Quantification of margins and uncertainties: Alternative representations of epistemic uncertainty

Abstract In 2001, the National Nuclear Security Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy in conjunction with the national security laboratories (i.e., Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories) initiated development of a process designated Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties (QMU) for the use of risk assessment methodologies in the certification of the reliability and safety of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. A previous presentation, “Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties: Conceptual and Computational Basis,” describes the basic ideas that underlie QMU and illustrates these ideas with two notional examples that employ probability for the representation of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty. The current presentation introduces and illustrates the use of interval analysis, possibility theory and evidence theory as alternatives to the use of probability theory for the representation of epistemic uncertainty in QMU-type analyses. The following topics are considered: the mathematical structure of alternative representations of uncertainty, alternative representations of epistemic uncertainty in QMU analyses involving only epistemic uncertainty, and alternative representations of epistemic uncertainty in QMU analyses involving a separation of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty. Analyses involving interval analysis, possibility theory and evidence theory are illustrated with the same two notional examples used in the presentation indicated above to illustrate the use of probability to represent aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in QMU analyses.