pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.27804 · v1 · pith:YRQDT322new · submitted 2026-06-26 · 💱 q-fin.RM

Methods for Uncertainty Representation in Risk Management: A Comparative Review and Decision-Oriented Framework

Albert Kutej , Stefan Rass This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 02:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💱 q-fin.RM
keywords uncertainty representationrisk managementprobabilistic methodsfuzzy logicevidence theorysystematic reviewdecision makingepistemic uncertainty
0
0 comments X

The pith

A review of 370 publications classifies uncertainty representation in risk management into five methodological families.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper conducts a systematic literature review to organize how risk management approaches handle uncertainty. It groups methods into probabilistic, evidence-based and fuzzy, qualitative, graphical, and hybrid categories. The analysis reveals that probabilistic techniques dominate because of their ability to provide numerical precision, while other methods better address situations where information is vague or incomplete. This matters because poor uncertainty handling can undermine decision quality in safety-critical areas. The review also notes limited real-world use of many methods and calls for improved selection guidance.

Core claim

Based on a systematic literature review of 370 publications, the identified approaches are classified into five methodological families: probabilistic methods, evidence-based and fuzzy-logic approaches, qualitative elicitation techniques, graphical and visual representations, and hybrid frameworks. Probabilistic methods remain predominant due to their quantitative rigor, whereas fuzzy and evidence-based approaches are particularly suited to addressing vagueness and epistemic uncertainty. Qualitative and graphical approaches enhance interpretive understanding and support transparent communication of uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The five-family classification of uncertainty representation methods derived from the review of 370 publications, which serves to compare their theoretical foundations and practical applications in risk management.

If this is right

  • Probabilistic methods offer quantitative rigor suitable for many risk scenarios.
  • Fuzzy and evidence-based methods address vagueness and epistemic uncertainty effectively.
  • Qualitative and graphical methods improve understanding and communication of uncertainty.
  • Hybrid frameworks combine strengths but require further development.
  • Practical integration of these methods into operational risk management is currently limited.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Risk managers in new domains could use the classification to select methods matching their uncertainty type.
  • Future tools might integrate visualization techniques to make uncertainty more accessible to non-experts.
  • The emphasis on hybrids suggests research into combining probabilistic and fuzzy elements for better coverage of mixed uncertainty.
  • Domains like finance or engineering safety could test the framework for method selection in practice.

Load-bearing premise

The 370 publications reviewed form a representative sample of the literature and the five-family classification captures the main approaches without major omissions.

What would settle it

A new literature search or expert survey identifying many approaches that do not fit into the five families or showing that probabilistic methods are not predominant in certain subfields would challenge the classification and analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.27804 by Albert Kutej, Stefan Rass.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Structured decision pathway for selecting uncertainty representation methods in applied risk management. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The consideration of uncertainty is a central but frequently inadequately addressed component of risk management. A systematic treatment of uncertainty is essential for ensuring the quality and traceability of decision-making processes, particularly in complex and safety-critical environments. This review systematically analyzes how established risk management approaches conceptualize and represent uncertainty in both their theoretical foundations and practical applications. Based on a systematic literature review of 370 publications, the identified approaches are classified into five methodological families. These include probabilistic methods, evidence-based and fuzzy-logic approaches, qualitative elicitation techniques, graphical and visual representations and hybrid frameworks. The analysis shows that probabilistic methods remain predominant due to their quantitative rigor, whereas fuzzy and evidence-based approaches are particularly suited to addressing vagueness and epistemic uncertainty. Qualitative and graphical approaches are found to enhance interpretive understanding and support the transparent communication of uncertainty. Despite these developments, the analysis indicates that the practical integration of these approaches into operational risk management remains limited in many domains. The findings highlight the need for more structured guidance in method selection and suggest that future research would benefit from further development of hybrid approaches and visualization techniques.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents a comparative review of uncertainty representation methods in risk management, drawing on a systematic literature review of 370 publications. It proposes a classification into five methodological families (probabilistic methods; evidence-based and fuzzy-logic approaches; qualitative elicitation techniques; graphical and visual representations; hybrid frameworks) and analyzes their theoretical foundations, practical applications, predominance, and suitability for different uncertainty types. The central findings are that probabilistic methods remain predominant due to quantitative rigor, fuzzy/evidence-based approaches suit vagueness and epistemic uncertainty, qualitative/graphical methods aid communication, and practical integration remains limited, with a call for more hybrid approaches and a decision-oriented framework.

