Quantification of margins and uncertainties: Conceptual and computational basis

In 2001, the National Nuclear Security Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy in conjunction with the national security laboratories (i.e., Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories) initiated development of a process designated Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties (QMU) for the use of risk assessment methodologies in the certification of the reliability and safety of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. This presentation discusses and illustrates the conceptual and computational basis of QMU in analyses that use computational models to predict the behavior of complex systems. The following topics are considered: (i) the role of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in QMU, (ii) the representation of uncertainty with probability, (iii) the probabilistic representation of uncertainty in QMU analyses involving only epistemic uncertainty, and (iv) the probabilistic representation of uncertainty in QMU analyses involving aleatory and epistemic uncertainty.     

Ideas underlying the Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties

Key ideas underlying the application of Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties (QMU) to nuclear weapons stockpile lifecycle decisions are described. While QMU is a broad process and methodology for generating critical technical information to be used in U.S. nuclear weapon stockpile management, this paper emphasizes one component, which is information produced by computational modeling and simulation. In particular, the following topics are discussed: (i) the key principles of developing QMU information in the form of Best Estimate Plus Uncertainty, (ii) the need to separate aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in QMU, and (iii) the properties of risk-informed decision making (RIDM) that are best suited for effective application of QMU. The paper is written at a high level, but provides an extensive bibliography of useful papers for interested readers to deepen their understanding of the presented ideas.     

Quantification of margins and uncertainties: Example analyses from reactor safety and radioactive waste disposal involving the separation of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty

In 2001, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in conjunction with the national security laboratories (i.e., Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories) initiated development of a process designated quantification of margins and uncertainties (QMU) for the use of risk assessment methodologies in the certification of the reliability and safety of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. A previous presentation, “Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties: Conceptual and Computational Basis,” describes the basic ideas that underlie QMU and illustrates these ideas with two notional examples. The basic ideas and challenges that underlie NNSA's mandate for QMU are present, and have been successfully addressed, in a number of past analyses for complex systems. To provide perspective on the implementation of a requirement for QMU in the analysis of a complex system, three past analyses are presented as examples: (i) the probabilistic risk assessment carried out for the Surry Nuclear Power Station as part of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) reassessment of the risk from commercial nuclear power in the United States (i.e., the NUREG-1150 study), (ii) the performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant carried out by the DOE in support of a successful compliance certification application to the U.S. Environmental Agency, and (iii) the performance assessment for the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, carried out by the DOE in support of a license application to the NRC. Each of the preceding analyses involved a detailed treatment of uncertainty and produced results used to establish compliance with specific numerical requirements on the performance of the system under study. As a result, these studies illustrate the determination of both margins and the uncertainty in margins in real analyses.     

Summary from the epistemic uncertainty workshop: consensus amid diversity

The ‘Epistemic Uncertainty Workshop’ sponsored by Sandia National Laboratories was held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on 6–7 August 2002. The workshop was organized around a set of Challenge Problems involving both epistemic and aleatory uncertainty that the workshop participants were invited to solve and discuss. This concluding article in a special issue of Reliability Engineering and System Safety based on the workshop discusses the intent of the Challenge Problems, summarizes some discussions from the workshop, and provides a technical comparison among the papers in this special issue. The Challenge Problems were computationally simple models that were intended as vehicles for the illustration and comparison of conceptual and numerical techniques for use in analyses that involve: (i) epistemic uncertainty, (ii) aggregation of multiple characterizations of epistemic uncertainty, (iii) combination of epistemic and aleatory uncertainty, and (iv) models with repeated parameters. There was considerable diversity of opinion at the workshop about both methods and fundamental issues, and yet substantial consensus about what the answers to the problems were, and even about how each of the four issues should be addressed. Among the technical approaches advanced were probability theory, Dempster–Shafer evidence theory, random sets, sets of probability measures, imprecise coherent probabilities, coherent lower previsions, probability boxes, possibility theory, fuzzy sets, joint distribution tableaux, polynomial chaos expansions, and info-gap models. Although some participants maintained that a purely probabilistic approach is fully capable of accounting for all forms of uncertainty, most agreed that the treatment of epistemic uncertainty introduces important considerations and that the issues underlying the Challenge Problems are legitimate and significant. Topics identified as meriting additional research include elicitation of uncertainty representations, aggregation of multiple uncertainty representations, dependence and independence, model uncertainty, solution of black-box problems, efficient sampling strategies for computation, and communication of analysis results.     

