Measurement: Sensors 18 (2021) 100232

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement: Sensors
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/measurement-sensors

Metrology for the digital age

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords Based on digital technologies, big data, artificial intelligence and machine-readable information, the digital
Digital transformation transformation rapidly changes society, industries, and economies. Metrology as a central element of interna­
Digital certificates tional trade, for confidence in measurements and part of the quality infrastructure is facing several challenges
Systemic metrology
and opportunities in these developments. In this contribution we discuss some of the key challenges and a po­
Big data
tential future role of metrology in the digital age. We address metrological principles for confidence in data and
Industry 4.0
Open science Algorithms, cyber-physical systems, FAIR data and metrology, and the role of metrology in the digital trans­
FAIR formation in the quality infrastructure.

1. Introduction becoming increasingly important. It also means that data itself is

The digital transformation is changing core elements, processes, and
principles also in metrology [1]:
Digital communication of data and information is becoming the
standard. Information is provided via cloud services in a machine-
actionable way; digital infrastructures utilize information from cali­
bration, self-diagnosis and other metadata communicated by individual
measuring instruments; processes and services in the quality infra­
structure are based on distributed databases and APIs.
Distributed measuring instruments and sensor networks become more
important than individual measuring instruments. Applications such as
Industry 4.0 and automated driving will belong to the first examples
where the role of metrology is challenged. These challenges include
methods for traceable co-calibration and metrological assessment of
whole sensor networks in a systemic approach.
Algorithms and software become as important as the actual mea­
surements. In the digital age, artificial intelligence, sensor fusion and
virtual measuring instruments will replace many of today’s tools and
principles. Their use will require to rethink the established methodolo­
gies for uncertainty evaluation and assessment of algorithms.
In parallel to these developments, revolutionary changes in the
metrology landscape based on, for instance, quantum technologies and
the new SI are approaching. In this contribution, though, we focus on the
digital transformation and its challenges only. Therefore, we discuss in
Section 2 the role of metrology to achieve trust and confidence in data
and Algorithms. In Section 3 we consider cyber-physical systems,
focusing on digital transformation in industry. In Section 4 we address
the role of metrology in the quality infrastructure and the corresponding
challenges in the digital transformation.
2. Trust and confidence in data and algorithms
Data is considered the “new oil” in the digital age. This includes that
data-based services, data-driven analyses and data repositories are
considered a type of “goods” in the global economy. Consequently,
commonly agreed quantitative quality assessments of data are required
to handle this new type of goods. Thus, a new “metrology for data” needs
to be established.
Data alone is only the first step and needs to be “refined” by means of
Algorithms. Due to the huge amount and volatility of data, many clas­
sical algorithmic approaches cannot be applied in a meaningful way.
Instead, data-driven methods, such as machine learning, are applied that
make direct use of the data sources and benefit from large data sets.
Thus, a new “metrology for data-driven algorithms” needs to be
established.
The scientific community has established the principles for data to be
findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR). Measurement
science extends these principles by traceability to the international
system of units (SI), repeatability, reproducibility of measurements via
interlaboratory comparisons, and by the concise evaluation of mea­
surement uncertainties [2]. Thus, the uptake of metrological principles
in science can improve the quality of research data significantly. The
same holds true for data in industrial applications, where the FAIR
principles ensure, for instance, that data can be used for the application
of AI methods.
An important aspect in the interoperability of data is the represen­
tation of measured data and units in digital infrastructures. To this end, a
commonly accepted and unambiguous representation of such data is
required. Existing example solutions are the Open Geospatial Con­
sortium (OGC), DICOM, DIMDI, Unified Code of Measure (UCUM),
QUDT [3] and D-SI [4]. Some of these provide an ontology to encode
relations between entries, which can be used to automate the interpre­
tation and use of information.
Existing guidelines and metrology standards, such as the “Guide to
the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement” (GUM) [5] and the
“Vocabulary in Metrology” (VIM) [6] provide human-readable infor­
mation. Information, for instance contained in the VIM, in a
machine-readable way would enable programmers to reference the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measen.2021.100232

Available online 4 October 2021

S. Eichstädt et al.
vocabulary from the VIM directly in digital certificates or software
packages.
Today, examples for applying the GUM methodology are provided as
documented human-readable guidelines [7]. In the future, validated test
cases may be provided as a digital service for automated testing of Al­
gorithms [8].
Beyond the provision of machine-readable information, new possi­
bilities, and challenges for the use of quantities and units, and regarding
the evaluation of measurement uncertainties should be discussed [9].
