How is model-related uncertainty quantified and reported in different disciplines?
Abstrak
: How do we know how much we know? Quantifying uncertainty associated with our modelling work is the only way we can answer how much we know about any phenomenon. With quantitative science now highly influential in the public sphere and the results from models translating into action, we must support our conclusions with sufficient rigour to produce useful, reproducible results. Incomplete consideration of model-based uncertainties can lead to false conclusions with real world impacts. Despite these potentially damaging consequences, uncertainty consideration is incomplete both within and across scientific fields. We take a unique interdisciplinary approach and conduct a systematic audit of model-related uncertainty quantification from seven scientific fields, spanning the biological, physical, and social sciences. Our results show no single field is achieving complete consideration of model uncertainties, but together we can fill the gaps. We propose opportunities to improve the quantification of uncertainty through use of a source framework for uncertainty consideration, model type specific guidelines, improved presentation, and shared best practice. We also identify shared outstanding challenges (uncertainty in input data, balancing trade-offs, error propagation, and defining how much uncertainty is required). Finally, we make nine concrete recommendations for current practice (following good practice guidelines and an uncertainty checklist, presenting uncertainty numerically, and propagating model-related uncertainty into conclusions), future research priorities (uncertainty in input data, quantifying uncertainty in complex models, and the importance of missing uncertainty in different contexts), and general research standards across the sciences (transparency about study limitations and dedicated uncertainty sections of manuscripts).
Topik & Kata Kunci
Penulis (88)
Emily G. Simmonds
K. P. Adjei
Christoffer Wold Andersen
J. C. H. Aspheim
Claudia Battistin
Nicola Bulso
H. Christensen
Benjamin Cretois
Ryan Cubero
Iv'an A. Davidovich
Lisa Dickel
Benjamin Dunn
E. Dunn‐Sigouin
Karin Dyrstad
S. Einum
D. Giglio
Haakon Gjerløw
Amélie Godefroidt
Ricardo González-Gil
Soledad Gonzalo Cogno
Fabian Große
Paul Halloran
M. Jensen
J. Kennedy
Peter Egge Langsaether
Jack H. Laverick
Debora Lederberger
Camille Li
Elizabeth G. Mandeville
C. Mandeville
E. Moe
T. Schroder
D. Nunan
J. Parada
M. Simpson
Emma Skarstein
C. Spensberger
Richard J. Stevens
A. Subramanian
Lea Svendsen
Ole Magnus Theisen
Connor Watret
R. B. O. D. O. M. Sciences
Norwegian University of Science
Technology
The Fritz Haber Center for Molecular Dynamics
Department of Sociology
Political Science
Kavli Institute for Systems Neuroscience
Centre for Neural Computation
Atmospheric
Oceanic
Planetary Physics
U. Oxford
Miljodate
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
Department of Medical Biology
G. Institute
Universityof Bergen
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
U. C. A. Boulder
Peace Research Institute Oslo
D. O. Mathematics
Statistics
U. Strathclyde
D. .. Ecology
Federal Institute of Hydrology
Germany
College of Life
E. Sciences
U. Exeter
Department of Materials Science
Metals Office
Uk
Department of Materials Science
U. Oslo
Schweizerisches Epilepsie Zentrum
Klinik Lengg
Zurich
Switzerland.
College of Materials Science
University of Guelph
Department of Natural History
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences
D. Health
Nursing
Clinical Research Unit Central Norway
S. Hospital
Akses Cepat
- Tahun Terbit
- 2022
- Bahasa
- en
- Total Sitasi
- 3×
- Sumber Database
- Semantic Scholar
- DOI
- 10.48550/arXiv.2206.12179
- Akses
- Open Access ✓