FYI, take into account that the idea of this conference started with the arguments about traditional probabilistic vs imprecise probabilistic approaches

From: Ferson, Scott <Scott.Ferson@liverpool.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 1:07 PM

Institute for Risk and Uncertainty at the University of Liverpool and The University of Sheffield present

Virtual Conference on Epistemic Uncertainty in Engineering (ViCE)

9 Days, 18+ Speakers, 2.5-hour Sessions

Multiple sessions during February and March 2021

Talks will be presented over Zoom

For further information see https://sites.google.com/site/riskthinkover/home/epistemic

Sponsored by DigiTwin Programme funded by EPSRC (UKRI)

All are welcome to our virtual conference series on Epistemic Uncertainty in Engineering. This event encourages discussion and collaborations on modelling and decision making in the face of epistemic and aleatory uncertainty in practical engineering contexts. Building on the recent REC meeting in Liverpool and the RUC meetings in Cambridge and Amsterdam, we hope that this event will feature even more discussion and debate, serving as a workshop to address and perhaps come to concrete shared conclusions about handling uncertainty in engineering.

The event will feature a series of two-and-a-half-hour sessions during February and March 2021 on different ways of handling uncertainty. Each session will focus on a different theme focused by talks by thought leaders from across the globe sharing their perspectives on dealing with epistemic and aleatory uncertainty in engineering contexts.

Uncertainty analysis can be confusing, especially with the plethora of techniques and approaches to choose from. Which should engineers choose and why? How should we communicate uncertainty and can we agree on the methods and inferences to use? The themes of ViCE are:

• Decision making: Must decisions and designs distinguish kinds of uncertainties?

• Uncertainty arithmetic: Do epistemic and aleatory need different calculi?

• Uncertainty in engineering: How can we build a model with what we don’t know?

• Computing with uncertainty: What would a unified uncertainty calculator look like?

• Admitting you don’t know: How should epistemic uncertainty be communicated?

• Manifesto on epistemic uncertainty: Can we agree on anything?

• Managing uncertainty: How are management, compliance and monitoring affected by uncertainties?

• Communicating uncertainty: How should we explain and talk about uncertainty?

Sessions

Decision making, 2 February 2021, 14:00-16:30 GMT
Anthony O'Hagan, "We Already Have a Unified Uncertainty Theory”

William Oberkampf, “Simulation-Informed Decision Making”
Discussion: What would a unified uncertainty calculator look like?

Zoom link: https://liverpool-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/96740964812?pwd=ajlaNXFVS3Z6VXRiTlppMmZUZGpXQT09

Password: L4D%6$Xj

Computing with uncertainty, 3 February, 16:00-18:30 GMT
Min-ge Xie, “Bayesian/Fiducial/Frequentist Uncertainty Quantification by Artificial Samples”
Vladik Kreinovich, “Epistemic vs Aleatory: Granular Computing and Ideas Beyond That”
Discussion: What would a unified uncertainty calculator look like?

Zoom link: https://liverpool-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/97474098564?pwd=UEFYRGwwMytHeU9oUUNJYk9IM3ludz09

Password:  1pL9uY8!

Manifesto on uncertainty, 15 February, 10:00-12:30 GMT
Thierry Denoeux, “Random Fuzzy Sets: A General Model of Epistemic Uncertainty”
Michael Goldstein, “The Basic Principles of Reasoning About Uncertainty: A Subjectivist Approach”

Discussion: Can we agree on anything about handling epistemic uncertainty in engineering?

Zoom link: https://liverpool-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/93020123914?pwd=TnlxNFo5c2NLeDRqV2tJeWF0Ym9Qdz09

Password: PnnqS%4p

Kinds of uncertainty, 17^th February, 16:00-18:30 GMT
Yakov Ben-Haim, “Innovation Dilemmas: An Info-Gap Perspective”
Francois Hemez, “Uncertainy in Numerical Simulations: Does it Matter? What to Do About it?”
Discussion: Are there other kinds of uncertainty?

Zoom link: https://liverpool-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/91844393201?pwd=ZTl6L2VvZmxKM2d0OVJsUVZRcE12QT09

Password: ?*d4%*#Q

Uncertainty arithmetic, Date TBA
Didier Dubois, [tent.] Unified View of Uncertainty Theories
Laura Swiler, TBA
Discussion: Do epistemic and aleatory need different calculi?
Zoom link: https://liverpool-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/94792898229?pwd=Z0o1dURSVG5saTFzOEFsN3NIbElhdz09

Password: q*0Z5*nS

Uncertainty engineering, 3 March, 15:00-17:30 GMT
Daniel Straub, “Epistemic uncertainty in engineering decision making”
Luis Crespo, “Uncertainty modelling and optimization under uncertainty”
Discussion: How can we build a model given what we don’t know?

