Abstract
Abstract
Epistemic uncertainties are included in probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) as second-order probabilities that represent the degrees of belief of the scientists that a model is correct. In this article, I propose an alternative approach that incorporates the scientist’s confidence in a probability set for a given quantity. First, I give some arguments against the use of precise probabilities to estimate scientific uncertainty in risk analysis. I then extend the “confidence approach” developed by Brian Hill and Richard Bradley to PRA. Finally, I claim that this approach represents model uncertainty better than the standard (Bayesian) model does.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy,History
Reference32 articles.
1. The new Italian seismic hazard model (MPS19)
2. CONFIDENCE IN BELIEFS AND RATIONAL DECISION MAKING
3. Kammerer, Annie M. , and Ake, Jon P. . 2010. Implementation Guidance for SSHAC Level 3 and 4 Processes. Report NUREG-2117. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1207/ML12073A311.pdf.
4. Assessment of Confidence Intervals for Results of Seismic Hazard Analysis;Kulkarni;Proceedings, Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,1984
5. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment: Combining Cornell-Like Approaches and Data at Sites through Bayesian Inference