IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v35y2015i9p1674-1689.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Performance of a Classification‐Based Vulnerability Analysis Model

Author

Listed:
  • Tai–ran Wang
  • Vincent Mousseau
  • Nicola Pedroni
  • Enrico Zio

Abstract

In this article, a classification model based on the majority rule sorting (MR‐Sort) method is employed to evaluate the vulnerability of safety‐critical systems with respect to malevolent intentional acts. The model is built on the basis of a (limited‐size) set of data representing (a priori known) vulnerability classification examples. The empirical construction of the classification model introduces a source of uncertainty into the vulnerability analysis process: a quantitative assessment of the performance of the classification model (in terms of accuracy and confidence in the assignments) is thus in order. Three different app oaches are here considered to this aim: (i) a model–retrieval‐based approach, (ii) the bootstrap method, and (iii) the leave‐one‐out cross‐validation technique. The analyses are presented with reference to an exemplificative case study involving the vulnerability assessment of nuclear power plants.

Suggested Citation

  • Tai–ran Wang & Vincent Mousseau & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio, 2015. "Assessing the Performance of a Classification‐Based Vulnerability Analysis Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(9), pages 1674-1689, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:9:p:1674-1689
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12305
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12305?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aven, Terje & Heide, Bjørnar, 2009. "Reliability and validity of risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(11), pages 1862-1868.
    2. Milazzo, Maria Francesca & Aven, Terje, 2012. "An extended risk assessment approach for chemical plants applied to a study related to pipe ruptures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 183-192.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2010. "Some reflections on uncertainty analysis and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 195-201.
    4. Aven, T. & Flage, R., 2009. "Use of decision criteria based on expected values to support decision-making in a production assurance and safety setting," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(9), pages 1491-1498.
    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. Oliva, Gabriele & Faramondi, Luca & Setola, Roberto & Tesei, Marco & Zio, Enrico, 2021. "A multi-criteria model for the security assessment of large-infrastructure construction sites," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 35(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. Wang, Tai-Ran & Pedroni, Nicola & Zio, Enrico, 2016. "Identification of protective actions to reduce the vulnerability of safety-critical systems to malevolent acts: A sensitivity-based decision-making approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 9-18.
    2. Wang, Tai-Ran & Mousseau, Vincent & Pedroni, Nicola & Zio, Enrico, 2017. "An empirical classification-based framework for the safety criticality assessment of energy production systems, in presence of inconsistent data," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 139-151.
    3. 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.
    4. T. R. Wang & N. Pedroni & E. Zio & V. Mousseau, 2020. "Identification of Protective Actions to Reduce the Vulnerability of Safety‐Critical Systems to Malevolent Intentional Acts: An Optimization‐Based Decision‐Making Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 565-587, March.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Rosqvist, Tony, 2010. "On the validation of risk analysis—A commentary," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1261-1265.
    11. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    12. Antão, P. & Sun, S. & Teixeira, A.P. & Guedes Soares, C., 2023. "Quantitative assessment of ship collision risk influencing factors from worldwide accident and fleet data," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    13. Terje Aven, 2018. "An Emerging New Risk Analysis Science: Foundations and Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 876-888, May.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Emilio Palazzi & Fabio Currò & Bruno Fabiano, 2013. "Accidental Continuous Releases from Coal Processing in Semi-Confined Environment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-20, September.
    17. Zio, Enrico, 2016. "Challenges in the vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 137-150.
    18. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    19. Simon Ashby & Trevor Buck & Stephanie Nöth-Zahn & Thomas Peisl, 2018. "Emerging IT Risks: Insights from German Banking," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 43(2), pages 180-207, April.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:9:p:1674-1689. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.