Zoom link: https://liverpool-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/99625184252?pwd=Witmb01RWjU5UVBQZEJqT2FYbW9wZz09

Password: 8mz#i5s4

Management of uncertainty, Date TBA
Eleni Chatzi and Vasilis Ntertimanis, “Counting on Uncertain Models for Structural Health Monitoring”

Speaker 2, TBA

Discussion:  How are management, compliance and monitoring affected by uncertainties?

Zoom link: https://liverpool-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/93531673095?pwd=YnR3Y2I2R21GVTA1eWczVExBZTNqZz09

Password: 3%CCv2CC

Manifesto on uncertainty (revisited), 12 March, 14:00-16:30 GMT

Terje Aven, “Conceptualising, Representing and Describing Epistemic Uncertainties in Risk Analysis”
Speaker 2, TBA

Discussion: Can we agree on anything about handling epistemic uncertainty in engineering?

Zoom link: https://liverpool-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/98613425533?pwd=MUZSUzZhTUNRNXl1bTJIVUQvR1dEQT09

Password: ni1TfAv&

Communication, March TBA
Speaker 1, TBA

Speaker 2, TBA

Discussion: How can we build a model given what we don’t know?

Zoom link: https://liverpool-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/96351104970?pwd=YWcwclZxbGhKQVF2alRnYkM2RHk0UT09

Password: c?RFR4@0

Video recordings of the talks and discussions will be archived at https://riskinstitute.uk/events/vice/ and available on the Liverpool Risk Institute Youtube Channel

Dedication

VICE is dedicated to B. John Garrick, who passed away unexpectedly in 2020 after a long career devoted to bringing the tools of probabilistic analysis to technological problems across engineering.  The following is a panegyric commenting on B.J. Garrick’s 2010 paper “Commentary Interval Analysis Versus Probabilistic Analysis” (which appeared in Risk Analysis 30: 369-370. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01360.x), which was a critique of Terje Aven’s 2010 perspective paper “On the Need for Restricting the Probabilistic Analysis in Risk Assessments to Variability” (in Risk Analysis 30:354-360. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01314.x).

B. John Garrick was one of the founders of modern risk science, the primary goal of which, he thought, is to improve decision making. He held that probability as a thought process should be used to foster honesty in the analysis, “to better tell the truth about threats, events, and their outcome”.  Garrick shined a light on the ways in which stochasticity impacts technological advancement. Deterministic analysis is insufficient for an increasing number of complex applications, and a practical consideration of risk analysis can make strides in safety, economy and performance in many disciplines. 

Some researchers, like Terje Aven, have argued that a more expressive representation beyond traditional Laplacian probability is needed for problems combining epistemic and aleatory uncertainties.  Garrick saw this argument as losing sight of the primary goal, and of improperly omitting valuable details.  He noted that the additional benefits of a new theory of imprecise probabilities pale in comparison to those of a straightforward informative probabilistic approach.

Of course accepting the idea that there could be non-Laplacian uncertainty doesn’t mean one throws away probability theory, any more than accepting non-Euclidean geometry removes the need for Euclidean geometry.  The traditional approach remains as practically important and useful as before, with just as many applications.  Indeed, the probabilistic approach Garrick championed will surely remain the primary tool in risk analysis, fully appropriate for a host of problems.  The new imprecise approach relaxes one of the assumptions of the traditional theory, and it is a generalisation of probability.  But Garrick’s point, that it seems unnecessary for the main use of risk analysis, is a serious one.  Do the nuances or possibly wider applications pay for the complications inherent in generalising probability theory?

The issues at the very heart of the debate exemplified by these papers by Garrick and Aven are the focus of an upcoming virtual conference on epistemic uncertainty in engineering (http://riskinstitute.uk/vice), which has been dedicated to Garrick in appreciation of his contributions to the subject. 

Institute for Risk and Uncertainty, University of Liverpool

Further information can be obtained from meetings@riskinstitute.uk

Video recordings of the ViCE talks and discussions will eventually be available at https://riskinstitute.uk/events/vice/

Previous Risk Institute Online talks can be found at https://riskinstitute.uk/riskinstituteonline/