimizes a pinball loss function to model different percentiles [71].

• Natural Gradient Boosting (NG Boost): Unlike quantile regression, this algorithm learns the parameters of a full probability distribution (e.g., Gaussian) conditioned on the input variables. It uses natural gradients to improve the fitting process, allowing for a more robust estimation of the complete posterior predictive distribution [71].

Key UQ Concepts and Their Relevance

In the context of creep modeling, it is vital to distinguish between two types of uncertainty [71]:

• Aleatoric Uncertainty: This is the inherent, irreducible noise in the data generation process. For creep rupture, this stems from natural variations in material microstructure, minor fluctuations in test conditions, and other stochastic physical processes.
• Epistemic Uncertainty: This arises from limitations in the model itself, often due to a lack of data or knowledge. It is reducible through the acquisition of more data, particularly in regions of the feature space where data is sparse.

A robust UQ framework must account for both types of uncertainty to provide a complete risk assessment, as overlooking epistemic uncertainty can lead to overconfident and unsafe predictions.

Experimental Protocols and Data Handling

Data Acquisition and Feature Engineering

The foundation of any reliable UQ analysis is a high-quality, well-curated dataset. A typical creep rupture dataset, as used in recent studies, can comprise over 260 instances [97]. Each data point is characterized by a set of features that can be categorized as follows:

• Chemical Composition Factors: Elements such as Nickel (Ni), Rhenium (Re), Cobalt (Co), and Chromium (Cr) [97].
• Processing Parameters: This includes solution treatment time, heating temperature, and aging conditions [97].
• Test Conditions: Applied stress and test temperature [97].
• Microstructural Factors: These can be calculated from composition and processing parameters, such as the diffusion coefficient ((D_{L})) [97].

Table 1: Categories of Input Features for Creep Rupture Prediction

Category	Examples of Features
Chemical Composition	Ni, Re, Co, Cr, Ti, Ta content [97]
Processing Parameters	Solution treatment time & temperature [97]
Test Conditions	Applied stress, test temperature [97]
Microstructural Factors	Diffusion coefficient, lattice parameters [97]

Data Preprocessing Protocol

To ensure model stability and performance, a rigorous data preprocessing pipeline is essential:

• Data Standardization: Due to the wide-ranging scales of input features (e.g., diffusion coefficients from 1.41E−25 to 0.00131 m²/s, temperatures from 1180 to 1348 °C), min-max scaling is applied to map all features to a [0, 1] interval [97]. The formula is given by: ( {X}^{*}=\frac{X-{X}{min}}{{X}{max}-{X}_{min}} )
• Target Variable Transformation: The creep rupture life, which can span from 30 to 5180 hours, often undergoes a logarithmic transformation (( {Y}^{*}=\text{log}\left(Y\right) )) to better conform to modeling assumptions and improve predictive performance [97].
• Dataset Splitting: The model training and evaluation process typically employs a 10-fold cross-validation method. This involves randomly splitting the dataset into 10 subsets, using 9 for training and 1 for testing, and repeating this process 10 times to obtain robust performance metrics [97].

Workflow for UQ-Based Creep Life Prediction

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow for predicting creep rupture life with uncertainty quantification, combining data-driven modeling with probabilistic analysis.

UQ-Based Creep Life Prediction Workflow

Model Interpretation and Optimization

Beyond simple prediction, interpreting the model's decisions is crucial for gaining physical insights.

• SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations): This interpretable method is used to explain the creep rupture life predicted by complex models like XGBoost. SHAP values quantify the contribution of each input feature (e.g., a specific element in the chemical composition or a processing parameter) to the final predicted outcome, allowing researchers to understand which factors are most influential [97].
• Life Optimization: Once a predictive and interpretable model is built, optimization algorithms like the Chaotic Sparrow Optimization Algorithm can be employed to inversely design chemical compositions and processing parameters that are predicted to yield the longest creep rupture life [97].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Evaluation Metrics and Model Performance

The performance of predictive models is typically assessed using standard regression metrics, including the coefficient of determination ((R^2)), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) [97]. Comparative studies have shown that probabilistic models can achieve high accuracy while providing essential uncertainty estimates.

