IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v234y2020i6p748-763.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models

Author

Listed:
  • Tasneem Bani-Mustafa
  • Nicola Pedroni
  • Enrico Zio
  • Dominique Vasseur
  • Francois Beaudouin

Abstract

Risk assessment provides information to support decision-making. Then, the confidence that can be put in its outcomes is fundamental, and this depends on the accuracy, representativeness and completeness of the models used in the risk assessment. A quantitative measure is needed to assess the credibility and trustworthiness of the outcomes obtained from such models, for decision-making purposes. This article proposes a four-level, top-down, hierarchical tree to identify the main attributes and criteria that affect the level of trustworthiness of models used in risk assessment. The level of trustworthiness (Level 1) is broken down into two attributes (Level 2), three sub-attributes and one “leaf†attribute (Level 3), and seven basic “leaf†sub-attributes (Level 4). Based on this hierarchical decomposition, a bottom-up, quantitative approach is employed for the assessment of model trustworthiness, using tangible information and data available for the basic “leaf†sub-attributes (Level 4). Analytical hierarchical process is adopted for evaluating and aggregating the sub-attributes, and Dempster–Shafer theory is adopted to consider the uncertainty and the inconsistency in the experts’ judgments. The approach is applied to a case study concerning the modeling of the residual heat removal system of a nuclear power plant, to compute its failure probability. The relative trustworthiness of two mathematical models of different complexity is evaluated: a fault tree and a multi-states physics-based model. The trustworthiness of the multi-states physics-based model is found to outweigh that of the fault tree model, which can be explained by the fact that multi-states physics-based model takes into account the components failure dependency relations and degradation effects. The feasibility and reasonableness of the approach are, thus, demonstrated, paving the way for its potential applicability to inform decision-making on safety-critical systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:234:y:2020:i:6:p:748-763
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X20929111
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X20929111
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X20929111?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. Bjerga, Torbjørn & Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2014. "An illustration of the use of an approach for treating model uncertainties in risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 46-53.
    2. Enrique López Droguett & Ali Mosleh, 2014. "Bayesian Treatment of Model Uncertainty for Partially Applicable Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 252-270, February.
    3. Danielsson, Jon & James, Kevin R. & Valenzuela, Marcela & Zer, Ilknur, 2016. "Model risk of risk models," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 79-91.
    4. Flage, R. & Aven, T., 2015. "Emerging risk – Conceptual definition and a relation to black swan type of events," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 61-67.
    5. Lianmeng Jiao & Quan Pan & Yan Liang & Xiaoxue Feng & Feng Yang, 2016. "Combining sources of evidence with reliability and importance for decision making," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 24(1), pages 87-106, March.
    6. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    7. Enrique López Droguett & Ali Mosleh, 2008. "Bayesian Methodology for Model Uncertainty Using Model Performance Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1457-1476, October.
    8. Khorsandi, Jahon & Aven, Terje, 2017. "Incorporating assumption deviation risk in quantitative risk assessments: A semi-quantitative approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 22-32.
    9. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.
    10. Ides Boone & Yves Van der Stede & Jeroen Dewulf & Winy Messens & Marc Aerts & Georges Daube & Koen Mintiens, 2010. "NUSAP: a method to evaluate the quality of assumptions in quantitative microbial risk assessment," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 337-352, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    13. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2012. "Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, edition 2, number 978-1-4614-3597-6, September.
    14. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    15. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    16. Beynon, Malcolm & Curry, Bruce & Morgan, Peter, 2000. "The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence: an alternative approach to multicriteria decision modelling," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 37-50, February.