Probabilistic bounding analysis in the Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties

The current challenge of nuclear weapon stockpile certification is to assess the reliability of complex, high-consequent, and aging systems without the benefit of full-system test data. In the absence of full-system testing, disparate kinds of information are used to inform certification assessments such as archival data, experimental data on partial systems, data on related or similar systems, computer models and simulations, and expert knowledge. In some instances, data can be scarce and information incomplete. The challenge of Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties (QMU) is to develop a methodology to support decision-making in this informational context. Given the difficulty presented by mixed and incomplete information, we contend that the uncertainty representation for the QMU methodology should be expanded to include more general characterizations that reflect imperfect information. One type of generalized uncertainty representation, known as probability bounds analysis, constitutes the union of probability theory and interval analysis where a class of distributions is defined by two bounding distributions. This has the advantage of rigorously bounding the uncertainty when inputs are imperfectly known. We argue for the inclusion of probability bounds analysis as one of many tools that are relevant for QMU and demonstrate its usefulness as compared to other methods in a reliability example with imperfect input information.     

Quantification of margins and uncertainties of complex systems in the presence of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty

Performance assessment of complex systems is ideally done through full system-level testing which is seldom available for high consequence systems. Further, a reality of engineering practice is that some features of system behavior are not known from experimental data, but from expert assessment, only. On the other hand, individual component data, which are part of the full system are more readily available. The lack of system level data and the complexity of the system lead to a need to build computational models of a system in a hierarchical or building block approach (from simple components to the full system). The models are then used for performance prediction in lieu of experiments, to estimate the confidence in the performance of these systems. Central to this are the need to quantify the uncertainties present in the system and to compare the system response to an expected performance measure. This is the basic idea behind Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties (QMU). QMU is applied in decision making—there are many uncertainties caused by inherent variability (aleatoric) in materials, configurations, environments, etc., and lack of information (epistemic) in models for deterministic and random variables that influence system behavior and performance. This paper proposes a methodology to quantify margins and uncertainty in the presence of both aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. It presents a framework based on Bayes networks to use available data at multiple levels of complexity (i.e. components, subsystem, etc.) and demonstrates a method to incorporate epistemic uncertainty given in terms of intervals on a model parameter.     

Reliability analysis of structures based on a probability‐uncertainty hybrid model

The traditional reliability analysis method based on probabilistic method requires probability distributions of all the uncertain parameters. However, in practical applications, the distributions of some parameters may not be precisely known due to the lack of sufficient sample data. The probabilistic theory cannot directly measure the reliability of structures with epistemic uncertainty, ie, subjective randomness and fuzziness. Hence, a hybrid reliability analysis (HRA) problem will be caused when the aleatory and epistemic uncertainties coexist in a structure. In this paper, by combining the probability theory and the uncertainty theory into a chance theory, a probability‐uncertainty hybrid model is established, and a new quantification method based on the uncertain random variables for the structural reliability is presented in order to simultaneously satisfy the duality of random variables and the subadditivity of uncertain variables; then, a reliability index is explored based on the chance expected value and variance. Besides, the formulas of the chance theory‐based reliability and reliability index are derived to uniformly assess the reliability of structures under the hybrid aleatory and epistemic uncertainties. The numerical experiments illustrate the validity of the proposed method, and the results of the proposed method can provide a more accurate assessment of the structural system under the mixed uncertainties than the ones obtained separately from the probability theory and the uncertainty theory.     