Table 2: Comparison of UQ-Enabled Prediction Frameworks

Study / Model	Material System	Key Methodology	Reported Performance / Outcome
Maudonet et al. (2024) [98]	General High-Temperature Alloys	Probabilistic Framework with Sobol Indices & Monte Carlo	Delineation of safe operational limits with quantifiable confidence levels.
Hossain et al. (2025) [99]	Alloy 617	Human-supervised ML for Interpretable Equations	Discovery of mathematical relationships between chemistry, stress, temperature, and creep-rupture.
Gu et al. (2024) [100]	Inconel 718	Symbolic Regression combined with Domain Knowledge	Developed a high-precision model with low complexity and superior extrapolation on unseen data.
Nat. Commun. (2022) [71]	9–12 wt% Cr Ferritic Steels	Gaussian Process Regression (GPR)	Pearson correlation > 0.95; Uncertainty coverage of 94-98% for test set.

Active Learning for Efficient Exploration

A key application of UQ is in guiding experimental design through active learning. A pool-based, batch-mode active learning framework using GPR can intelligently explore the material space [71]. The process involves clustering the unexplored data pool and selecting the most uncertain samples from each cluster for experimental testing. This approach maximizes both informativeness (samples that reduce model uncertainty) and diversity, leading to a more efficient and cost-effective iterative improvement of the model with minimal experimental effort [71].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following table details key materials and computational tools frequently employed in this field of research.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions and Essential Materials

Item / Tool	Function / Relevance in Creep UQ Research
9–12 wt% Cr Ferritic Steels	Cost-effective alloys commonly used in power plants; a primary material system for developing and validating creep prediction models [71].
Ni-based Superalloys (e.g., Inconel 718, Alloy 617)	High-performance materials for aero-engines and turbines; their complex composition makes them ideal for testing advanced ML models [97] [100] [99].
Gaussian Process Regression (GPR)	A core probabilistic ML algorithm for predicting rupture life with inherent uncertainty estimates [71].
XGBoost with SHAP	A powerful gradient-boosting algorithm for high-accuracy prediction, paired with an interpretability tool to explain feature importance [97].
Symbolic Regression (e.g., GPTIPS)	A machine learning method that discovers human-interpretable mathematical equations from data, bridging data-driven and physics-driven approaches [100] [99].
Chaotic Sparrow Optimization Algorithm	An optimization technique used to find the optimal chemical compositions and processing parameters that maximize predicted creep life [97].

The integration of uncertainty quantification into the prediction of creep rupture life represents a paradigm shift in materials research. Methodologies such as Gaussian Process Regression, Quantile Regression, and Natural Gradient Boosting move beyond deterministic forecasts to provide probabilistic life estimates that are essential for rigorous risk assessment and reliability engineering. When combined with interpretability techniques like SHAP and active learning frameworks, these UQ methods not only enhance predictive accuracy but also accelerate the discovery and design of novel, high-performance alloys. This case study underscores that a systematic understanding and quantification of uncertainty is not merely a supplementary metric but a cornerstone of robust and trustworthy materials measurement and design in the era of data-driven science.

Uncertainty is an inherent and critical challenge in materials measurements research, profoundly impacting the reliability and robustness of engineering structures. Traditional machine learning (ML) models, while powerful for prediction, often lack reliable uncertainty estimates, making it difficult to trust their outputs when extrapolating beyond training data or making high-stakes decisions in materials design [75]. This limitation is particularly acute in the development of advanced materials like bio-inspired porous structures, where inherent uncertainties from manufacturing processes and environmental variations can significantly affect mechanical performance [75].