Significance. If the review methodology and taxonomy are robust, the work provides a structured synthesis that could help risk managers select appropriate uncertainty representations, especially in safety-critical domains. It usefully distinguishes method strengths by uncertainty type and identifies gaps in operational adoption, which may inform both practice and future research on hybrids and visualization. The decision-oriented framing adds potential practical value beyond pure taxonomy.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / Methods (literature review description)] The central claims rest on the systematic review of 370 publications and the five-family taxonomy being representative, exhaustive, and non-overlapping. However, the manuscript provides no details on the search protocol (databases, query strings, date ranges), inclusion/exclusion criteria, screening process, or classification procedure (e.g., inter-rater agreement, handling of hybrid papers, or validation against omissions). This directly affects verifiability of the predominance finding and suitability assessments; see the abstract and any methods section describing the review.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The title references a 'Decision-Oriented Framework' but the abstract and provided text do not specify its structure, decision criteria, or how it maps the five families to practical selection; clarifying this would strengthen the contribution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight an important area for improving the transparency of our work. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Methods (literature review description)] The central claims rest on the systematic review of 370 publications and the five-family taxonomy being representative, exhaustive, and non-overlapping. However, the manuscript provides no details on the search protocol (databases, query strings, date ranges), inclusion/exclusion criteria, screening process, or classification procedure (e.g., inter-rater agreement, handling of hybrid papers, or validation against omissions). This directly affects verifiability of the predominance finding and suitability assessments; see the abstract and any methods section describing the review.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of a detailed description of the systematic review methodology limits the verifiability of our findings. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated Methods section that specifies the databases searched, the query strings and date ranges employed, the inclusion/exclusion criteria, the screening process, and the classification procedure. The section will also explain how hybrid papers were assigned to families and any steps taken to assess classification consistency. These additions will directly support the claims regarding predominance and suitability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: literature synthesis with no derivations or self-referential reductions.

full rationale

This is a systematic literature review classifying 370 external publications into five methodological families. No equations, predictions, fitted parameters, or first-principles derivations exist that could reduce to the paper's own inputs by construction. Central claims (predominance of probabilistic methods, suitability of fuzzy/evidence-based approaches) rest on analysis of cited external sources rather than self-definition, self-citation load-bearing, or renaming of known results. Absence of explicit search-protocol details is a methodological limitation but does not create circularity under the enumerated patterns, as the paper makes no internal predictive or definitional claims that loop back on themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a literature review the paper introduces no free parameters, new axioms, or invented entities; it relies on standard systematic review practices and the cited body of 370 publications.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5719 in / 1067 out tokens · 39524 ms · 2026-06-29T02:19:27.760516+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

198 extracted references · 170 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Literature review of methods for representing uncertainty

    Zio E, Pedroni N. Literature review of methods for representing uncertainty. Toulouse, France: Cahiers de la Sécurité Industrielle, Foundation for an Industrial Safety Culture; 2013

    2013

  2. [2]

    Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making

    Aven T, Zio E. Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2011;96:64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2010.06.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ress.2010.06.001 2011

  3. [3]

    Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2013

    Environmental Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2013. https://doi.org/10.17226/12568

    work page doi:10.17226/12568 2013

  4. [4]

    Uncertainty Analysis in Multi-Sector Systems: Considerations for Risk Analysis, Projection, and Planning for Complex Systems

