IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v100y2012icp93-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimation of a quantity of interest in uncertainty analysis: Some help from Bayesian decision theory

Author

Listed:
  • Pasanisi, Alberto
  • Keller, Merlin
  • Parent, Eric

Abstract

In the context of risk analysis under uncertainty, we focus here on the problem of estimating a so-called quantity of interest of an uncertainty analysis problem, i.e. a given feature of the probability distribution function (pdf) of the output of a deterministic model with uncertain inputs. We will stay here in a fully probabilistic setting. A common problem is how to account for epistemic uncertainty tainting the parameter of the probability distribution of the inputs. In the standard practice, this uncertainty is often neglected (plug-in approach). When a specific uncertainty assessment is made, under the basis of the available information (expertise and/or data), a common solution consists in marginalizing the joint distribution of both observable inputs and parameters of the probabilistic model (i.e. computing the predictive pdf of the inputs), then propagating it through the deterministic model. We will reinterpret this approach in the light of Bayesian decision theory, and will put into evidence that this practice leads the analyst to adopt implicitly a specific loss function which may be inappropriate for the problem under investigation, and suboptimal from a decisional perspective. These concepts are illustrated on a simple numerical example, concerning a case of flood risk assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Pasanisi, Alberto & Keller, Merlin & Parent, Eric, 2012. "Estimation of a quantity of interest in uncertainty analysis: Some help from Bayesian decision theory," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 93-101.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:100:y:2012:i:c:p:93-101
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2012.01.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832012000038
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2012.01.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helton, Jon C. & Johnson, Jay D. & Sallaberry, Cédric J., 2011. "Quantification of margins and uncertainties: Example analyses from reactor safety and radioactive waste disposal involving the separation of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(9), pages 1014-1033.
    2. Limbourg, Philipp & de Rocquigny, Etienne & Andrianov, Guennadi, 2010. "Accelerated uncertainty propagation in two-level probabilistic studies under monotony," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(9), pages 998-1010.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2010. "Some reflections on uncertainty analysis and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 195-201.
    4. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1908 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Marc C. Kennedy & Anthony O'Hagan, 2001. "Bayesian calibration of computer models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(3), pages 425-464.
    6. Aven, T., 2011. "Interpretations of alternative uncertainty representations in a reliability and risk analysis context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 353-360.
    7. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1906 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2011. "Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 64-74.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rufo, M.J. & Martín, J. & Pérez, C.J., 2014. "Adversarial life testing: A Bayesian negotiation model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 118-125.
    2. Hong, H.P., 2013. "Selection of regressand for fitting the extreme value distributions using the ordinary, weighted and generalized least-squares methods," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 71-80.
    3. Merlin Keller & Guillaume Damblin & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Schumann & Pierre Barbillon & Fabrizio Ruggeri, 2022. "Validation of a Computer Code for the Energy Consumption of a Building, with Application to Optimal Electric Bill Pricing," Post-Print hal-04071903, HAL.
    4. Iooss, Bertrand & Le Gratiet, Loïc, 2019. "Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of functional risk curves based on Gaussian processes," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 58-66.
    5. Merlin Keller & Guillaume Damblin & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Schumann & Pierre Barbillon & Fabrizio Ruggeri & Eric Parent, 2022. "Validation of a Computer Code for the Energy Consumption of a Building, with Application to Optimal Electric Bill Pricing," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-24, November.
    6. Chabridon, Vincent & Balesdent, Mathieu & Bourinet, Jean-Marc & Morio, Jérôme & Gayton, Nicolas, 2018. "Reliability-based sensitivity estimators of rare event probability in the presence of distribution parameter uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 164-178.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Goerlandt, Floris & Montewka, Jakub, 2015. "Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 115-134.
    2. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A critical discussion and practical recommendations on some issues relevant to the non-probabilistic treatment of uncertainty in engineering risk assessment," Post-Print hal-01652230, HAL.
    3. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A Critical Discussion and Practical Recommendations on Some Issues Relevant to the Nonprobabilistic Treatment of Uncertainty in Engineering Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1315-1340, July.
    4. Cao, Jiaokun & Du, Farong & Ding, Shuiting, 2013. "Global sensitivity analysis for dynamic systems with stochastic input processes," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 106-117.
    5. Ibsen Chivatá Cárdenas & Saad S.H. Al‐Jibouri & Johannes I.M. Halman & Frits A. van Tol, 2014. "Modeling Risk‐Related Knowledge in Tunneling Projects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 323-339, February.
    6. Abokersh, Mohamed Hany & Vallès, Manel & Cabeza, Luisa F. & Boer, Dieter, 2020. "A framework for the optimal integration of solar assisted district heating in different urban sized communities: A robust machine learning approach incorporating global sensitivity analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).
    7. Bing Wu & Huibin Tian & Xinping Yan & C. Guedes Soares, 2020. "A probabilistic consequence estimation model for collision accidents in the downstream of Yangtze River using Bayesian Networks," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(2), pages 422-436, April.
    8. Baraldi, Piero & Podofillini, Luca & Mkrtchyan, Lusine & Zio, Enrico & Dang, Vinh N., 2015. "Comparing the treatment of uncertainty in Bayesian networks and fuzzy expert systems used for a human reliability analysis application," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 176-193.
    9. Sarat Sivaprasad & Cameron A. MacKenzie, 2018. "The Hurwicz Decision Rule’s Relationship to Decision Making with the Triangle and Beta Distributions and Exponential Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 139-153, September.
    10. Baustert, Paul & Othoniel, Benoit & Rugani, Benedetto & Leopold, Ulrich, 2018. "Uncertainty analysis in integrated environmental models for ecosystem service assessments: Frameworks, challenges and gaps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PB), pages 110-123.
    11. Aven, T., 2011. "Interpretations of alternative uncertainty representations in a reliability and risk analysis context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 353-360.
    12. Aven, Terje, 2011. "Selective critique of risk assessments with recommendations for improving methodology and practise," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 509-514.
    13. Vanslette, Kevin & Tohme, Tony & Youcef-Toumi, Kamal, 2020. "A general model validation and testing tool," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    14. Ibsen Chivatá Cárdenas & Saad S. H. Al‐Jibouri & Johannes I. M. Halman & Wim van de Linde & Frank Kaalberg, 2014. "Using Prior Risk‐Related Knowledge to Support Risk Management Decisions: Lessons Learnt from a Tunneling Project," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1923-1943, October.
    15. Matthias Katzfuss & Joseph Guinness & Wenlong Gong & Daniel Zilber, 2020. "Vecchia Approximations of Gaussian-Process Predictions," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 25(3), pages 383-414, September.
    16. Jakub Bijak & Jason D. Hilton & Eric Silverman & Viet Dung Cao, 2013. "Reforging the Wedding Ring," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 29(27), pages 729-766.
    17. Hao Wu & Michael Browne, 2015. "Random Model Discrepancy: Interpretations and Technicalities (A Rejoinder)," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 619-624, September.
    18. Villez, Kris & Del Giudice, Dario & Neumann, Marc B. & Rieckermann, Jörg, 2020. "Accounting for erroneous model structures in biokinetic process models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    19. Xiaoyu Xiong & Benjamin D. Youngman & Theodoros Economou, 2021. "Data fusion with Gaussian processes for estimation of environmental hazard events," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), May.
    20. Li, Yanfu & Zio, Enrico, 2012. "Uncertainty analysis of the adequacy assessment model of a distributed generation system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 235-244.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:100:y:2012:i:c:p:93-101. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.