Triply Periodic Minimal Surface (TPMS) structures, a special class of bio-inspired porous materials, have garnered significant interest due to their unique geometric properties that deliver exceptional mechanical performance, including high strength-to-weight ratios [75]. Among these, a recent advancement involves Rotating TPMS (RotTPMS) lattice structures, which exploit anisotropic characteristics by varying crystal rotation directions. Numerical results demonstrate that with suitable rotation angles, RotTPMS plates can improve stiffness in static bending by up to 57% under fully clamped boundary conditions [75]. However, the theoretical methods proposed in previous works cannot account for the uncertainties in material properties due to manufacturing or environmental variations, creating a crucial gap between design and real-world performance [75].

To address these challenges, a novel data-driven computational framework, termed Material-UQ, has been developed. This framework probabilistically predicts the mechanical response of structures while explicitly accounting for uncertainties in material property parameters [75] [101]. This case study provides an in-depth technical examination of the Material-UQ framework, detailing its components, methodologies, and experimental protocols to serve researchers and scientists seeking to implement robust uncertainty quantification (UQ) in materials research.

Core Components of the Material-UQ Framework

The Material-UQ framework is built upon two foundational pillars: a robust mechanism for handling incomplete material data and an advanced Bayesian model for uncertainty quantification.

Handling Incomplete Material Data via Imputation

In practical scenarios, material property datasets—often sourced from open-access libraries like MatWeb, experimental data, or numerical simulations—frequently contain missing values. The Material-UQ framework employs several imputation methods to address this issue, with performance evaluated using the Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) [75].

Table 1: Comparison of Data Imputation Methods in the Material-UQ Framework

Imputation Method	Description	MAPE for Young's Modulus (Es)	MAPE for Poisson's Ratio (νs)	MAPE for Density (ρs)
MISSFOREST	Non-parametric method based on Random Forests	3.19%	0.66%	2.6%
K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN)	Uses values from 'k' most similar data points	Higher than MISSFOREST	Higher than MISSFOREST	Higher than MISSFOREST
MICE	Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations	Higher than MISSFOREST	Higher than MISSFOREST	Higher than MISSFOREST
GAIN	Generative Adversarial Imputation Nets	Higher than MISSFOREST	Higher than MISSFOREST	Higher than MISSFOREST
MEAN	Simple replacement with feature mean	Higher than MISSFOREST	Higher than MISSFOREST	Higher than MISSFOREST

The MISSFOREST method, a non-parametric approach based on Random Forests, demonstrated superior performance with the lowest MAPE values across all measured material properties (3.19% for Young's modulus, 0.66% for Poisson's ratio, and 2.6% for density), establishing it as the preferred imputation technique within the framework [75].

The BNN-pSGLD Model for Uncertainty Quantification

At the heart of the Material-UQ framework is the BNN-pSGLD model, which integrates Bayesian Neural Networks (BNN) with a sophisticated sampling algorithm known as preconditioned Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics (pSGLD) [75].

• Bayesian Neural Networks (BNN): Unlike deterministic neural networks, BNNs treat network weights as probability distributions rather than fixed values. This allows them to naturally quantify epistemic uncertainty (uncertainty in the model itself) by producing a distribution of possible outputs for a given input [75].
• Preconditioned SGLD (pSGLD): This is an advanced Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling method used for the optimization and sampling of the BNN's weight distributions. pSGLD enhances the standard Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics by incorporating a preconditioning matrix (akin to the concept in optimization algorithms like Adam) that adapts the step size for each parameter. This leads to more efficient exploration of the parameter space and faster convergence, which is crucial for training complex neural networks [75].

The BNN-pSGLD model has been shown to achieve higher R² performance (a measure of predictive accuracy) compared to conventional ML models like standard Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), Decision Trees, and Random Forests [75].

Experimental Protocol and Workflow

This section details the step-by-step methodology for implementing the Material-UQ framework, from data preparation to final uncertainty analysis.