Validation of Algorithms in data-driven systems goes far beyond the
correct propagation of uncertainties. Algorithms need to be validated in
a much broader context, providing quantitative assessment for their
reliability, robustness as well as explainability of algorithms [10].
Owing to the reliance of these methods on vast amounts of high-quality
data, algorithm validation additionally requires a solid framework for
curated reference data as well as a general evaluation standard for data
quality.
The need for a revision of how we treat uncertainties in ML/AI arises
from the strong data dependence as well as the opacity of the employed
methods. In addition to the uncertainty caused by the inherent limita­
tions of the learned model, uncertainty caused by data quality and
mismatches of target and training context contribute significantly to the
outcome uncertainty [11]. To establish a meaningful measure of ML/AI
performance, the associated uncertainties must be quantifiable [12]
and, if possible, traceable to a common standard. Building on the
expertise of metrology regarding the treatment of uncertainty as
demonstrated in the GUM, efforts are ongoing to define similar stan­
dards for ML/AI [13]. Starting from a quantifiable comparison between
ML/AI methods, such a standard could also serve to evaluate and
compare results of ML/AI systems and their classical statistical
counterparts.
Especially unsupervised learning Algorithms, lacking a “ground
truth” to determine the quality of the predictions, may “learn” to
recognize unintended features within data sets thus producing undesired
results without the users’ awareness. Quantitative measures for the
explainability and interpretability of ML/AI methods are therefore key
to foster confidence in these products [14,15]. Current research aims to
develop useful definitions of explainability as well as improved and
explainable methods [16,17].
Robustness of Algorithms assesses the effect of changes of the input
data compared to the training data of the AI/ML method have on the
output. These changes can be the result of flawed training design, e. g.,
“out-of-distribution” training data sets lacking features relevant in the
test environment, or intentional tampering, e. g., adversarial attacks
causing the algorithm to produce incorrect predictions. An approach to
test and quantify robustness of algorithms is by targeted parametrised
manipulation of original data and subsequent evaluation of the output.
The advancement of such procedures as well as the definition of corre­
sponding evaluation criteria for robustness are the subject of ongoing
research.
3. Cyber-physical systems and IOT
A cyber-physical system (CPS) is a combination of a physical system
with software and information technology components. Thus, CPS are
excellent use cases for complex systems as they combine elements from
very different disciplines.
The measurement instruments usually provide measured values via
digital-only interfaces, increasingly often via wireless networks. More­
over, to save battery life, some sensors use event-based communication
rather than continuous sampling. Calibration and metrological charac­
terization of such sensors and the issues that arise is a still evolving
research topic.
Low-cost, digital sensors, such as MEMS, can be integrated into CPS
easily and at high numbers. The resulting big data provided by these
devices is then used in the subsequent ML and AI systems. On the one
2
Measurement: Sensors 18 (2021) 100232
hand, their precision and reliability are questionable from a metrolog­
ical perspective. On the other hand, a calibration or thorough metro­
logical characterization of such sensors is hardly economical and
reasonable. Hence, novel types for the characterization for such sensors
need to be developed [18].
Communication of measured data over IoT-like networks is common in
CPS but hasn’t been considered by metrology sufficiently well yet. For
instance, calibration laboratories put great care in a very well syn­
chronisation of measurements. In practical IoT environments this is
difficult to achieve and thus, novel types of uncertainty sources and
measurement analysis methods may need to be considered [19].
Data-driven models, i.e. machine learning (ML) and artificial intelli­
gence (AI) for the data analysis are commonly applied, because of the
huge amount and complexity of data in CPS. For ML and AI methods
several software libraries are available that allow an easy implementa­
tion. However, the research of making ML/AI results explainable and for
taking uncertainties associated with the input parameters, i.e. CPS
sensor data into account is still at its beginning [19–25].
Typically, a CPS is equipped with a variety of sensors to provide
measurement information for subsequent systems. For instance, a place-
and-pick system in the production line may be equipped with sensors
measuring quantities such as power consumption, vibration, sound, and
pressure [20]. A machine learning (ML) or artificial intelligence (AI)
system can utilize this data to detect anomalies, estimate the remaining
lifetime or provide predictive maintenance information [20]. So far, not
much attention has been paid to addressing the influence of measure­
ment uncertainties in such systems and for their subsequent analysis.
