A Combined Monte Carlo and Possibilistic Approach to Uncertainty Propagation in Event Tree Analysis

In risk analysis, the treatment of the epistemic uncertainty associated to the probability of occurrence of an event is fundamental. Traditionally, probabilistic distributions have been used to characterize the epistemic uncertainty due to imprecise knowledge of the parameters in risk models. On the other hand, it has been argued that in certain instances such uncertainty may be best accounted for by fuzzy or possibilistic distributions. This seems the case in particular for parameters for which the information available is scarce and of qualitative nature. In practice, it is to be expected that a risk model contains some parameters affected by uncertainties that may be best represented by probability distributions and some other parameters that may be more properly described in terms of fuzzy or possibilistic distributions. In this article, a hybrid method that jointly propagates probabilistic and possibilistic uncertainties is considered and compared with pure probabilistic and pure fuzzy methods for uncertainty propagation. The analyses are carried out on a case study concerning the uncertainties in the probabilities of occurrence of accident sequences in an event tree analysis of a nuclear power plant.     

Description and Propagation of Uncertainty in Input Parameters in Environmental Fate Models

Today, chemical risk and safety assessments rely heavily on the estimation of environmental fate by models. The key compound‐related properties in such models describe partitioning and reactivity. Uncertainty in determining these properties can be separated into random and systematic (incompleteness) components, requiring different types of representation. Here, we evaluate two approaches that are suitable to treat also systematic errors, fuzzy arithmetic, and probability bounds analysis. When a best estimate (mode) and a range can be computed for an input parameter, then it is possible to characterize the uncertainty with a triangular fuzzy number (possibility distribution) or a corresponding probability box bound by two uniform distributions. We use a five‐compartment Level I fugacity model and reported empirical data from the literature for three well‐known environmental pollutants (benzene, pyrene, and DDT) as illustrative cases for this evaluation. Propagation of uncertainty by discrete probability calculus or interval arithmetic can be done at a low computational cost and gives maximum flexibility in applying different approaches. Our evaluation suggests that the difference between fuzzy arithmetic and probability bounds analysis is small, at least for this specific case. The fuzzy arithmetic approach can, however, be regarded as less conservative than probability bounds analysis if the assumption of independence is removed. Both approaches are sensitive to repeated parameters that may inflate the uncertainty estimate. Uncertainty described by probability boxes was therefore also propagated through the model by Monte Carlo simulation to show how this problem can be avoided.     

Representation,Propagation, and Decision Issues in Risk Analysis Under Incomplete Probabilistic Information

This article tries to clarify the potential role to be played by uncertainty theories such as imprecise probabilities, random sets, and possibility theory in the risk analysis process. Instead of opposing an objective bounding analysis, where only statistically founded probability distributions are taken into account, to the full‐fledged probabilistic approach, exploiting expert subjective judgment, we advocate the idea that both analyses are useful and should be articulated with one another. Moreover, the idea that risk analysis under incomplete information is purely objective is misconceived. The use of uncertainty theories cannot be reduced to a choice between probability distributions and intervals. Indeed, they offer representation tools that are more expressive than each of the latter approaches and can capture expert judgments while being faithful to their limited precision. Consequences of this thesis are examined for uncertainty elicitation, propagation, and at the decision‐making step.     

Concerns,Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment

In the analysis of the risk associated to rare events that may lead to catastrophic consequences with large uncertainty, it is questionable that the knowledge and information available for the analysis can be reflected properly by probabilities. Approaches other than purely probabilistic have been suggested, for example, using interval probabilities, possibilistic measures, or qualitative methods. In this article, we look into the problem and identify a number of issues that are foundational for its treatment. The foundational issues addressed reflect on the position that “probability is perfect” and take into open consideration the need for an extended framework for risk assessment that reflects the separation that practically exists between analyst and decisionmaker.     

On the Need for Restricting the Probabilistic Analysis in Risk Assessments to Variability

It is common perspective in risk analysis that there are two kinds of uncertainties: i) variability as resulting from heterogeneity and stochasticity (aleatory uncertainty) and ii) partial ignorance or epistemic uncertainties resulting from systematic measurement error and lack of knowledge. Probability theory is recognized as the proper tool for treating the aleatory uncertainties, but there are different views on what is the best approach for describing partial ignorance and epistemic uncertainties. Subjective probabilities are often used for representing this type of ignorance and uncertainties, but several alternative approaches have been suggested, including interval analysis, probability bound analysis, and bounds based on evidence theory. It is argued that probability theory generates too precise results when the background knowledge of the probabilities is poor. In this article, we look more closely into this issue. We argue that this critique of probability theory is based on a conception of risk assessment being a tool to objectively report on the true risk and variabilities. If risk assessment is seen instead as a method for describing the analysts’ (and possibly other stakeholders’) uncertainties about unknown quantities, the alternative approaches (such as the interval analysis) often fail in providing the necessary decision support.     