Data Collection and Preprocessing

• Source Material Data: Gather data on metal material properties from arbitrary sources such as open-access libraries (e.g., MatWeb), experimental data, or numerical simulations. The dataset should include properties like Young's modulus (E), shear modulus (G), Poisson's ratio (ν), and density (ρ).
• Impute Missing Data: Identify missing values within the dataset. Apply the MISSFOREST imputation algorithm to fill in the missing entries. The performance of the imputation should be validated using metrics like MAPE to ensure data quality [75].

Model Configuration and Training

• Define the BNN Architecture: Specify the structure of the neural network, including the number of layers, neurons per layer, and activation functions. The BNN's prior distributions over the weights must be initialized.
• Configure the pSGLD Optimizer: Set the hyperparameters for the pSGLD sampler. Key parameters include:
  • Learning Rate (α): The step size for parameter updates.
  • Preconditioning Decay Rate (γ): The decay rate for the moving average of squared gradients (typically in the range of 0.90 to 0.99).
  • Mini-batch Size (B): The number of data points used per iteration for calculating the stochastic gradient.
• Train the BNN-pSGLD Model: The training process involves:
  • Iterating over the dataset for a predefined number of epochs.
  • For each mini-batch, computing the stochastic gradient of the log posterior.
  • Updating the parameters (weights) using the pSGLD update rule, which injects a controlled amount of noise to enable Bayesian sampling.

Probabilistic Prediction and UQ Execution

• Generate Stochastic Forward Passes: For a given input, run multiple forward passes through the trained BNN-pSGLD model. Each pass uses a different set of weights sampled from the posterior distribution, producing a distribution of possible outputs.
• Calculate Predictive Statistics: Aggregate the results from the multiple forward passes. Compute the mean prediction as the final forecast and the standard deviation (or variance) as a measure of predictive uncertainty.
• Visualize Uncertainty: The framework produces a Probability Density Function (PDF) plot of the structure's mechanical response, which allows designers to visually assess the likelihood of different performance outcomes and make risk-informed decisions [75].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the end-to-end workflow of the Material-UQ framework, integrating the data imputation and uncertainty quantification processes.

Material-UQ Framework Workflow

The Researcher's Toolkit

This section catalogs the essential computational tools, algorithms, and data sources that form the backbone of the Material-UQ framework.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for the Material-UQ Framework

Tool/Algorithm	Type/Function	Role in the Framework	Key Parameters/Specifications
MatWeb	Online Materials Database	Primary source for real-world metal material property data, which may contain missing values.	Provides data on Young's modulus, shear modulus, Poisson's ratio, and density.
MISSFOREST	Data Imputation Algorithm	Handles incomplete data by accurately filling in missing material properties.	Non-parametric; based on Random Forests; optimal for mixed-data types.
BNN-pSGLD	Bayesian ML Model	Core uncertainty quantification model for predicting mechanical response probabilities.	Combines Bayesian Neural Networks with preconditioned Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics sampling.
RotTPMS Plate	Bio-inspired Porous Structure	Serves as the illustrative mechanical model for analysis within the framework.	Characterized by width (a), height (b), thickness (h), and rotation angle.
Probability Density Function (PDF)	Statistical Output	Visualizes the uncertainty in the predicted mechanical response, aiding designer decision-making.	Plots the likelihood of different mechanical performance outcomes.

For researchers seeking alternative or complementary UQ tools, several specialized libraries exist. The UNIQUE framework is a Python library designed to benchmark multiple UQ metrics, providing a standardized way to evaluate and compare different UQ methodologies [102]. Similarly, the Lightning UQ Box is a comprehensive, PyTorch-based framework that implements a wide array of state-of-the-art UQ methods for deep learning, supporting tasks from regression to semantic segmentation [103]. These tools can be valuable for validating or extending the UQ approaches within Material-UQ.