Mixed aleatory-epistemic uncertainty quantification with stochastic expansions and optimization-based interval estimation

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is the process of determining the effect of input uncertainties on response metrics of interest. These input uncertainties may be characterized as either aleatory uncertainties, which are irreducible variabilities inherent in nature, or epistemic uncertainties, which are reducible uncertainties resulting from a lack of knowledge. When both aleatory and epistemic uncertainties are mixed, it is desirable to maintain a segregation between aleatory and epistemic sources such that it is easy to separate and identify their contributions to the total uncertainty. Current production analyses for mixed UQ employ the use of nested sampling, where each sample taken from epistemic distributions at the outer loop results in an inner loop sampling over the aleatory probability distributions. This paper demonstrates new algorithmic capabilities for mixed UQ in which the analysis procedures are more closely tailored to the requirements of aleatory and epistemic propagation. Through the combination of stochastic expansions for computing statistics and interval optimization for computing bounds, interval-valued probability, second-order probability, and Dempster-Shafer evidence theory approaches to mixed UQ are shown to be more accurate and efficient than previously achievable.     

An approximate epistemic uncertainty analysis approach in the presence of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties

Epistemic uncertainty analysis is an essential feature of any model application subject to ‘state of knowledge’ uncertainties. Such analysis is usually carried out on the basis of a Monte Carlo simulation sampling the epistemic variables and performing the corresponding model runs.In situations, however, where aleatory uncertainties are also present in the model, an adequate treatment of both types of uncertainties would require a two-stage nested Monte Carlo simulation, i.e. sampling the epistemic variables (‘outer loop’) and nested sampling of the aleatory variables (‘inner loop’). It is clear that for complex and long running codes the computational effort to perform all the resulting model runs may be prohibitive.Therefore, an approach of an approximate epistemic uncertainty analysis is suggested which is based solely on two simple Monte Carlo samples: (a) joint sampling of both, epistemic and aleatory variables simultaneously, (b) sampling of aleatory variables alone with the epistemic variables held fixed at their reference values.The applications of this approach to dynamic reliability analyses presented in this paper look quite promising and suggest that performing such an approximate epistemic uncertainty analysis is preferable to the alternative of not performing any.     

Challenge problems: uncertainty in system response given uncertain parameters

The risk assessment community has begun to make a clear distinction between aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in theory and in practice. Aleatory uncertainty is also referred to in the literature as variability, irreducible uncertainty, inherent uncertainty, and stochastic uncertainty. Epistemic uncertainty is also termed reducible uncertainty, subjective uncertainty, and state-of-knowledge uncertainty. Methods to efficiently represent, aggregate, and propagate different types of uncertainty through computational models are clearly of vital importance. The most widely known and developed methods are available within the mathematics of probability theory, whether frequentist or subjectivist. Newer mathematical approaches, which extend or otherwise depart from probability theory, are also available, and are sometimes referred to as generalized information theory (GIT). For example, possibility theory, fuzzy set theory, and evidence theory are three components of GIT. To try to develop a better understanding of the relative advantages and disadvantages of traditional and newer methods and encourage a dialog between the risk assessment, reliability engineering, and GIT communities, a workshop was held. To focus discussion and debate at the workshop, a set of prototype problems, generally referred to as challenge problems, was constructed. The challenge problems concentrate on the representation, aggregation, and propagation of epistemic uncertainty and mixtures of epistemic and aleatory uncertainty through two simple model systems. This paper describes the challenge problems and gives numerical values for the different input parameters so that results from different investigators can be directly compared.     