Initial efforts such as in Ref. [21] or [22] provide first steps. The authors
in Ref. [21] consider the data pre-processing and the corresponding
propagation of measurement uncertainty. The authors of [22] discuss
existing approaches from machine learning that can take uncertainties
in their inputs into account. One approach that appears to be quite
promising is that of ensemble learning [26].
The sensors in a CPS form a kind of network where the measured data
is transferred to some processing unit. This may be a local instance at the
physical system (at the “edge”) or an external server (in the “cloud”).
Hence, the measurement setup for a CPS is itself a form of “Internet of
Things” (IoT) network.
The metrological characterization of IoT networks and similar sys­
tems has several challenges [23,24]. A particular challenge is the reli­
able and unambiguous communication and evaluation of the measured
data. The individual IoT devices usually provide a connectivity over
standard network interfaces. For the data itself, the OPC-UA protocol
serves as a de-facto standard – at least in the industrial sector. OPC-UA
describes general concepts and infrastructures for the communication
between the individual instruments (OPC-UA clients) and a processing
instance (OPC-UA server).
In OPC-UA several mechanism and technologies for the actual
communication and encoding of measured data are allowed. That also
implies that standards need to be developed, for instance, on how to
encode measurement units, uncertainties and data quality. This kind of
metadata is essential for an unambiguous use of the data by machine
learning and AI.
In information theory there exist several tools to encode information
in a machine-readable way: controlled vocabulary, taxonomies, ontol­
ogies. An ontology is the most advanced approach because it also en­
codes the relation and explanation of terms. For instance, the authors in
Refs. [27–29] use a combination of ontologies to automatically analyse
measured data in a sensor network.
The origin of the data communicated in IoT and CPS is at the sensors
themselves. Thus, the information about sensor type, quantity, unit,
uncertainty, quality, etc. need to be made available in a machine-
readable way, too. To this end, the OPC-UA framework uses informa­
tion models. However, these information models are currently being
developed within individual disciplines. Thus, a more generic and
harmonised approach is required to provide basic metrological
S. Eichstädt et al.
knowledge about the sensors used. A digital calibration certificate (DCC)
can be used to encode and provide such information in a machine-
readable way [29]. A DCC is to be provided in a machine- and
human-readable format, contain all relevant information in a stan­
dardized way, and allow a simple and direct integration into existing IT
infrastructures. The XML schema developed originally by PTB [29] and
now being further developed in an international consortium, offers this
and is compatible to the ISO 17025.
The authors in Ref. [28] demonstrate how information contained in a
DCC can be used in an automated way to compensate sensor raw data in
the same way a human would carry out the measurement data analysis.
4. The digital transformation in the quality infrastructure
The concept and methodology for the digital transformation of
metrological services at metrology institutes has several similarities to
what is required to form a digitally interoperable quality infrastructure
(QI). Processes and workflows in the QI are based on documents (e.g.
certificates or standards) and data. For instance, a measuring device
under legal regulation (e.g. a weighing instrument in the supermarket)
must have a valid conformity assessment and verification authority
approval. The various bodies in the QI have initiated several projects for
the digital transformation in their regime. Some examples are given
here.
Standardization bodies are working towards machine-readable, smart
standards. In the future this will enable machines to read standardized
information without the interference of humans and without the need to
know the exact number of the standard. This will also imply new pos­
sibilities for metrological services when they are based on standards.
Verification, calibration and testing laboratories have started the
development of digital, machine-readable certificates [29]. These will
provide the information and data contained in the certificate to be in­
tegrated directly into digital infrastructures. For calibration services this
offers new possibilities regarding the amount and type of information
that can be provided.
The digital transformation of the processes in the QI requires secure and
reliable infrastructures. Some authors propose the use of blockchain
technologies for the QI [30,31]. A more concrete use case of this tech­
nology is the Metrology Cloud [32].
To illustrate the matter of interoperability, we outline a recently
started project at PTB: “Digital workflow for metrological services”,
where we here focus on calibration services [33]. Interoperability means
that once data has been collected, it must be included and supplemented
in each processing step. At PTB, this is made possible by a system called
the E-Files, in which all information is stored and managed centrally.
Through a web-based interface the customer can send the calibration
order directly to PTB electronically. The necessary administrative data is
maintained independently by the customer in the form of a user account.
The metrological data required for order processing can be stored as
machine-readable documents.
Based on the available data, the order is checked within the E-Files
and released for processing. The next step is to carry out the calibration
process. For this, all data must be sent to the calibration laboratory,
which must also be able to read and process it digitally. The measure­
ment data generated by the laboratory is transferred directly to the
database via an interface and thus added to the main data record. If all
required data is available, it flows directly into the creation of the DCC,
which is then cryptographically sealed and transferred to the E-Files.