    Srikrishnan V, Lafferty DC, Wong TE, Lamontagne JR, Quinn JD, Sharma S, et al. Uncertainty Analysis in Multi-Sector Systems: Considerations for Risk Analysis, Projection, and Planning for Complex Systems. Earth’s Future 2022;10:e2021EF002644. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002644

    work page doi:10.1029/2021ef002644 2022

  5. [5]

    Dealing with Uncertainty: A Survey of Theories and Practices

    Li Y, Chen J, Feng L. Dealing with Uncertainty: A Survey of Theories and Practices. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 2013;25:2463–82. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2012.179

    work page doi:10.1109/tkde.2012.179 2013

  6. [6]

    A Survey on Uncertainty Reasoning and Quantification for Decision Making: Belief Theory Meets Deep Learning

    Guo Z, Wan Z, Zhang Q, Zhao X, Chen F, Cho J-H, et al. A Survey on Uncertainty Reasoning and Quantification for Decision Making: Belief Theory Meets Deep Learning

  7. [7]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.05675

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.05675

  8. [8]

    Risk-Adaptive Approaches to Stochastic Optimization: A Survey

    Royset JO. Risk-Adaptive Approaches to Stochastic Optimization: A Survey. SIAM Rev 2025;67:3–70. https://doi.org/10.1137/22M1538946

    work page doi:10.1137/22m1538946 2025

  9. [9]

    A survey of contextual optimization methods for decision-making under uncertainty

    Sadana U, Chenreddy A, Delage E, Forel A, Frejinger E, Vidal T. A survey of contextual optimization methods for decision-making under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research 2025;320:271–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2024.03.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2024.03.020 2025

  10. [10]

    Quantification of margins and uncertainties: Conceptual and computational basis

    Helton JC. Quantification of margins and uncertainties: Conceptual and computational basis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2011;96:976–1013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.03.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ress.2011.03.017 2011

  11. [11]

    A Methodology For Performing Global Uncertainty And Sensitivity Analysis In Systems Biology

    Marino S, Hogue IB, Ray CJ, Kirschner DE. A Methodology For Performing Global Uncertainty And Sensitivity Analysis In Systems Biology. J Theor Biol 2008;254:178–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.04.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.04.011 2008

  12. [12]

    Aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in reliability analysis: An engineering perspective

    Li P-P, Valdebenito MA, Dang C, Beer M, Faes MGR. Aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in reliability analysis: An engineering perspective. Structural Safety 2026;119:102666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2025.102666

    work page doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2025.102666 2026

  13. [13]

    Qualitative and quantitative project risk assessment using a hybrid PMBOK model developed under uncertainty conditions

    Barghi B, Shadrokh sikari S. Qualitative and quantitative project risk assessment using a hybrid PMBOK model developed under uncertainty conditions. Heliyon 2020;6:e03097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e03097

    work page doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e03097 2020

  14. [14]

    Modeling uncertainty in risk assessment: An integrated approach with fuzzy set theory and Monte Carlo simulation

    Arunraj NS, Mandal S, Maiti J. Modeling uncertainty in risk assessment: An integrated approach with fuzzy set theory and Monte Carlo simulation. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2013;55:242–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.03.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.03.007 2013

  15. [15]

    Probabilistic risk identification and assessment model for construction projects using elicitation based bayesian network

    Khodabakhshian A, Re Cecconi F, Lopez Droguett E. Probabilistic risk identification and assessment model for construction projects using elicitation based bayesian network. ITcon 2025;30:185–212. https://doi.org/10.36680/j.itcon.2025.009

    work page doi:10.36680/j.itcon.2025.009 2025

  16. [16]

    A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW ON THE APPLICATION OF FUZZY LOGIC IN RISK ANALYSIS

    James S, Renjith VR. A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW ON THE APPLICATION OF FUZZY LOGIC IN RISK ANALYSIS. International Journal of Computer Applications 2024;186:16–38. https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2024924254

    work page doi:10.5120/ijca2024924254 2024

  17. [17]