The Material-UQ framework represents a significant advancement in materials measurement research by providing a structured, data-driven approach to probabilistic prediction. Its integration of robust data imputation (MISSFOREST) with a sophisticated Bayesian model (BNN-pSGLD) directly addresses the critical challenge of uncertainty that has long hampered the reliable application of machine learning in materials science. By outputting a probability density function of mechanical responses, the framework equips researchers, scientists, and engineers with the necessary information to make risk-informed decisions, ultimately enhancing the reliability and performance of bio-inspired porous materials like RotTPMS plates in real-world applications. This case study serves as a technical guide for implementing this powerful framework, contributing to a broader thesis on mastering uncertainty in materials research.

Conclusion

A robust understanding of measurement uncertainty is not merely a technical requirement but a fundamental pillar of reliable and traceable research in materials science and drug development. By mastering the foundational concepts, methodological applications, and troubleshooting techniques outlined, professionals can significantly enhance the credibility of their data and the confidence in their decisions. The future of uncertainty quantification is increasingly computational, with Bayesian Neural Networks and physics-informed machine learning offering powerful, flexible frameworks for capturing both aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. The integration of these advanced UQ methods with active learning strategies promises to accelerate materials discovery and optimization, ensuring that predictions of material properties and behaviors are not only accurate but also accompanied by a transparent and quantifiable statement of confidence. This progression will be crucial for managing risks, meeting regulatory standards, and driving innovation in biomedical and clinical research.

