On the validation of risk analysis: A commentary

Tony Rosqvist (Corresponding Author)

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

    22 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Aven and Heide (2009) [1] provided interesting views on the reliability and validation of risk analysis. The four validation criteria presented are contrasted with modelling features related to the relative frequency—based and Bayesian approaches to risk analysis. In this commentary I would like to bring forth some issues on validation that partly confirm and partly suggest changes in the interpretation of the introduced validation criteria—especially, in the context of low probability–high consequence systems. The mental model of an expert in assessing probabilities is argued to be a key notion in understanding the validation of a risk analysis.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1261-1265
    Number of pages5
    JournalReliability Engineering and System Safety
    Volume95
    Issue number11
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2010
    MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

    Fingerprint

    Risk analysis

    Keywords

    • Risk analysis validation
    • Risk-informed decision-making
    • Uncertainties

    Cite this

    Rosqvist, Tony. / On the validation of risk analysis : A commentary. In: Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 2010 ; Vol. 95, No. 11. pp. 1261-1265.
    @article{58d852867bef4fbb8e63c56aa42c61a1,
    title = "On the validation of risk analysis: A commentary",
    abstract = "Aven and Heide (2009) [1] provided interesting views on the reliability and validation of risk analysis. The four validation criteria presented are contrasted with modelling features related to the relative frequency—based and Bayesian approaches to risk analysis. In this commentary I would like to bring forth some issues on validation that partly confirm and partly suggest changes in the interpretation of the introduced validation criteria—especially, in the context of low probability–high consequence systems. The mental model of an expert in assessing probabilities is argued to be a key notion in understanding the validation of a risk analysis.",
    keywords = "Risk analysis validation, Risk-informed decision-making, Uncertainties",
    author = "Tony Rosqvist",
    year = "2010",
    doi = "10.1016/j.ress.2010.06.002",
    language = "English",
    volume = "95",
    pages = "1261--1265",
    journal = "Reliability Engineering and System Safety",
    issn = "0951-8320",
    publisher = "Elsevier",
    number = "11",

    }

    On the validation of risk analysis : A commentary. / Rosqvist, Tony (Corresponding Author).

    In: Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 95, No. 11, 2010, p. 1261-1265.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - On the validation of risk analysis

    T2 - A commentary

    AU - Rosqvist, Tony

    PY - 2010

    Y1 - 2010

    N2 - Aven and Heide (2009) [1] provided interesting views on the reliability and validation of risk analysis. The four validation criteria presented are contrasted with modelling features related to the relative frequency—based and Bayesian approaches to risk analysis. In this commentary I would like to bring forth some issues on validation that partly confirm and partly suggest changes in the interpretation of the introduced validation criteria—especially, in the context of low probability–high consequence systems. The mental model of an expert in assessing probabilities is argued to be a key notion in understanding the validation of a risk analysis.

    AB - Aven and Heide (2009) [1] provided interesting views on the reliability and validation of risk analysis. The four validation criteria presented are contrasted with modelling features related to the relative frequency—based and Bayesian approaches to risk analysis. In this commentary I would like to bring forth some issues on validation that partly confirm and partly suggest changes in the interpretation of the introduced validation criteria—especially, in the context of low probability–high consequence systems. The mental model of an expert in assessing probabilities is argued to be a key notion in understanding the validation of a risk analysis.

    KW - Risk analysis validation

    KW - Risk-informed decision-making

    KW - Uncertainties

    U2 - 10.1016/j.ress.2010.06.002

    DO - 10.1016/j.ress.2010.06.002

    M3 - Article

    VL - 95

    SP - 1261

    EP - 1265

    JO - Reliability Engineering and System Safety

    JF - Reliability Engineering and System Safety

    SN - 0951-8320

    IS - 11

    ER -