Evidence and uncertainty: An info-gap analysis of uncertainty-augmenting evidence.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Risk Analysis Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-06 DOI:10.1111/risa.14346
Yakov Ben-Haim
{"title":"Evidence and uncertainty: An info-gap analysis of uncertainty-augmenting evidence.","authors":"Yakov Ben-Haim","doi":"10.1111/risa.14346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Decisions in many disciplines are based on understanding and evidence. More evidence is better than less when it enhances the decision-maker's understanding. This is achieved by reducing uncertainty confronting the decision-maker and reducing the potential for misunderstanding and failure. However, some evidence may actually augment uncertainty by revealing prior error or ignorance. True evidence that augments uncertainty is important because it identifies inadequacies of current understanding and may suggest directions for rectifying this. True evidence that reduces uncertainty may simply reconfirm or strengthen prior understanding. Uncertainty-augmenting evidence, when it is true, can support the expansion of one's previously incomplete understanding. A dilemma arises because both reduction and enhancement of uncertainty can be beneficial, and both are not simultaneously possible on the same issue. That is, uncertainty can be either pernicious or propitious. Info-gap theory provides a response. The info-gap robustness function enables protection against pernicious uncertainty by inhibiting failure. The info-gap opportuneness function enables exploitation of propitious uncertainty by facilitating wonderful windfall outcomes. The dilemma of uncertainty-augmenting evidence is that robustness and opportuneness are in conflict; a decision that enhances one, worsens the other. This antagonism between robustness and opportuneness-between protecting against pernicious uncertainty and exploiting propitious uncertainty-is characterized in a generic proposition and corollary. These results are illustrated in an example of allocation of limited resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":21472,"journal":{"name":"Risk Analysis","volume":" ","pages":"2649-2659"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14346","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Decisions in many disciplines are based on understanding and evidence. More evidence is better than less when it enhances the decision-maker's understanding. This is achieved by reducing uncertainty confronting the decision-maker and reducing the potential for misunderstanding and failure. However, some evidence may actually augment uncertainty by revealing prior error or ignorance. True evidence that augments uncertainty is important because it identifies inadequacies of current understanding and may suggest directions for rectifying this. True evidence that reduces uncertainty may simply reconfirm or strengthen prior understanding. Uncertainty-augmenting evidence, when it is true, can support the expansion of one's previously incomplete understanding. A dilemma arises because both reduction and enhancement of uncertainty can be beneficial, and both are not simultaneously possible on the same issue. That is, uncertainty can be either pernicious or propitious. Info-gap theory provides a response. The info-gap robustness function enables protection against pernicious uncertainty by inhibiting failure. The info-gap opportuneness function enables exploitation of propitious uncertainty by facilitating wonderful windfall outcomes. The dilemma of uncertainty-augmenting evidence is that robustness and opportuneness are in conflict; a decision that enhances one, worsens the other. This antagonism between robustness and opportuneness-between protecting against pernicious uncertainty and exploiting propitious uncertainty-is characterized in a generic proposition and corollary. These results are illustrated in an example of allocation of limited resources.

证据与不确定性:不确定性证据的信息差距分析。
许多学科的决策都以理解和证据为基础。当证据能增强决策者的理解力时,证据越多越好。要做到这一点,就要减少决策者面临的不确定性,降低误解和失败的可能性。然而,有些证据实际上可能会通过揭示先前的错误或无知而增加不确定性。增加不确定性的真凭实据之所以重要,是因为它能发现当前认识的不足之处,并提出纠正方向。减少不确定性的真实证据可能只是再次确认或加强先前的理解。增加不确定性的证据,如果是真实的,则可以支持扩展人们之前不完整的理解。由于减少不确定性和增加不确定性都可能带来好处,而在同一问题上两者又不可能同时出现,因此出现了两难的局面。也就是说,不确定性既可能是有害的,也可能是有利的。信息差距理论提供了一种应对方法。信息差距稳健性功能通过抑制失败来防止有害的不确定性。信息差距的机会性功能则通过促进美妙的意外结果来利用有利的不确定性。增强不确定性证据的困境在于,稳健性和机会性之间存在冲突;增强其中一个的决策会恶化另一个。稳健性和机会性之间的这种对立--防止有害的不确定性和利用有利的不确定性之间的对立--在一个通用命题和推论中得到了描述。这些结果在一个有限资源分配的例子中得到了说明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Risk Analysis
Risk Analysis 数学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
10.50%
发文量
183
审稿时长
4.2 months
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the Society for Risk Analysis, Risk Analysis is ranked among the top 10 journals in the ISI Journal Citation Reports under the social sciences, mathematical methods category, and provides a focal point for new developments in the field of risk analysis. This international peer-reviewed journal is committed to publishing critical empirical research and commentaries dealing with risk issues. The topics covered include: • Human health and safety risks • Microbial risks • Engineering • Mathematical modeling • Risk characterization • Risk communication • Risk management and decision-making • Risk perception, acceptability, and ethics • Laws and regulatory policy • Ecological risks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信