    17. Filippo Curti & Ibrahim Ergen & Minh Le & Marco Migueis & Rob T. Stewart, 2016. "Benchmarking Operational Risk Models," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2016-070, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    18. Jeroen P. Van Der Sluijs & Matthieu Craye & Silvio Funtowicz & Penny Kloprogge & Jerry Ravetz & James Risbey, 2005. "Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Measures of Uncertainty in Model‐Based Environmental Assessment: The NUSAP System," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 481-492, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bani-Mustafa, Tasneem & Flage, Roger & Vasseur, Dominique & Zeng, Zhiguo & Zio, Enrico, 2020. "An extended method for evaluating assumptions deviations in quantitative risk assessment and its application to external flooding risk assessment of a nuclear power plant," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    2. Berner, Christine Louise & Flage, Roger, 2017. "Creating risk management strategies based on uncertain assumptions and aspects from assumption-based planning," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 10-19.
    3. Berner, Christine Louise & Flage, Roger, 2016. "Comparing and integrating the NUSAP notational scheme with an uncertainty based risk perspective," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 185-194.
    4. Flage, Roger & Askeland, Tore, 2020. "Assumptions in quantitative risk assessments: When explicit and when tacit?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    5. Langdalen, Henrik & Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Abrahamsen, HÃ¥kon Bjorheim, 2020. "A New Framework To Idenitfy And Assess Hidden Assumptions In The Background Knowledge Of A Risk Assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    6. Morteza Alaeddini & Masoud Mir-Amini, 2020. "Integrating COBIT with a hybrid group decision-making approach for a business-aligned IT roadmap formulation," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 63-94, June.
    7. Denisa Banulescu-Radu & Christophe Hurlin & Jérémy Leymarie & Olivier Scaillet, 2021. "Backtesting Marginal Expected Shortfall and Related Systemic Risk Measures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5730-5754, September.
    8. Rosa Ferrentino & Luca Vota, 2022. "A Mathematical Model for the Pricing of Derivative Financial Products: the Role of the Banking Supervision and of the Model Risk," Journal of Finance and Investment Analysis, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 11(1), pages 1-2.
    9. Fernández-Aguado, Pilar Gómez & Martínez, Eduardo Trigo & Ruíz, Rafael Moreno & Ureña, Antonio Partal, 2022. "Evaluation of European Deposit Insurance Scheme funding based on risk analysis," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 234-247.
    10. Václav Brož & Lukáš Pfeifer, 2021. "Are risk weights of banks in the Czech Republic procyclical? Evidence from wavelet analysis," Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, Central bank of Montenegro, vol. 10(1), pages 113-139.
    11. 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.
    12. Md Monjurul Islam & Tofael Ahamed & Ryozo Noguchi, 2018. "Land Suitability and Insurance Premiums: A GIS-based Multicriteria Analysis Approach for Sustainable Rice Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-28, May.
    13. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    14. Hao-Chang Tsai & An-Sheng Lee & Huang-Ning Lee & Chien-Nan Chen & Yu-Chun Liu, 2020. "An Application of the Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP on the Discussion of Training Indicators for the Regional Competition, Taiwan National Skills Competition, in the Trade of Joinery," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-19, May.
    15. Pfeifer, Lukáš & Hodula, Martin, 2021. "A profit-to-provisioning approach to setting the countercyclical capital buffer," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 45(1).
    16. Md. Arif Chowdhury & Hasnat Sabrina & Rashed Uz Zzaman & Syed Labib Ul Islam, 2022. "Green building aspects in Bangladesh: A study based on experts opinion regarding climate change," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(7), pages 9260-9284, July.
    17. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    18. Nora Sharkasi & Nguyen Vo Hien Chau & Jay Rajasekera, 2023. "Export Potential Analysis of Vietnamese Bottled Coconut Water by Incorporating Criteria Weights of MCDM into the Gravity of Trade Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-26, July.
    19. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    20. Mehmet Sahiner & David G. McMillan & Dimos Kambouroudis, 2023. "Do artificial neural networks provide improved volatility forecasts: Evidence from Asian markets," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 47(3), pages 723-762, September.

    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:sae:risrel:v:234:y:2020:i:6:p:748-763. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.