IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v169y2018icp1-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison between a probability bounds analysis and a subjective probability approach to express epistemic uncertainties in a risk assessment context – A simple illustrative example

Author

Listed:
  • Flage, Roger
  • Aven, Terje
  • Berner, Christine L.

Abstract

A common approach to reliability and risk assessments is based on using probability models to reflect aleatory uncertainties (i.e. variation in large populations of similar units) and using subjective probabilities to describe epistemic uncertainties about the unknown parameters of the probability models. The use of subjective probabilities for this purpose has, however, been subject to strong criticism: it is argued that the approach provides too precise results when relating these to the information available. The assignments are based on a number of assumptions and proper justification for many of these seems to be lacking. Several alternative approaches have been suggested to meet this critique, including probability bounds analysis (PBA). The purpose of this paper is to compare a PBA with a subjective probability analysis, based on different types of information, covering varying levels and quality of hard data and expert judgments. A simple production assurance example is used to illustrate the differences. The comparison highlights the dependence on assumptions with different levels of justification. The analysis performed also constitutes an illustration of a two-step approach, where a subjective probability approach is followed and accompanied by a PBA approach and where the result of both assessments are presented to the decision-maker.

Suggested Citation

  • Flage, Roger & Aven, Terje & Berner, Christine L., 2018. "A comparison between a probability bounds analysis and a subjective probability approach to express epistemic uncertainties in a risk assessment context – A simple illustrative example," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 1-10.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:169:y:2018:i:c:p:1-10
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2017.07.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832016308560
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2017.07.016?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. Terje Aven, 2017. "Improving the foundation and practice of reliability engineering," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 295-305, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Sentz, Kari & Ferson, Scott, 2011. "Probabilistic bounding analysis in the Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(9), pages 1126-1136.
    4. Berner, C. & Flage, R., 2016. "Strengthening quantitative risk assessments by systematic treatment of uncertain assumptions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 46-59.
    5. Ferson, Scott & Troy Tucker, W., 2006. "Sensitivity analysis using probability bounding," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(10), pages 1435-1442.
    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. Li, Weijun & Sun, Qiqi & Zhang, Jiwang & Zhang, Laibin, 2024. "Quantitative risk assessment of industrial hot work using Adaptive Bow Tie and Petri Nets," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    2. Wei Wang & Francesco Di Maio & Enrico Zio, 2019. "Adversarial Risk Analysis to Allocate Optimal Defense Resources for Protecting Cyber–Physical Systems from Cyber Attacks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2766-2785, December.
    3. Spyrou, Kostas J. & Koromila, Ioanna A., 2020. "A risk model of passenger ship fire safety and its application," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    4. Liu, Zhichen & Li, Ying & Zhang, Zhaoyi & Yu, Wenbo, 2022. "A new evacuation accessibility analysis approach based on spatial information," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    5. Maria-Teresa Bosch-Badia & Joan Montllor-Serrats & Maria-Antonia Tarrazon-Rodon, 2020. "Risk Analysis through the Half-Normal Distribution," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, November.
    6. Ajenjo, Antoine & Ardillon, Emmanuel & Chabridon, Vincent & Cogan, Scott & Sadoulet-Reboul, Emeline, 2023. "Robustness evaluation of the reliability of penstocks combining line sampling and neural networks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).

    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. 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.
    2. Francis, Royce & Bekera, Behailu, 2014. "A metric and frameworks for resilience analysis of engineered and infrastructure systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 90-103.
    3. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås & Aven, Terje, 2019. "A semi-quantitative assessment process for improved use of the expected value of information measure in safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 494-502.
    4. Helton, Jon C. & Brooks, Dusty M. & Sallaberry, Cédric J., 2020. "Property values associated with the failure of individual links in a system with multiple weak and strong links," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    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. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    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. Li, Dian-Qing & Tang, Xiao-Song & Phoon, Kok-Kwang, 2015. "Bootstrap method for characterizing the effect of uncertainty in shear strength parameters on slope reliability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 99-106.
    10. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Probabilities and background knowledge as a tool to reflect uncertainties in relation to intentional acts," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 229-234.
    11. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    12. Aven, Terje & Krohn, Bodil S., 2014. "A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-10.
    13. Zhenhui Liu & Ajit Kumar Verma, 2022. "A novel toolbox for dropped object hit probability evaluation and orientation optimization of subsea lines," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 13(4), pages 1705-1713, August.
    14. 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.
    15. Shah, Harsheel & Hosder, Serhat & Winter, Tyler, 2015. "Quantification of margins and mixed uncertainties using evidence theory and stochastic expansions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 59-72.
    16. 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.
    17. Bandeira, Michelle Carvalho Galvão Silva Pinto & Correia, Anderson Ribeiro & Martins, Marcelo Ramos, 2018. "General model analysis of aeronautical accidents involving human and organizational factors," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 137-146.
    18. Tu Duong Le Duy & Laurence Dieulle & Dominique Vasseur & Christophe Bérenguer & Mathieu Couplet, 2013. "An alternative comprehensive framework using belief functions for parameter and model uncertainty analysis in nuclear probabilistic risk assessment applications," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(5), pages 471-490, October.
    19. R. G. van der Vegt, 2018. "Risk Assessment and Risk Governance of Liquefied Natural Gas Development in Gladstone, Australia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1830-1846, September.
    20. Blancke, Olivier & Tahan, Antoine & Komljenovic, Dragan & Amyot, Normand & Lévesque, Mélanie & Hudon, Claude, 2018. "A holistic multi-failure mode prognosis approach for complex equipment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 136-151.

    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:169:y:2018:i:c:p:1-10. 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.