From there, it is made available to the customer via the customer portal
E-Service and the order is completed.
Interoperability thus encompasses very different types of data,
different data sources, diverse IT infrastructure, data formats and
transmission paths. In the best case, they should even be internationally
coordinated, recognised and readable. Finally, however, it is not only
the digital transformation that is crucial for the success of a harmonious
implementation. Work processes must be critically scrutinised and
3
Measurement: Sensors 18 (2021) 100232
adapted to the new challenges. Processes must be clearly defined, line­
arised and harmonised. Only then will interoperability open the possi­
bility to build on existing infrastructures, adapt to new developments
and support the future digital metrology vision.
5. Summary and conclusions
The digital transformation in economy and society is leading to many
new challenges and opportunities for the quality infrastructure and for
metrology. We outlined some of these aspects and sketched novel pos­
sibilities, competences, services, and approaches for the metrology
community. In this way, this contribution offers an overview and
starting point for metrology institutes, laboratories and others in their
own digital transformation journey.
References
[1] Eichstädt, S. “Metrology for the digital transformation of the economy and society”,
PTB, DOI: 10.7795/120.20210223 (German).
[2] A.L. Plant, C.A. Becker, R.J. Hanisch, R.F. Boisvert, A.M. Possolo, J.T. Elliot, How
measurement science can improve confidence in research results, PLoS Biol. 16 (4)
(2008), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004299.
[3] FAIRsharingorg: “QUDT; Quantities, Units, Dimensions and Types” DOI:
10.25504/FAIRsharing.d3pqw7.
[4] Hutzschenreuter, D.; Härtig, F.; Heeren, W.; Wiedenhöfer, Th; Forbes, A.; Brown,
C.; Paciello, V. “SmartCom Digital System of Units (D-SI) Guide for the use of the
metadata-format used in metrology for the easy-to-use, safe, harmonised and un­
ambiguous digital transfer of metrological data (Version D-SI 1.3)”, Zenodo. DOI:
10.5281/zenodo.3522631.
[5] BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP and OIML, Evaluation of Measurement
Data — Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), first ed.,
September 2008.
[6] BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP and OIML “International Vocabulary of
Metrology – Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms (VIM)”, third ed.,
2008.
[7] EMPIR 17NRM05, Examples of measurement uncertainty evaluation (EMUE),
source: http://empir.npl.co.uk/emue/visited 8th April 2021.
[8] TraCIM, Traceability for computationally-intensive metrology, source:
https://www.tracim.eu/1388.html visited 8th April 2021.
[9] B.D. Hall, Software for calculation with physical quantities, in: 2020 IEEE Inter­
national Workshop on Metrology for Industry 4.0 & IoT, Roma, Italy, 2020,
pp. 458–463, https://doi.org/10.1109/MetroInd4.0IoT48571.2020.9138281.
[10] DIN SPEC 92001-1: Artificial Intelligence – Life Cycle Processes and Quality Re­
quirements – Part 1: Quality Metamodel.
[11] Kläs, M., & Vollmer, A. M. “Uncertainty in machine learning applications – a
practice-driven classification of uncertainty”. First International Workshop on
Artificial Intelligence Safety Engineering (WAISE 2018) (pp. 431-438). Springer.
[12] I.A.I.S. Fraunhofer, Whitepaper: Trustworthy Use of Artificial Intelligence, 2019.
[13] T. Kretz, K. Müller, T. Schaeffter, C. Elster, Mammography image quality assurance
using deep learning, IEEE (Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng.) Trans. Biomed. Eng. 67 (12)
(2020) 3317–3326, https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2020.2983539.
[14] R. Muller, S. Kornblith, G. Hinton, When does label smoothing help? Adv. Neural
Inf. Process. Syst. (2019) 4694–4703.
[15] I. Goodfellow, J. Shlens, C. Szegedy, „Explaining and harnessing adversarial ex­
amples, in: International Conference on Learning Representations, 2015.
[16] W. Samek, G. Montavon, A. Vedaldi, L.K. Hansen, K.R. Müller (Eds.), Explainable
AI: Interpreting, Explaining and Visualizing Deep Learning, vol. 11700, Springer
Nature, 2019.
[17] A.B. Arrieta, et al., Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): concepts, taxonomies,
opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI, Inf. Fusion 58 (2020) 82–115.
