Search results

When the probability of each model is known, a natural idea is to select the most probable model. However, in many practical situations, the exact values of these probabilities are not known; only the intervals that contain these values are known. In such situations, a natural idea is to select some probabilities from these intervals and to select a model with the largest selected probabilities. The purpose of this study is to decide how to most adequately select these probabilities.

It is desirable to have a probability-selection method that preserves independence. If, according to the probability intervals, the two events were independent, then the selection of probabilities within the intervals should preserve this independence.

The paper describes all techniques for decision making under interval uncertainty about probabilities that are consistent with independence. It is proved that these techniques form a 1-parametric family, a family that has already been successfully used in such decision problems.

This study provides a theoretical explanation of an empirically successful technique for decision-making under interval uncertainty about probabilities. This explanation is based on the natural idea that the method for selecting probabilities from the corresponding intervals should preserve independence.

The purpose of this paper is to examine people’s understanding and evaluation of uncertainty intervals produced by experts as part of a quality assurance procedure of large public projects.

Three samples of educated participants (employees in a large construction company, students attending courses in project management and judgment and decision making, and judges of district and appeal courts) answered questionnaires about cost estimates of a highway construction project, presented as a probability distribution.

The studies demonstrated additivity neglect of probabilities that are graphically displayed. People’s evaluations of the accuracy of interval estimates revealed a boundary (a “cliff”) effect, with a sharp drop in accuracy ratings for outcomes above an arbitrary maximum. Several common verbal phrases (what “can” happen, is “entirely possible” and “not surprising”) which might seem to indicate expected outcomes were regularly used to describe unlikely values near or at the top of the distribution (an extremity effect).

All judgments concerned a single case and were made by participants who were not stakeholders in this specific project. Further studies should compare judgments aided by a graph with conditions where the graph is changed or absent.

Experts and project managers cannot assume that readers of cost estimates understand a well-defined uncertainty interval as intended. They should also be aware of effects created by describing uncertain estimates in words.

The studies show how inconsistencies in judgment affect the understanding and evaluation of uncertainty intervals by well-informed and educated samples tested in a maximally transparent situation. Readers of cost estimates seem to believe that precise estimates are feasible and yet that costs are usually underestimated.

We review the experimental evidence on risk aversion in controlled laboratory settings. We review the strengths and weaknesses of alternative elicitation procedures, the strengths and weaknesses of alternative estimation procedures, and finally the effect of controlling for risk attitudes on inferences in experiments.

Regulators can adjust penalties to compensate for incomplete monitoring of regulated parties that are subject to legal rules, but compensating penalty adjustments often are unavailable when regulated parties are subject to legal standards. Incomplete monitoring consequently invites greater noncompliance under standards than under rules. This chapter develops a model that quantifies some of the specific tradeoffs that regulators face in designing standards regimes under incomplete monitoring. The model also considers the extent to which suboptimal compliance due to incomplete monitoring is likely to result in deadweight loss in different settings.

The purpose of this paper is to present a fault tree (FT)-based approach for quantitative risk analysis in the construction industry that can take into account both objective and subjective uncertainties.

In this research, the identified basic events (BEs) are first categorized based on the availability of historical data into probabilistic and possibilistic. The probabilistic and possibilistic events are represented by probability distributions and fuzzy numbers, respectively. Hybrid uncertainty analysis is then performed through a combination of Monte Carlo simulation and fuzzy set theory. The probability of occurrence of the top event is finally calculated using the proposed FT-based hybrid uncertainty analysis method.

The efficiency of the proposed method is demonstrated by implementing in a real steel structure project. A quantitative risk assessment is performed for weld cracks, taking into account of both types of uncertainties. An importance analysis is finally performed to evaluate the contribution of each BE to the probability of occurrence of weld cracks and adopt appropriate response strategies.

In this research, the impact of objective (aleatory) dependence between the occurrences of different BEs and subjective (epistemic) dependence between estimates of the epistemically uncertain probabilities of some BEs are not considered. Moreover, there exist limitations to the application of fuzzy set rules, which were used for aggregating experts’ opinions and ranking purposes of the BEs in the FT model. These limitations can be investigated through further research.

It is believed that the proposed hybrid uncertainty analysis method presents a robust and powerful tool for quantitative risk analysis, as both types of uncertainties are taken into account appropriately.

We take Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT) seriously by rigorously estimating structural models using the full set of CPT parameters. Much of the literature only estimates a subset of CPT parameters, or more simply assumes CPT parameter values from prior studies. Our data are from laboratory experiments with undergraduate students and MBA students facing substantial real incentives and losses. We also estimate structural models from Expected Utility Theory (EUT), Dual Theory (DT), Rank-Dependent Utility (RDU), and Disappointment Aversion (DA) for comparison. Our major finding is that a majority of individuals in our sample locally asset integrate. That is, they see a loss frame for what it is, a frame, and behave as if they evaluate the net payment rather than the gross loss when one is presented to them. This finding is devastating to the direct application of CPT to these data for those subjects. Support for CPT is greater when losses are covered out of an earned endowment rather than house money, but RDU is still the best single characterization of individual and pooled choices. Defenders of the CPT model claim, correctly, that the CPT model exists “because the data says it should.” In other words, the CPT model was borne from a wide range of stylized facts culled from parts of the cognitive psychology literature. If one is to take the CPT model seriously and rigorously then it needs to do a much better job of explaining the data than we see here.