数据稀缺与更新条件下基于概率密度演化-测度变换的认知不确定性量化分析

工程设计中往往需要同时处理固有不确定性与认知不确定性。对于固有不确定性分析与量化,国内外已有诸多研究,例如Monte Carlo方法、正交多项式展开理论和概率密度演化理论等。而对认知不确定性、特别是固有不确定性与认知不确定性耦合情况下的研究,则还相对缺乏。该文中,针对数据稀缺与数据更新导致的认知不确定性,首先分别引入Bootstrap方法和Bayes更新方法进行不确定性表征。在此基础上,结合基于概率密度演化-测度变换的两类不确定性量化统一理论新框架,提出了存在认知不确定性情况下的不确定性传播与可靠性分析高效方法及其具体数值算法。由此,给出了基于数据进行工程系统不确定性量化、传播与可靠性分析的基本途径。通过具有工程实际数据的3个工程实例分析,包括无限边坡稳定性分析、挡土墙稳定性分析和屋面桁架结构可靠性分析,验证了该文方法的精度和效率。     

Reliability analysis for multidisciplinary systems with the mixture of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties

Epistemic and aleatory uncertain variables always exist in multidisciplinary system simultaneously and can be modeled by probability and evidence theories, respectively. The propagation of uncertainty through coupled subsystem and the strong nonlinearity of the multidisciplinary system make the reliability analysis difficult and computational cost expensive. In this paper, a novel reliability analysis procedure is proposed for multidisciplinary system with epistemic and aleatory uncertain variables. First, the probability density function of the aleatory variables is assumed piecewise uniform distribution based on Bayes method, and approximate most probability point is solved by equivalent normalization method. Then, important sampling method is used to calculate failure probability and its variance and variation coefficient. The effectiveness of the procedure is demonstrated by two numerical examples. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An approach to combining unreliable pieces of evidence and their propagation in a system response analysis

The paper describes an approach to representing, aggregating and propagating aleatory and epistemic uncertainty through computational models. The framework for the approach employs the theory of imprecise coherent probabilities. The approach is exemplified by a simple algebraic system, the inputs of which are uncertain. Six different uncertainty situations are considered, including mixtures of epistemic and aleatory uncertainty.     

An approximate sensitivity analysis of results from complex computer models in the presence of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties

This paper focuses on sensitivity analysis of results from computer models in which both epistemic and aleatory uncertainties are present. Sensitivity is defined in the sense of “uncertainty importance” in order to identify and to rank the principal sources of epistemic uncertainty. A natural and consistent way to arrive at sensitivity results in such cases would be a two-dimensional or double-loop nested Monte Carlo sampling strategy in which the epistemic parameters are sampled in the outer loop and the aleatory variables are sampled in the nested inner loop. However, the computational effort of this procedure may be prohibitive for complex and time-demanding codes. This paper therefore suggests an approximate method for sensitivity analysis based on particular one-dimensional or single-loop sampling procedures, which require substantially less computational effort. From the results of such sampling one can obtain approximate estimates of several standard uncertainty importance measures for the aleatory probability distributions and related probabilistic quantities of the model outcomes of interest. The reliability of the approximate sensitivity results depends on the effect of all epistemic uncertainties on the total joint epistemic and aleatory uncertainty of the outcome. The magnitude of this effect can be expressed quantitatively and estimated from the same single-loop samples. The higher it is the more accurate the approximate sensitivity results will be. A case study, which shows that the results from the proposed approximate method are comparable to those obtained with the full two-dimensional approach, is provided.     

Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems

The following techniques for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis are briefly summarized: Monte Carlo analysis, differential analysis, response surface methodology, Fourier amplitude sensitivity test, Sobol' variance decomposition, and fast probability integration. Desirable features of Monte Carlo analysis in conjunction with Latin hypercube sampling are described in discussions of the following topics: (i) properties of random, stratified and Latin hypercube sampling, (ii) comparisons of random and Latin hypercube sampling, (iii) operations involving Latin hypercube sampling (i.e. correlation control, reweighting of samples to incorporate changed distributions, replicated sampling to test reproducibility of results), (iv) uncertainty analysis (i.e. cumulative distribution functions, complementary cumulative distribution functions, box plots), (v) sensitivity analysis (i.e. scatterplots, regression analysis, correlation analysis, rank transformations, searches for nonrandom patterns), and (vi) analyses involving stochastic (i.e. aleatory) and subjective (i.e. epistemic) uncertainty.     