Uncertainty Analysis in Fault Tree Models with Dependent Basic Events

In general, two types of dependence need to be considered when estimating the probability of the top event (TE) of a fault tree (FT): “objective” dependence between the (random) occurrences of different basic events (BEs) in the FT and “state‐of‐knowledge” (epistemic) dependence between estimates of the epistemically uncertain probabilities of some BEs of the FT model. In this article, we study the effects on the TE probability of objective and epistemic dependences. The well‐known Frèchet bounds and the distribution envelope determination (DEnv) method are used to model all kinds of (possibly unknown) objective and epistemic dependences, respectively. For exemplification, the analyses are carried out on a FT with six BEs. Results show that both types of dependence significantly affect the TE probability; however, the effects of epistemic dependence are likely to be overwhelmed by those of objective dependence (if present).     

Lognormal Approximations of Fault Tree Uncertainty Distributions

Fault trees are used in reliability modeling to create logical models of fault combinations that can lead to undesirable events. The output of a fault tree analysis (the top event probability) is expressed in terms of the failure probabilities of basic events that are input to the model. Typically, the basic event probabilities are not known exactly, but are modeled as probability distributions: therefore, the top event probability is also represented as an uncertainty distribution. Monte Carlo methods are generally used for evaluating the uncertainty distribution, but such calculations are computationally intensive and do not readily reveal the dominant contributors to the uncertainty. In this article, a closed‐form approximation for the fault tree top event uncertainty distribution is developed, which is applicable when the uncertainties in the basic events of the model are lognormally distributed. The results of the approximate method are compared with results from two sampling‐based methods: namely, the Monte Carlo method and the Wilks method based on order statistics. It is shown that the closed‐form expression can provide a reasonable approximation to results obtained by Monte Carlo sampling, without incurring the computational expense. The Wilks method is found to be a useful means of providing an upper bound for the percentiles of the uncertainty distribution while being computationally inexpensive compared with full Monte Carlo sampling. The lognormal approximation method and Wilks’s method appear attractive, practical alternatives for the evaluation of uncertainty in the output of fault trees and similar multilinear models.     

A Distributional Approach to Characterizing Low-Dose Cancer Risk

Since cancer risk at very low doses cannot be directly measured in humans or animals, mathematical extrapolation models and scientific judgment are required. This article demonstrates a probabilistic approach to carcinogen risk assessment that employs probability trees, subjective probabilities, and standard bootstrapping procedures. The probabilistic approach is applied to the carcinogenic risk of formaldehyde in environmental and occupational settings. Sensitivity analyses illustrate conditional estimates of risk for each path in the probability tree. Fundamental mechanistic uncertainties are characterized. A strength of the analysis is the explicit treatment of alternative beliefs about pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. The resulting probability distributions on cancer risk are compared with the point estimates reported by federal agencies. Limitations of the approach are discussed as well as future research directions.     

Treatment of Uncertainty in Performance Assessments for Complex Systems

When viewed at a high level, performance assessments (PAs) for complex systems involve two types of uncertainty: stochastic uncertainty, which arises because the system under study can behave in many different ways, and subjective uncertainty, which arises from a lack of knowledge about quantities required within the computational implementation of the PA. Stochastic uncertainty is typically incorporated into a PA with an experimental design based on importance sampling and leads to the final results of the PA being expressed as a complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF). Subjective uncertainty is usually treated with Monte Carlo techniques and leads to a distribution of CCDFs. This presentation discusses the use of the Kaplan/Garrick ordered triple representation for risk in maintaining a distinction between stochastic and subjective uncertainty in PAs for complex systems. The topics discussed include (1) the definition of scenarios and the calculation of scenario probabilities and consequences, (2) the separation of subjective and stochastic uncertainties, (3) the construction of CCDFs required in comparisons with regulatory standards (e.g., 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart B for the disposal of radioactive waste), and (4) the performance of uncertainty and sensitivity studies. Results obtained in a preliminary PA for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, an uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of the MACCS reactor accident consequence analysis model, and the NUREG-1150 probabilistic risk assessments are used for illustration.     

