The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Confronting Deep Uncertainties in Risk Analysis
Abstract
How can risk analysts help to improve policy and decision making when the correct probabilistic relation between alternative acts and their probable consequences is unknown? This practical challenge of risk management with model uncertainty arises in problems from preparing for climate change to managing emerging diseases to operating complex and hazardous facilities safely. We review constructive methods for robust and adaptive risk analysis under deep uncertainty. These methods are not yet as familiar to many risk analysts as older statistical and model‐based methods, such as the paradigm of identifying a single “best‐fitting” model and performing sensitivity analyses for its conclusions. They provide genuine breakthroughs for improving predictions and decisions when the correct model is highly uncertain. We demonstrate their potential by summarizing a variety of practical risk management applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hoeting, J. A., Madigan, D., Raftery, A. E., & Volinsky, C. T. (1999) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1009212519 · Cited by 4,118
A Comprehensive Survey of Multiagent Reinforcement Learning
Busoniu, L., Babuska, R., & De Schutter, B. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) · doi:10.1109/tsmcc.2007.913919 · Cited by 2,235
Schönberg, T., Daw, N. D., Joel, D., & O'Doherty, J. P. (2007) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2496-07.2007 · Cited by 390
Markov decision processes: a tool for sequential decision making under uncertainty
Alagoz, O., Hsu, H., Schaefer, A. J., & Roberts, M. S. (2010) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x09353194 · Cited by 266
Modeling Medical Treatment Using Markov Decision Processes
Schaefer, A. J., Bailey, M. D., Shechter, S. M., & Roberts, M. S. (2005) · International Series in Operations Research & Management Science · doi:10.1007/1-4020-8066-2_23 · Cited by 155
Cited by
Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation
Aven, T. (2016) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023 · Cited by 1,713
“These tools are founded on two strategies: “finding robust decisions that work acceptably well for many models (those in the uncertainty set); and adaptive risk management, or learning what to do by well-designed and analysed trial and error” ( Cox, 2012 ).”
BackgroundMethodAdvances in Bayesian network modelling: Integration of modelling technologies
Marcot, B. G., & Penman, T. D. (2019) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.09.016 · Cited by 429
Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management
Aven, T., & Zio, E. (2014) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.12132 · Cited by 256
Problems with Risk Matrices Using Ordinal Scales
Krisper, M. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.05440 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Cox, L. A. (.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-04-10
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1607-1629
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W1819403856
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 16.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Confronting Deep Uncertainties in Risk Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01792.x
- The paper
- Cox, L. A. (. (2012). Confronting Deep Uncertainties in Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01792.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.