[18] Smorgon, D.; Fernicola, V.; Sousa, J. A.; Ribeiro, L.; Tamburini, E.; Catto, M.
“Assuring measurement traceability to ATE systems for MEMS temperature sensors
testing and calibration” Proceedings of IEEE Metrology for Industry 4.0 & IoT
2020.
[19] Y. Luo, P. Harris, Uncertainty in data analysis for STRATH testbed, in: 2020 IEEE
International Workshop on Metrology for Industry 4.0 & IoT, 2020, pp. 95–100,
https://doi.org/10.1109/MetroInd4.0IoT48571.2020.9138217.
[20] T. Dorst, B. Ludwig, S. Eichstädt, T. Schneider, A. Schütze, Metrology for the fac­
tory of the future: towards a case study in condition monitoring, in: IEEE Int.
Instrum. And Meas. Technol. Conf. (I2MTC), Auckland, New Zealand, 2019,
pp. 439–443.
[21] C. Voß, B. Eiteneuer, O. Niggemann, Incorporating uncertainty into unsupervised
machine learning for cyber-physical systems, in: 2020 IEEE Conference on Indus­
trial Cyberphysical Systems (ICPS), 2020, pp. 475–480, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICPS48405.2020.9274779.
[23] S. Eichstädt, B. Ludwig, Metrology for heterogeneous sensor networks and Industry
4.0, Automatisierungstechnik 68 (6) (2020) 459–464.
[24] Eichstädt, S. “Publishable summary for 17IND12 Met4FoF ‘metrology for the fac­
tory of the future’ (version M27)”. Zenodo, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.4267955.
[26] X. Dong, Z. Yu, W. Cao, et al., A survey on ensemble learning, Front. Comput. Sci.
14 (2020) 241–258, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-019-8208-z.
S. Eichstädt et al.
[27] M. Gruber, S. Eichstädt, J. Neumann, A. Paschke, Semantic information in sensor
networks: how to combine existing ontologies, vocabularies and data schemes to fit
a metrology use case, in: 2020 IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for In­
dustry 4.0 & IoT, 2020, pp. 469–473, https://doi.org/10.1109/
MetroInd4.0IoT48571.2020.9138282.
[28] S. Eichstädt, M. Gruber, A.P. Vedurmudi, B. Seeger, T. Bruns, G. Kok, Toward smart
traceability for digital sensors and the industrial internet of Things, Sensors 21 (6)
(2021) 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/s21062019.
[29] S. Hackel, F. Härtig, J. Hornig, T. Wiedenhöfer, The digital calibration certificate,
PTB Mitteilungen (4) (2017), https://doi.org/10.7795/310.20170499.
[30] T. Takatsuji, H. Watanabe, Y. Yamashita, Blockchain technology to visualize the
metrological traceability, Precis. Eng. 58 (2019) 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
precisioneng.2019.04.016.
[31] T. Mustapää, J. Autiosalo, P. Nikander, J.E. Siegel, R. Viitala, Digital metrology for
the internet of Things, in: 2020 Global Internet of Things Summit (GIoTS), Dublin,
Ireland, 2020, pp. 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1109/GIOTS49054.2020.9119603.
[32] F. Thiel, Digital transformation of legal metrology - the European Metrology Cloud,
OIML Bulletin LIX (1) (2018) 10–21.
[33] A. Keidel, S. Eichstädt, Interoperable processes and infrastructure for the digital
transformation of the quality infrastructure, Proceedings of IEEE Metrology for
Measurement: Sensors 18 (2021) 100232
Industry 4.0 & IoT (2021) 347–351, https://doi.org/10.1109/
MetroInd4.0IoT51437.2021.9488563.
Further reading
[22] M. Gruber, T. Dorst, A. Schütze, S. Eichstädt and C. Elster “Discrete Wavelet
Transform on Uncertain Data: Efficient Online Implementation for Practical Ap­
plications”, AMCTM XII, in press.
[25] P. M. Harris, S. Eichstädt, K.-D. Sommer, R. Füssl, T. Dorst, A. Schütze, M. Heiz­
mann, N. Schiering, A. Maier, Y. Luo, C. Tachtatzis, I. Andonovic and G. Gourlay
“Modelling of Networked Measuring Systems ─ an Essential Component of the
Factory of the Future”, (submitted to JSSS).
Sascha Eichstädt*, Anke Keidel, Julia Tesch
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig and Berlin, Germany
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sascha.eichstaedt@ptb.de (S. Eichstädt).