A Flexible Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling Technique for Risk Analysis of Major Accidents

Safety analysis of rare events with potentially catastrophic consequences is challenged by data scarcity and uncertainty. Traditional causation‐based approaches, such as fault tree and event tree (used to model rare event), suffer from a number of weaknesses. These include the static structure of the event causation, lack of event occurrence data, and need for reliable prior information. In this study, a new hierarchical Bayesian modeling based technique is proposed to overcome these drawbacks. The proposed technique can be used as a flexible technique for risk analysis of major accidents. It enables both forward and backward analysis in quantitative reasoning and the treatment of interdependence among the model parameters. Source‐to‐source variability in data sources is also taken into account through a robust probabilistic safety analysis. The applicability of the proposed technique has been demonstrated through a case study in marine and offshore industry.     

Failure Probability Under Parameter Uncertainty

In many problems of risk analysis, failure is equivalent to the event of a random risk factor exceeding a given threshold. Failure probabilities can be controlled if a decisionmaker is able to set the threshold at an appropriate level. This abstract situation applies, for example, to environmental risks with infrastructure controls; to supply chain risks with inventory controls; and to insurance solvency risks with capital controls. However, uncertainty around the distribution of the risk factor implies that parameter error will be present and the measures taken to control failure probabilities may not be effective. We show that parameter uncertainty increases the probability (understood as expected frequency) of failures. For a large class of loss distributions, arising from increasing transformations of location‐scale families (including the log‐normal, Weibull, and Pareto distributions), the article shows that failure probabilities can be exactly calculated, as they are independent of the true (but unknown) parameters. Hence it is possible to obtain an explicit measure of the effect of parameter uncertainty on failure probability. Failure probability can be controlled in two different ways: (1) by reducing the nominal required failure probability, depending on the size of the available data set, and (2) by modifying of the distribution itself that is used to calculate the risk control. Approach (1) corresponds to a frequentist/regulatory view of probability, while approach (2) is consistent with a Bayesian/personalistic view. We furthermore show that the two approaches are consistent in achieving the required failure probability. Finally, we briefly discuss the effects of data pooling and its systemic risk implications.     

A Critical Discussion and Practical Recommendations on Some Issues Relevant to the Nonprobabilistic Treatment of Uncertainty in Engineering Risk Assessment

Models for the assessment of the risk of complex engineering systems are affected by uncertainties due to the randomness of several phenomena involved and the incomplete knowledge about some of the characteristics of the system. The objective of this article is to provide operative guidelines to handle some conceptual and technical issues related to the treatment of uncertainty in risk assessment for engineering practice. In particular, the following issues are addressed: (1) quantitative modeling and representation of uncertainty coherently with the information available on the system of interest; (2) propagation of the uncertainty from the input(s) to the output(s) of the system model; (3) (Bayesian) updating as new information on the system becomes available; and (4) modeling and representation of dependences among the input variables and parameters of the system model. Different approaches and methods are recommended for efficiently tackling each of issues (1)?(4) above; the tools considered are derived from both classical probability theory as well as alternative, nonfully probabilistic uncertainty representation frameworks (e.g., possibility theory). The recommendations drawn are supported by the results obtained in illustrative applications of literature.     

The Quantitative Estimation of IT‐Related Risk Probabilities

How well can people estimate IT‐related risk? Although estimating risk is a fundamental activity in software management and risk is the basis for many decisions, little is known about how well IT‐related risk can be estimated at all. Therefore, we executed a risk estimation experiment with 36 participants. They estimated the probabilities of IT‐related risks and we investigated the effect of the following factors on the quality of the risk estimation: the estimator's age, work experience in computing, (self‐reported) safety awareness and previous experience with this risk, the absolute value of the risk's probability, and the effect of knowing the estimates of the other participants (see: Delphi method). Our main findings are: risk probabilities are difficult to estimate. Younger and inexperienced estimators were not significantly worse than older and more experienced estimators, but the older and more experienced subjects better used the knowledge gained by knowing the other estimators' results. Persons with higher safety awareness tend to overestimate risk probabilities, but can better estimate ordinal ranks of risk probabilities. Previous own experience with a risk leads to an overestimation of its probability (unlike in other fields like medicine or disasters, where experience with a disease leads to more realistic probability estimates and nonexperience to an underestimation).     