    Coping with Complexity, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Risk Governance: A Synthesis

    Renn O, Klinke A, van Asselt M. Coping with Complexity, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Risk Governance: A Synthesis. Ambio 2011;40:231–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280- 010-0134-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s13280- 2011

  18. [18]

    Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessments

    Committee ES, Benford D, Halldorsson T, Jeger MJ, Knutsen HK, More S, et al. Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessments. EFSA Journal 2018;16:e05123. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5123

    work page doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5123 2018

  19. [19]

    The principles and methods behind EFSA’s Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessment

    Committee ES, Benford D, Halldorsson T, Jeger MJ, Knutsen HK, More S, et al. The principles and methods behind EFSA’s Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessment. EFSA Journal 2018;16:e05122. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5122

    work page doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5122 2018

  20. [20]

    Development and Validation of the TRansparent Uncertainty ASsessmenT (TRUST) Tool for Assessing Uncertainties in Health Economic Decision Models

    Grimm SE, Pouwels X, Ramaekers BLT, Wijnen B, Knies S, Grutters J, et al. Development and Validation of the TRansparent Uncertainty ASsessmenT (TRUST) Tool for Assessing Uncertainties in Health Economic Decision Models. Pharmacoeconomics 2020;38:205–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00855-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s40273-019-00855-9 2020

  21. [21]

    Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management

    Aven T, Zio E. Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Risk Analysis 2014;34:1164–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12132

    work page doi:10.1111/risa.12132 2014

  22. [22]

    The Science of Risk Analysis: Foundation and Practice

    Aven T. The Science of Risk Analysis: Foundation and Practice. 1st ed. Routledge; 2019. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429029189

    work page doi:10.4324/9780429029189 2019

  23. [23]

    Risk Governance: Coping With Uncertainty in a Complex World

    Renn O. Risk Governance: Coping With Uncertainty in a Complex World. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6799-0

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6799-0 2008

  24. [24]

    The ambiguities of uncertainty: A review of uncertainty frameworks relevant to the assessment of environmental change

    Bevan LD. The ambiguities of uncertainty: A review of uncertainty frameworks relevant to the assessment of environmental change. Futures 2022;137:102919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.102919

    work page doi:10.1016/j.futures.2022.102919 2022

  25. [25]

    Distinguishing Two Dimensions of Uncertainty 2011

    Fox CR, Ülkümen G. Distinguishing Two Dimensions of Uncertainty 2011. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3695311

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.3695311 2011

  26. [26]

    Aleatoric or epistemic? Does it matter? Structural Safety 2009;31:105–12

    Der Kiureghian A, Ditlevsen OD. Aleatoric or epistemic? Does it matter? Structural Safety 2009;31:105–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.020 2009

  27. [27]

    Aleatory and epistemic uncertainties can completely derail medical research results

    Indrayan A. Aleatory and epistemic uncertainties can completely derail medical research results. J Postgrad Med 2020;66:94–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_585_19

    work page doi:10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_585_19 2020

  28. [28]

    Risk, uncertainty, ignorance and myopia: Their managerial implications for B2B firms

    Oehmen J, Locatelli G, Wied M, Willumsen P. Risk, uncertainty, ignorance and myopia: Their managerial implications for B2B firms. Industrial Marketing Management 2020;88:330–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.018 2020

  29. [29]

    Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies

    Li Y, Taeihagh A, de Jong M, Klinke A. Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies. Risk Anal 2021;41:519–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13505

    work page doi:10.1111/risa.13505 2021

  30. [30]

    Risk, precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate: Talking point on the precautionary principle

    Stirling A. Risk, precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate: Talking point on the precautionary principle. EMBO Reports 2007;8:309–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400953

    work page doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400953 2007

  31. [31]

