Step-size stability of a reference perturbation
ID: step-size-stability-of-a-reference-perturbation
Step-size stability of a reference perturbation checks whether a numerical reference-response estimate behaves consistently as the applied step changes. For a final comparison , a central slope isFor sufficiently smooth , its leading truncation error is proportional to . Comparing several steps tests that numerical behavior, while choosing steps near the physical reference uncertainty also probes whether a local derivative adequately represents the measurement model.[ref]
Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement by JCGM. §§5.1.2–5.1.4, nonlinear propagation and sensitivity coefficients
For an original model, let and , with . For , the central slopes are0.210,0.2025 and0.200625. Their successive departures from0.2 shrink by four as halves. Richardson extrapolation removes the cubic contribution exactly in this model:For a general smooth response, it removes the leading term rather than proving exact cancellation of every nonlinear contribution.
Small steps also amplify output error. If each evaluation has absolute error at most , the error in the central slope is at most . With , this bound is at but0.1 at . The cubic truncation term decreases with , whereas this evaluation-error bound increases. Equating their orders, , suggests the scale , here0.001mm. This scale follows from the stipulated error model, not a universal finite-difference setting.
An unchanging central value is also insufficient to establish differentiability. For , every is zero, while the forward and backward slopes are and . Inspecting both one-sided changes reveals the cusp. Likewise, a stable local slope does not rule out a quadratic finite-range response, as finite-perturbation reference sensitivity shows.
A meaningful test changes one assigned shared reference consistently in every dependent calculation, holds the other inputs and computational settings fixed, and records the steps, units, slopes and one-sided changes. Shared reference uncertainty and comparison-process variability are distinct physical contributions in the NIST uncertainty budget.[ref] If evaluation includes simulation noise, separate its repeatability from the response to the changed reference.
New to topics? Read the docs here!