Handling Uncertainties in Fault Tree Analysis by a Hybrid Probabilistic–Possibilistic Framework

Fault tree analysis is a method largely used in probabilistic risk assessment. Uncertainties should be properly handled in fault tree analyses to support a robust decision making. While many sources of uncertainties are considered, dependence uncertainties are not much explored. Such uncertainties can be labeled as ‘epistemic’ because of the way dependence is modeled. In practice, despite probability theory, alternative mathematical structures, including possibility theory and fuzzy set theory, for the representation of epistemic uncertainty can be used. In this article, a fuzzy β factor is considered to represent the failure dependence uncertainties among basic events. The relationship between β factor and system failure probability is analyzed to support the use of a hybrid probabilistic–possibilistic approach. As a result, a complete hybrid probabilistic–possibilistic framework is constructed. A case study of a high integrity pressure protection system is discussed. The results show that the proposed method provides decision makers a more accurate understanding of the system under analysis when failure dependencies are involved. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Decision making with epistemic uncertainty under safety constraints: An application to seismic design

The problem of accounting for epistemic uncertainty in risk management decisions is conceptually straightforward, but is riddled with practical difficulties. Simple approximations are often used whereby future variations in epistemic uncertainty are ignored or worst-case scenarios are postulated. These strategies tend to produce sub-optimal decisions. We develop a general framework based on Bayesian decision theory and exemplify it for the case of seismic design of buildings. When temporal fluctuations of the epistemic uncertainties and regulatory safety constraints are included, the optimal level of seismic protection exceeds the normative level at the time of construction. Optimal Bayesian decisions do not depend on the aleatory or epistemic nature of the uncertainties, but only on the total (epistemic plus aleatory) uncertainty and how that total uncertainty varies randomly during the lifetime of the project.     

Sensitivity analysis in conjunction with evidence theory representations of epistemic uncertainty

Three applications of sampling-based sensitivity analysis in conjunction with evidence theory representations for epistemic uncertainty in model inputs are described: (i) an initial exploratory analysis to assess model behavior and provide insights for additional analysis; (ii) a stepwise analysis showing the incremental effects of uncertain variables on complementary cumulative belief functions and complementary cumulative plausibility functions; and (iii) a summary analysis showing a spectrum of variance-based sensitivity analysis results that derive from probability spaces that are consistent with the evidence space under consideration.     

Quantification of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties in level-1 probabilistic safety assessment studies

There will be simplifying assumptions and idealizations in the availability models of complex processes and phenomena. These simplifications and idealizations generate uncertainties which can be classified as aleatory (arising due to randomness) and/or epistemic (due to lack of knowledge). The problem of acknowledging and treating uncertainty is vital for practical usability of reliability analysis results. The distinction of uncertainties is useful for taking the reliability/risk informed decisions with confidence and also for effective management of uncertainty. In level-1 probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) of nuclear power plants (NPP), the current practice is carrying out epistemic uncertainty analysis on the basis of a simple Monte-Carlo simulation by sampling the epistemic variables in the model. However, the aleatory uncertainty is neglected and point estimates of aleatory variables, viz., time to failure and time to repair are considered. Treatment of both types of uncertainties would require a two-phase Monte-Carlo simulation, outer loop samples epistemic variables and inner loop samples aleatory variables. A methodology based on two-phase Monte-Carlo simulation is presented for distinguishing both the kinds of uncertainty in the context of availability/reliability evaluation in level-1 PSA studies of NPP.     

Verification of the calculation of probability of loss of assured safety in temperature-dependent systems with multiple weak and strong links

Two approaches to the calculation of probability of loss of assured safety (PLOAS) in temperature dependent weak link/strong link systems are described and compared on the basis of three test problems. The approaches differ in that the first approach permits a separation of epistemic and aleatory uncertainty in the calculation of PLOAS and the second approach combines epistemic and aleatory uncertainty before the calculation of PLOAS. A discrepancy in the results obtained with the test problems led to the identification of an implementation error for one of the approaches. The importance and efficacy of well-designed verification test problems are demonstrated.