    Investor Behavior Under Epistemic vs

    Walters DJ, Ülkümen G, Tannenbaum D, Erner C, Fox CR. Investor Behavior Under Epistemic vs. Aleatory Uncertainty. Management Science 2023;69:2761–77. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4489

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.2022.4489 2023

  32. [32]

    Computational Methods For Reliability And Risk Analysis

    Zio E. Computational Methods For Reliability And Risk Analysis. World Scientific Publishing Company; 2009

    2009

  33. [33]

    Mitigating versus Managing Epistemic and Aleatory Uncertainty

    Packard MD, Clark BB. Mitigating versus Managing Epistemic and Aleatory Uncertainty. AMR 2020;45:872–6. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2020.0266

    work page doi:10.5465/amr.2020.0266 2020

  34. [34]

    Uncertainty characterization in risk analysis for decision-making practice

    Zio E, Pedroni N. Uncertainty characterization in risk analysis for decision-making practice. 2012

    2012

  35. [35]

    How to embrace uncertainty in participatory climate change risk management—A roadmap

    Döll P, Romero‐Lankao P. How to embrace uncertainty in participatory climate change risk management—A roadmap. Earth’s Future 2017;5:18–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000411

    work page doi:10.1002/2016ef000411 2017

  36. [36]

    Review of Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities

    Hand DJ. Review of Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics) 1993;42:237–8. https://doi.org/10.2307/2347427

    work page doi:10.2307/2347427 1993

  37. [37]

    Introduction to Imprecise Probabilities

    Augustin T, Coolen FPA, de Cooman G, Troffaes MCM. Introduction to Imprecise Probabilities. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118763117

    work page doi:10.1002/9781118763117 2014

  38. [38]

    Info-Gap Decision Theory (IG)

    Ben-Haim Y. Info-Gap Decision Theory (IG). In: Marchau VAWJ, Walker WE, Bloemen PJTM, Popper SW, editors. Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty: From Theory to Practice, Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019, p. 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05252-2_5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-05252-2_5 2019

  39. [39]

    Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis

    Lempert RJ, Popper SW, Bankes SC. Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis. 2003

    2003

  40. [40]

    What is risk? Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015, p. 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119057819.ch2

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119057819.ch2 2015

  41. [41]

    What is a risk analysis? Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015, p. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119057819.ch1

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119057819.ch1 2015

  42. [42]

    Probabilistic risk analysis: foundations and methods

    Bedford T, Cooke R. Probabilistic risk analysis: foundations and methods. 3. printing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004

    2004

  43. [43]

    On The Quantitative Definition of Risk

    Kaplan S, Garrick BJ. On The Quantitative Definition of Risk. Risk Analysis 1981;1:11–

    1981

  44. [44]

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x 1981

  45. [45]

    Simulation and the Monte Carlo Method

    Rubinstein RY, Kroese DP. Simulation and the Monte Carlo Method. 1st ed. Wiley; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118631980

    work page doi:10.1002/9781118631980 2016

  46. [46]

    Integrating Bayesian Network and Cloud Model to Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Maritime Collision Accidents in China’s Coastal Port Waters

    Li Z, Zhu X, Liao S, Yin J, Gao K, Liu X. Integrating Bayesian Network and Cloud Model to Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Maritime Collision Accidents in China’s Coastal Port Waters. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 2024;12:2113. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12122113

    work page doi:10.3390/jmse12122113 2024

  47. [47]

    Hybrid Bayesian Networks for Reliability Assessment of Infrastructure Systems

    Zwirglmaier K, Chan J, Papaioannou I, Song J, Straub D. Hybrid Bayesian Networks for Reliability Assessment of Infrastructure Systems. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering 2024;10:04024019. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.RUENG-1005

    work page doi:10.1061/ajrua6.rueng-1005 2024

  48. [48]

    Fault Tree Handbook 1981

    Vesely WE, Goldberg FF, Roberts NH, Haasl DF. Fault Tree Handbook 1981

    1981

  49. [49]

    Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015, p

    The risk analysis process: risk assessment. Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015, p. 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119057819.ch4

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119057819.ch4 2015

  50. [50]

    Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015, p

    The risk analysis process: risk treatment. Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015, p. 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119057819.ch5

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119057819.ch5 2015

  51. [51]

    Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015, p

    The risk analysis process: planning. Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015, p. 28–

    2015

  52. [52]

    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119057819.ch3

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119057819.ch3

  53. [53]

    Quantifying Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty with Proper Scoring Rules 2024

    Hofman P, Sale Y, Hüllermeier E. Quantifying Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty with Proper Scoring Rules 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.12215

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.12215 2024

  54. [54]

    How Useful Is Quantitative Risk Assessment? Risk Analysis : An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 2004;24:515–20

    Apostolakis G. How Useful Is Quantitative Risk Assessment? Risk Analysis : An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 2004;24:515–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00455.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00455.x 2004

  55. [55]

    Uncertainty Quantification in Industrial Risk Assessment for Practical Decision-making

    Olivier-Maget N, De Barnier T, Bourgeois F, Gabas N. Uncertainty Quantification in Industrial Risk Assessment for Practical Decision-making. Chemical Engineering Transactions 2025;116:469–74. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET25116079

    work page doi:10.3303/cet25116079 2025

  56. [56]

    Confidence in Probabilistic Risk Assessment

    Zanetti L. Confidence in Probabilistic Risk Assessment. Philosophy of Science 2024;91:702–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.158

    work page doi:10.1017/psa.2023.158 2024

  57. [57]

    Uncertainties and their treatment in the quantitative risk assessment of domino effects: Classification and review

    Xu Y, Reniers G, Yang M, Yuan S, Chen C. Uncertainties and their treatment in the quantitative risk assessment of domino effects: Classification and review. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2023;172:971–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2023.02.082

    work page doi:10.1016/j.psep.2023.02.082 2023

  58. [58]

    Hybrid uncertainty propagation and reliability analysis using direct probability integral method and exponential convex model

    Meng Z, Zhao J, Chen G, Yang D. Hybrid uncertainty propagation and reliability analysis using direct probability integral method and exponential convex model. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2022;228:108803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2022.108803

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ress.2022.108803 2022

  59. [59]

    A general framework for quantifying uncertainty at scale

    Farcaş I-G, Merlo G, Jenko F. A general framework for quantifying uncertainty at scale. Commun Eng 2022;1:43. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44172-022-00045-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s44172-022-00045-0 2022

  60. [60]

    A structuring review on multi-stage optimization under uncertainty: Aligning concepts from theory and practice

    Bakker H, Dunke F, Nickel S. A structuring review on multi-stage optimization under uncertainty: Aligning concepts from theory and practice. Omega 2020;96:102080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.06.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.omega.2019.06.006 2020

  61. [61]

    A Review of Stochastic Programming Methods for Optimization of Process Systems Under Uncertainty

    Li C, Grossmann IE. A Review of Stochastic Programming Methods for Optimization of Process Systems Under Uncertainty. Front Chem Eng 2021;2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fceng.2020.622241

    work page doi:10.3389/fceng.2020.622241 2021

  62. [62]

    A Modular Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Framework for Electric Grid Cybersecurity

    Diao X, Zhao Y, Li R, Chakhchoukh Y, Johnson B, Le Blanc K, et al. A Modular Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Framework for Electric Grid Cybersecurity. Engineering Reports 2025;7:e70377. https://doi.org/10.1002/eng2.70377

    work page doi:10.1002/eng2.70377 2025

  63. [63]

    PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT (PRA) FOR ARTEMIS AND FUTURE SPACE EXPLORATION PROGRAMS

    Lane K, Nilvarna A, Abbey GWS, Kezirian MT. PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT (PRA) FOR ARTEMIS AND FUTURE SPACE EXPLORATION PROGRAMS. Acta Astronautica 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2025.06.045

