z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
False precision, surprise and improved uncertainty assessment
Author(s) -
Wendy S. Parker,
James S. Risbey
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
philosophical transactions of the royal society a mathematical physical and engineering sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.074
H-Index - 169
eISSN - 1471-2962
pISSN - 1364-503X
DOI - 10.1098/rsta.2014.0453
Subject(s) - completeness (order theory) , surprise , computer science , uncertainty quantification , risk analysis (engineering) , uncertainty analysis , commission , representation (politics) , measurement uncertainty , risk assessment , mathematics , machine learning , computer security , law , psychology , statistics , business , social psychology , mathematical analysis , politics , political science , simulation
An uncertainty report describes the extent of an agent's uncertainty about some matter. We identify two basic requirements for uncertainty reports, which we call faithfulness and completeness. We then discuss two pitfalls of uncertainty assessment that often result in reports that fail to meet these requirements. The first involves adopting a one-size-fits-all approach to the representation of uncertainty, while the second involves failing to take account of the risk of surprises. In connection with the latter, we respond to the objection that it is impossible to account for the risk of genuine surprises. After outlining some steps that both scientists and the bodies who commission uncertainty assessments can take to help avoid these pitfalls, we explain why striving for faithfulness and completeness is important.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom