4.2 Article

Dependency Idioms for Quantitative Human Reliability Analysis

期刊

NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/00295639.2023.2250159

关键词

Human reliability analysis; dependency; human error probability; human failure event; performance influencing factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reviews the current conceptualization of dependency and demonstrates that current research is not addressing all the technical gaps in HRA. To address the technical gaps in HRA dependency, a set of fundamental dependency structures are proposed, which provide a robust logical structure emphasizing causality.
Human reliability analysis (HRA) is approaching nearly 60 years of reliance on key aspects of the original HRA method Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction (THERP), including its process for analyzing dependency. Despite advances in computational abilities and HRA-relevant techniques, the conceptualization, modeling, and quantification of dependency have remained largely unchanged since the introduction of THERP. As a result, current HRA methods do not consider dependency in a realistic manner, and there remain foundational gaps related to the definition, lack of causality, and quantification for HRA dependency. In this paper, we review the current conceptualization of dependency and demonstrate that current research in dependency is not addressing all of the technical gaps. To address the outstanding technical gaps in HRA dependency, we propose a set of fundamental dependency structures (HRA dependency idioms) that capture the spectrum of relationships possible between HRA variables. The idioms provide a robust logical structure for HRA dependency that emphasizes causality and is based on a causal Bayesian network modeling architecture. The idioms conceptualize and model HRA dependency in an objective, traceable, and causally informed manner that facilitates data-based quantification of HRA dependency.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据