References

• 1. Measurand - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/measurand]
• 2. Why "Measurand" Is the First Scientific Word We Should ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35195087/]
• 3. Uncertainty Quantification Applications in Materials and ... [https://www.programmaster.org/PM/PM.nsf/UpcomingSymposia/E79B1F3CA3CD4715852589A5001445B5?OpenDocument&ParentUNID=D787C9800CF4CEDD8525896D00543C16]
• 4. Uncertainty quantification in multivariable regression for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-61189-x]
• 5. . Random | Definition & Examples vs Systematic Error [https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/random-vs-systematic-error/]
• 6. Error Analysis | Research Starters [https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/mathematics/error-analysis]
• 7. Systematic Error - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/systematic-error]
• 8. Measurements and Error Analysis [https://www.webassign.net/question_assets/unccolphysmechl1/measurements/manual.html]
• 9. Random vs. Systematic Error [https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys276/Hill/Information/Notes/ErrorAnalysis.html]
• 10. Random Error: Learn Definition, Diagram, Types, Source, ... [https://testbook.com/physics/random-errors]
• 11. Error Rates of Data Processing Methods in Clinical Research [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10775420/]
• 12. Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement [https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Uncertainty/international2.html]
• 13. JCGM - Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology [https://www.iso.org/sites/JCGM/GUM-introduction.htm]
• 14. Understanding GUM and Measurement Uncertainty [https://www.interfaceforce.com/understanding-gum-and-measurement-uncertainty/]
• 15. "Measurement Uncertainty" by Barton L. Smith and Douglas R ... [https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/mae_oer_txt/1/]
• 16. Experimental uncertainty analysis [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_uncertainty_analysis]
• 17. Urban Institute Data Visualization style guide - GitHub Pages [http://urbaninstitute.github.io/graphics-styleguide/]
• 18. A Practical Introduction to Utilising Uncertainty Information ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-025-09906-7]
• 19. Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessments [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7009727/]
• 20. An uncertainty quantification guided approach to modeling ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016766362500078X]
• 21. Quantifying the distribution of materials data types in ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/655533d3dbd7c8b54b56ada6]
• 22. Navigating Regulatory Uncertainty: Adapting to FDA ... [https://www.allucent.com/resources/blog/navigating-regulatory-uncertainty-fda-changes-2025]
• 23. Finding Data - Materials Science and Engineering [https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/c.php?g=437988&p=2986316]
• 24. Uncertainty of Measurement: A Review of the Rules for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3387884/]
• 25. A Review of Methods for Assessing the Quality ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/17/9393]
• 26. Type A and Type B Uncertainty: Evaluating ... [https://www.isobudgets.com/type-a-and-type-b-uncertainty/]
• 27. Uncertainty Budget Example [https://www.isobudgets.com/uncertainty-budget-example/]
• 28. Two Evaluation Budgets for the Measurement Uncertainty ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3129347/]
• 29. Combining uncertainty components [https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Uncertainty/combination.html]
• 30. Uncertainty explained: Understanding an uncertainty budget [https://forcetechnology.com/en/articles/uncertainty-explained-understanding-uncertainty-budget]
• 31. 7 Steps to Calculate Measurement Uncertainty [https://www.isobudgets.com/7-steps-to-calculate-measurement-uncertainty/]
• 32. Bayesian Neural Networks versus deep ensembles for ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.19180]
• 33. Targeted materials discovery using Bayesian algorithm ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-024-01326-2]
• 34. Bayesian neural networks for predicting uncertainty in full- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045782524007400]
• 35. Uncertainty quantification in Neural Networks by ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952197621003596]
• 36. Residual bayesian attention networks for uncertainty ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-24093-6]
• 37. Bayesian neural networks for predicting uncertainty in full-field ... [https://archive.data.jhu.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7281/T1GCHQPY]
• 38. Knowledge-driven learning, optimization, and experimental ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389923002477]
• 39. Comparative Analysis of Physics-Guided Bayesian Neural ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9394/7/1/9]
• 40. Sobolev training of thermodynamic-informed neural ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045782521000311]
• 41. Uncertainty-Aware Diagnostics for Physics-Informed ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.26121v1]
• 42. Sobolev Training for Physics Informed Neural Networks [https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.08932]
• 43. Hierarchical Gaussian process-based Bayesian ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359645425002009]
• 44. Deep Gaussian Process-based Cost-Aware Batch ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.14408]
• 45. Enhancing Material Property Predictions through ... [https://www.igminresearch.com/articles/html/igmin197]
• 46. Materials Property Prediction with Uncertainty Quantification [https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.02235]
• 47. Missing Data in Clinical Research: A Tutorial on Multiple ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8499698/]
• 48. Identify the most appropriate imputation method for handling ... [https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-024-02310-6]
• 49. Handling Missing Data in a Dataset: Imputation Methods ... [https://medium.com/learning-data/handling-missing-data-in-a-dataset-imputation-methods-explained-3e76ca6b4723]
• 50. Handling missing predictor values when validating and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7586995/]
• 51. 7 Sources of Uncertainty in Measurement [https://www.isobudgets.com/sources-of-uncertainty-in-measurement/]
• 52. Uncertainty quantification based on symbolic regression ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666827025000155]
• 53. Extracting accurate materials data from research papers ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45914-8]