This study aims to improve the reliability of emergency safety barriers by using the subjective safety analysis based on evidential reasoning theory in order to develop on a framework for optimizing the reliability of emergency safety barriers.

The emergency event tree analysis is combined with an interval type-2 fuzzy-set and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. In order to the quantitative data is not available, this study based on interval type2 fuzzy set theory, trapezoidal fuzzy numbers describe the expert's imprecise uncertainty about the fuzzy failure probability of emergency safety barriers related to the liquefied petroleum gas storage prevent. Fuzzy fault tree analysis and fuzzy ordered weighted average aggregation are used to address uncertainties in emergency safety barrier reliability assessment. In addition, a critical analysis and some corrective actions are suggested to identify weak points in emergency safety barriers. Therefore, a framework decisions are proposed to optimize and improve safety barrier reliability. Decision-making in this framework uses evidential reasoning theory to identify corrective actions that can optimize reliability based on subjective safety analysis.

A real case study of a liquefied petroleum gas storage in Algeria is presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methodology. The results show that the proposed methodology provides the possibility to evaluate the values of the fuzzy failure probability of emergency safety barriers. In addition, the fuzzy failure probabilities using the fuzzy type-2 AHP method are the most reliable and accurate. As a result, the improved fault tree analysis can estimate uncertain expert opinion weights, identify and evaluate failure probability values for critical basic event. Therefore, suggestions for corrective measures to reduce the failure probability of the fire-fighting system are provided. The obtained results show that of the ten proposed corrective actions, the corrective action “use of periodic maintenance tests” prioritizes reliability, optimization and improvement of safety procedures.

This study helps to determine the safest and most reliable corrective measures to improve the reliability of safety barriers. In addition, it also helps to protect people inside and outside the company from all kinds of major industrial accidents. Among the limitations of this study is that the cost of corrective actions is not taken into account.

Our contribution is to propose an integrated approach that uses interval type-2 fuzzy sets and AHP method and emergency event tree analysis to handle uncertainty in the failure probability assessment of emergency safety barriers. In addition, the integration of fault tree analysis and fuzzy ordered averaging aggregation helps to improve the reliability of the fire-fighting system and optimize the corrective actions that can improve the safety practices in liquefied petroleum gas storage tanks.

The purpose of this paper is to develop several predictive models for estimating the structural construction cost and establish range estimation for the structural construction cost using design information available in early stages of residential building projects.

Information about residential building projects is collected based on project documents from construction companies with regard to the design parameters and the actual structural construction costs at completion. Storey enclosure method (SEM) is fundamental for determining the building design parameters, forming the potential variables and developing the cost estimation models using regression analysis. Nonparametric bootstrap method is used to establish range estimation for the structural construction cost.

A model which is developed from an integration of advanced SEM, principle component analysis and regression analysis is robust in terms of predictability. In terms of range estimation, cumulative probability-based range estimates and confidence intervals are established. While cumulative probability-based range estimates provide information about the level of uncertainty included in the estimate, confidence intervals provide information about the variability of the estimate. Such information could be very crucial for management decisions in early stages of residential building projects.

This study could provide practitioners with a better understanding of the uncertainty and variability included in the cost estimate. Hence, they could make effective improvements on cost-related management approaches to enhance project cost performance.

This article outlines a subjective approach to estimating value at risk (VaR) and its related confidence intervals based on priors of the profit/loss distribution and its parameters. In the tradition of Bayesian statistics, this pro‐duces probability density functions for VaR that allow for subjective uncertainty. The author shows that imple‐menting this approach can be intuitive, straightforward, and applicable to any parametric VaR. One of the more difficult issues in this area is how to assess the precision of estimates: VaR estimation is usually straightforward, but estimating a confidence interval for a VaR estimate is not. This article suggests that, by inferring VaR from prior beliefs, rather than thinking of VaR as dependent on an “objective” P/L distribution, interpreting estimated confidence intervals is less problematic

Bayesian A/B inference (BABI) is a method that combines subjective prior information with data from A/B experiments to provide inference for lift – the difference in a measure of response in control and treatment, expressed as its ratio to the measure of response in control. The procedure is embedded in stable code that can be executed in a few seconds for an experiment, regardless of sample size, and caters to the objectives and technical background of the owners of experiments. BABI provides more powerful tests of the hypothesis of the impact of treatment on lift, and sharper conclusions about the value of lift, than do legacy conventional methods. In application to 21 large online experiments, the credible interval is 60% to 65% shorter than the conventional confidence interval in the median case, and by close to 100% in a significant proportion of cases; in rare cases, BABI credible intervals are longer than conventional confidence intervals and then by no more than about 10%.