Reconciling Uncertain Costs and Benefits in Bayes Nets for Invasive Species Management

Bayes nets are used increasingly to characterize environmental systems and formalize probabilistic reasoning to support decision making. These networks treat probabilities as exact quantities. Sensitivity analysis can be used to evaluate the importance of assumptions and parameter estimates. Here, we outline an application of info‐gap theory to Bayes nets that evaluates the sensitivity of decisions to possibly large errors in the underlying probability estimates and utilities. We apply it to an example of management and eradication of Red Imported Fire Ants in Southern Queensland, Australia and show how changes in management decisions can be justified when uncertainty is considered.     

Uncertain Numbers and Uncertainty in the Selection of Input Distributions—Consequences for a Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Contaminated Land

Risks from exposure to contaminated land are often assessed with the aid of mathematical models. The current probabilistic approach is a considerable improvement on previous deterministic risk assessment practices, in that it attempts to characterize uncertainty and variability. However, some inputs continue to be assigned as precise numbers, while others are characterized as precise probability distributions. Such precision is hard to justify, and we show in this article how rounding errors and distribution assumptions can affect an exposure assessment. The outcome of traditional deterministic point estimates and Monte Carlo simulations were compared to probability bounds analyses. Assigning all scalars as imprecise numbers (intervals prescribed by significant digits) added uncertainty to the deterministic point estimate of about one order of magnitude. Similarly, representing probability distributions as probability boxes added several orders of magnitude to the uncertainty of the probabilistic estimate. This indicates that the size of the uncertainty in such assessments is actually much greater than currently reported. The article suggests that full disclosure of the uncertainty may facilitate decision making in opening up a negotiation window. In the risk analysis process, it is also an ethical obligation to clarify the boundary between the scientific and social domains.     

Estimating Conditional Probabilities of Terrorist Attacks: Modeling Adversaries with Uncertain Value Tradeoffs

Many analyses conducted to inform security decisions depend on estimates of the conditional probabilities of different attack alternatives. These probabilities are difficult to estimate since analysts have limited access to the adversary and limited knowledge of the adversary’s utility function, so subject matter experts often provide the estimates through direct elicitation. In this article, we describe a method of using uncertainty in utility function value tradeoffs to model the adversary’s decision process and solve for the conditional probabilities of different attacks in closed form. The conditional probabilities are suitable to be used as inputs to probabilistic risk assessments and other decision support techniques. The process we describe is an extension of value‐focused thinking and is broadly applicable, including in general business decision making. We demonstrate the use of this technique with simple examples.     

Epistemic Uncertainty in the Ranking and Categorization of Probabilistic Safety Assessment Model Elements: Issues and Findings

In this work, we study the effect of epistemic uncertainty in the ranking and categorization of elements of probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) models. We show that, while in a deterministic setting a PSA element belongs to a given category univocally, in the presence of epistemic uncertainty, a PSA element belongs to a given category only with a certain probability. We propose an approach to estimate these probabilities, showing that their knowledge allows to appreciate " the sensitivity of component categorizations to uncertainties in the parameter values " (U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.174). We investigate the meaning and utilization of an assignment method based on the expected value of importance measures. We discuss the problem of evaluating changes in quality assurance, maintenance activities prioritization, etc. in the presence of epistemic uncertainty. We show that the inclusion of epistemic uncertainly in the evaluation makes it necessary to evaluate changes through their effect on PSA model parameters. We propose a categorization of parameters based on the Fussell-Vesely and differential importance (DIM) measures. In addition, issues in the calculation of the expected value of the joint importance measure are present when evaluating changes affecting groups of components. We illustrate that the problem can be solved using DIM. A numerical application to a case study concludes the work.     

Discrete Probability Distributions for Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics

Recently, discrete probability distributions (DPDs) have been suggested for use in risk analysis calculations to simplify the numerical computations which must be performed to determine failure probabilities. Specifically, DPDs have been developed to investigate probabilistic functions, that is, functions whose exact form is uncertain. The analysis of defect growth in materials by probabilistic fracture mechanics (PFM) models provides an example in which probabilistic functions play an important role. This paper compares and contrasts Monte Carlo simulation and DPDs as tools for calculating material failure due to fatigue crack growth. For the problem studied, the DPD method takes approximately one third the computation time of the Monte Carlo approach for comparable accuracy. It is concluded that the DPD method has considerable promise in low-failure-probability calculations of importance in risk assessment. In contrast to Monte Carlo, the computation time for the DPD approach is relatively insensitive to the magnitude of the probability being estimated.