Abstract
The paper discusses the demands that different model purposes place on these models, and explores the question of whether or not it is meaningful to compare their outputs. The use of expected fatalities as a metric for expressing risk in both models is questioned because of the heavy-tailed form of the distribution for fatality numbers given a fatal accident.
| Language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management |
| Editors | Cornelia Spitzer, Ulrich Schmocker, Vinh N. Dang |
| Place of Publication | London |
| Publisher | Springer-Verlag |
| Pages | 2765-2771 |
| ISBN (Print) | 9781852338275 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2004 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- UK Railway Safety and Standards Board
- reliability
- system performance
- Safety Risk Model
- RSSB
Cite this
}
A comparison of data-driven and model-based approaches to quantifying railway risk. / Bedford, T.J.; Quigley, J.L.; French, S.
Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management. ed. / Cornelia Spitzer; Ulrich Schmocker; Vinh N. Dang. London : Springer-Verlag, 2004. p. 2765-2771.Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter
TY - CHAP
T1 - A comparison of data-driven and model-based approaches to quantifying railway risk
AU - Bedford, T.J.
AU - Quigley, J.L.
AU - French, S.
N1 - Also presented at: International Conference on Probabalistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM), Hotel Inter-Continental Berlin, Germany, 14-18 June, 2004.
PY - 2004
Y1 - 2004
N2 - This paper presents some of the results of a project sponsored by the UK Railway Safety and Standards Board (RSSB). An earlier statistical evaluation of a previous version of the RSSB Safety Risk Model (SRM), a combined Fault/Event Tree, conducted by Prof Andrew Evans had concluded that the model was unduly pessimistic. We have constructed a hypothesis test based on the relative likelihood techniques using the most recent version of the SRM as the null hypothesis. The results support the SRM being consistent with the historical data. Two significant differences between these two studies are the statistical methods employed to support the analysis and the removal of certain significant conservative assumptions from updating the versions of the SRM.The paper discusses the demands that different model purposes place on these models, and explores the question of whether or not it is meaningful to compare their outputs. The use of expected fatalities as a metric for expressing risk in both models is questioned because of the heavy-tailed form of the distribution for fatality numbers given a fatal accident.
AB - This paper presents some of the results of a project sponsored by the UK Railway Safety and Standards Board (RSSB). An earlier statistical evaluation of a previous version of the RSSB Safety Risk Model (SRM), a combined Fault/Event Tree, conducted by Prof Andrew Evans had concluded that the model was unduly pessimistic. We have constructed a hypothesis test based on the relative likelihood techniques using the most recent version of the SRM as the null hypothesis. The results support the SRM being consistent with the historical data. Two significant differences between these two studies are the statistical methods employed to support the analysis and the removal of certain significant conservative assumptions from updating the versions of the SRM.The paper discusses the demands that different model purposes place on these models, and explores the question of whether or not it is meaningful to compare their outputs. The use of expected fatalities as a metric for expressing risk in both models is questioned because of the heavy-tailed form of the distribution for fatality numbers given a fatal accident.
KW - UK Railway Safety and Standards Board
KW - reliability
KW - system performance
KW - Safety Risk Model
KW - RSSB
UR - http://www.springer.com/computer/hardware/book/978-1-85233-827-5
UR - http://www.psam7.org/
U2 - 10.1007/978-0-85729-410-4_443
DO - 10.1007/978-0-85729-410-4_443
M3 - Chapter
SN - 9781852338275
SP - 2765
EP - 2771
BT - Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management
A2 - Spitzer, Cornelia
A2 - Schmocker, Ulrich
A2 - Dang, Vinh N.
PB - Springer-Verlag
CY - London
ER -