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2025.06.045 2025

  64. [64]

    Farag AS, Chandran P, Afzali A, Smith C. Developing a Probabilistic Risk Assessment Framework for Sodium-Cooled Thermal Reactors: Addressing Unique Challenges and Uncertainties: 19th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Analysis, 2025. https://doi.org/10.13182/PSA2025-47493

    work page doi:10.13182/psa2025-47493 2025

  65. [65]

    An Overview of Data Quality Frameworks

    Cichy C, Rass S. An Overview of Data Quality Frameworks. IEEE Access 2019;7:24634–

    2019

  66. [66]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2899751

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2019.2899751 2019

  67. [67]

    AI-DRIVEN OPTIMIZATION AND RISK MODELING IN STRATEGIC ECONOMIC ZONE DEVELOPMENT FOR MID-SIZED ECONOMIES: A REVIEW APPROACH

    Jahid M. AI-DRIVEN OPTIMIZATION AND RISK MODELING IN STRATEGIC ECONOMIC ZONE DEVELOPMENT FOR MID-SIZED ECONOMIES: A REVIEW APPROACH. International Journal of Scientific Interdisciplinary Research 2025;6:185–

    2025

  68. [68]

    https://doi.org/10.63125/31wna449

    work page doi:10.63125/31wna449

  69. [69]

    This Is What We Don’t Know

    Sahlin U, Helle I, Perepolkin D. “This Is What We Don’t Know”: Treating Epistemic Uncertainty in Bayesian Networks for Risk Assessment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 2021;17:221–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4367

    work page doi:10.1002/ieam.4367 2021

  70. [70]

    Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling for Uncertainty Quantification and Reliability Updating using Data 2024

    Jia X, Hou W, Papadimitriou C. Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling for Uncertainty Quantification and Reliability Updating using Data 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.20416

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.20416 2024

  71. [71]

    Fuzzy sets

    Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 1965;8:338–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-x 1965

  72. [72]

    A Mathematical Theory of Evidence

    Shafer G. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press; 1976. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv10vm1qb

    work page doi:10.2307/j.ctv10vm1qb 1976

  73. [73]

    Upper and Lower Probabilities Induced by a Multivalued Mapping

    Dempster AP. Upper and Lower Probabilities Induced by a Multivalued Mapping. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1967;38:325–39. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177698950

    work page doi:10.1214/aoms/1177698950 1967

  74. [74]

    On Bayesian Trust and Risk Forecasting for Compound Systems, IEEE Computer Society; 2013, p

    Rass S, Kurowski S. On Bayesian Trust and Risk Forecasting for Compound Systems, IEEE Computer Society; 2013, p. 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1109/IMF.2013.13

    work page doi:10.1109/imf.2013.13 2013

  75. [75]

    Fuzzy Logic and Probability Applications: Bridging the gap

    Ross TJ, Booker JM, Parkinson WJ. Fuzzy Logic and Probability Applications: Bridging the gap. ASA SIAM; 2002

    2002

  76. [76]

    Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility

    Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1978;1:3–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(78)90029-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0165-0114(78)90029-5 1978

  77. [77]

    Possibility Theory: An Approach to Computerized Processing of Uncertainty

    Dubois D, Prade H. Possibility Theory: An Approach to Computerized Processing of Uncertainty. Plenum Press; 1988

    1988

  78. [78]

    Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis

    Morgan MG, Henrion M. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. 1st ed., Cambridge University Press; 1990. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840609

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840609 1990

  79. [79]

    Experts in uncertainty: Opinion and subjective probability in science

    Cooke RM. Experts in uncertainty: Opinion and subjective probability in science. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press; 1991

    1991

  80. [80]

    Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts’ Probabilities, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2006, p

    The Elicitation of Probabilities. Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts’ Probabilities, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2006, p. 61–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470033312.ch4

    work page doi:10.1002/0470033312.ch4 2006

Showing first 80 references.