• 54. SciDaSynth: Interactive Structured Data Extraction From ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12581027/]
• 55. GR&R - Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility [https://asq.org/quality-resources/gage-repeatability?srsltid=AfmBOoqsS83yM1czNJcJL_T4WYzRbD2c2oUMS6-CGNwg8TG9-sQkdv1b]
• 56. Reproducibility: What is it and How to Calculate it [https://www.isobudgets.com/reproducibility/]
• 57. Repeatability and Reproducibility Standard Deviations in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4844508/]
• 58. Using Bayesian analysis to quantify and reduce uncertainty ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950345025000107]
• 59. How the Materials Project connects computational and ... [https://it.lbl.gov/how-the-materials-project-connects-computational-and-experimental-materials-science/]
• 60. Optimal experimental design for materials discovery [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927025616306024]
• 61. Active learning in materials science with emphasis on ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-019-0153-8]
• 62. Comparison of analytical methods in materials science [https://www.cleancontrolling.com/en/news/newsdetails/comparison-of-analytical-methods-in-materials-science]
• 63. Optimization strategies for suppressing instrumentation drift ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40797634/]
• 64. Evaluation of color stability and surface roughness of smart ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12276654/]
• 65. Quantitative Data Analysis. A Complete Guide [2025] [https://www.6sigma.us/six-sigma-in-focus/quantitative-data-analysis/]
• 66. Simplifying Data Analysis: Methods for Quantitative and ... [https://www.ref-n-write.com/blog/simplifying-data-analysis-methods-for-quantitative-and-qualitative-research/]
• 67. Beyond TAR [https://forcemeasurementguru.substack.com/p/beyond-tar]
• 68. Examining the History of TAR and TUR [https://mhforce.com/examining-the-history-of-tar-and-tur/]
• 69. Uncertainties In Measurement And Why They Matter [https://www.crossco.com/resources/articles/uncertainties-what-are-they-and-why-do-they-matter/]
• 70. Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) in Characterization, ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/28867/uncertainty-quantification-uq-in-characterization-modelling-and-design-of-materials/magazine]
• 71. Uncertainty quantification for Bayesian active learning in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-06051-8]
• 72. Epistemic Uncertainty Quantification For Pre-trained Neural ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2404.10124v1]
• 73. Evaluating uncertainty-based active learning for accelerating ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10633997/]
• 74. A process-synergistic active learning framework for high- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01721-3]
• 75. A data-driven uncertainty quantification framework in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045782524008570]
• 76. An effective metric for evaluating performance of machine ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927025623007322]
• 77. Multi-Task Deep Learning for Surface Metrology [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.20339v1]
• 78. Uncertainty Quantification for Material Science and Engineering [https://www.imsi.institute/activities/uncertainty-quantification-and-ai-for-complex-systems/uncertainty-quantification-for-material-science-and-engineering/]
• 79. Machine-learned metrics for predicting the likelihood of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-020-00401-8]
• 80. Accurate, interpretable predictions of materials properties ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10591138/]
• 81. Gaussian Processes Regression for Uncertainty ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2502.03090v1]
• 82. Heteroscedastic Gaussian Process Regression for material ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045782524005814]
• 83. A Selective Overview of Quantile Regression for Large- ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/5/837]
• 84. Composite quantile regression approach to batch effect ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1484183/full]
• 85. Fast Gaussian process regression for high dimensional ... [https://proceedings.mlr.press/v271/sorokin25a.html]
• 86. Efficient Implementation of Gaussian Process Regression ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.12519v2]
• 87. Efficient implementation of gaussian process regression ... [https://archive.materialscloud.org/records/7xfg1-0n633]
• 88. Integrated use of finite element analysis and gaussian ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-21678-z]
• 89. Bayesian neural networks for uncertainty quantification in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045782521004102]
• 90. Two-dimensional materials-based probabilistic synapses ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33699-7]
• 91. Uncertainty-Aware Parking Prediction Using Bayesian Neural ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12158257/]
• 92. Comparison to other methods of uncertainty quantification [https://uvadlc-notebooks.readthedocs.io/en/latest/tutorial_notebooks/DL2/Bayesian_Neural_Networks/dl2_bnn_tut2_student_with_answers.html]
• 93. Bayesian Neural Networks versus deep ensembles for ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.19180v1]
• 94. Simple methods for uncertainty estimation in neural ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169743925002175]
• 95. Towards reliable uncertainty quantification via deep ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0952197624000290]
• 96. Quantification of Uncertainties in Probabilistic Deep Neural ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2503.13909v1]
• 97. Machine learning-based predictions and analyses of the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-71431-1]
• 98. Uncertainty quantification on the prediction of creep ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10830]
• 99. Discovering chemistry to creep rupture equations in Alloy ... [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Discovering-chemistry-to-creep-rupture-equations-in-Hossain-Hao/fe9568d593be2352b6a7343a6a646261965e824b]
• 100. A novel fatigue and creep-fatigue life prediction model by ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0142112324002603]
• 101. A data-driven uncertainty quantification framework in ... [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-data-driven-uncertainty-quantification-framework-Nguyen-Tran/125a912cc3ebdd062dd62435daff63bdf398640b]
• 102. UNIQUE: A Framework for Uncertainty Quantification ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11600502/]
• 103. Lightning UQ Box: A Comprehensive Framework for ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2410.03390v1]