In quantitative uncertainty analysis, it is essential to define rigorously the endpoint or target of the assessment. Two distinctly different approaches using Monte Carlo methods are discussed: (1) the end point is a fixed but unknown value (e.g., the maximally exposed individual, the average individual, or a specific individual) or (2) the end point is an unknown distribution of values (e.g., the variability of exposures among unspecified individuals in the population). In the first case, values are sampled at random from distributions representing various "degrees of belief" about the unknown "fixed" values of the parameters to produce a distribution of model results. The distribution of model results represents a subjective confidence statement about the true but unknown assessment end point. The important input parameters are those that contribute most to the spread in the distribution of the model results. In the second case, Monte Carlo calculations are performed in two dimensions producing numerous alternative representations of the true but unknown distribution. These alternative distributions permit subject confidence statements to be made from two perspectives: (1) for the individual exposure occurring at a specified fractile of the distribution or (2) for the fractile of the distribution associated with a specified level of individual exposure. The relative importance of input parameters will depend on the fractile or exposure level of interest. The quantification of uncertainty for the simulation of a true but unknown distribution of values represents the state-of-the-art in assessment modeling.

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom-' mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

No abstract

Quantitative uncertainty analysis has become a common component of risk assessments. In risk assessment models, the most robust method for propagating uncertainty is Monte Carlo simulation. Many software packages available today offer Monte Carlo capabilities while requiring minimal learning time, computational time, and/or computer memory. This paper presents an evaluation of six software packages in the context of risk assessment: Crystal Ball, @Risk, Analytica, Stella II, PRISM, and Susa-PC. Crystal Ball and @Risk are spreadsheet-based programs; Analytica and Stella II are multi-level, influencediagram based programs designed for the construction of complex models; PRISM and Susa-PC are both public-domain programs designed for incorporating uncertainty and sensitivity into any model written in Fortran. Each software package was evaluated on the basis of five criteria, with each criterion having several sub-criteria. A 'User Preferences Table' was also developed for an additional comparison of the software packages. The evaluations were based on nine weeks of experimentation with the software packages including use of the associated user manuals and test of the software through the use of example problems. The results of these evaluations indicate that Stella II has the most extensive modeling capabilities and can handle linear differential equations. Crystal Ball has the best input scheme for entering uncertain parameters and the best reference materials. @Risk offers a slightly better standard output scheme and requires a little less learning time. Susa-PC has the most Metzger et al.options for detailed statistical analysis of the results, such as multiple options for a sensitivity analysis and sophisticated options for inputting correlations. Analytica is a versatile, menu-and graphics-driven package, while PRISM is a more specialized and less user friendly program. When choosing between software packages for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, the choice largely depends on the specifics of the problem being modeled. However, for risk assessment problems that can be implemented on a spreadsheet, Crystal Ball is recommended because it offers the best input options, a good output scheme, adequate uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, superior reference materials, and an intuitive spreadsheet basis while requiring very little memory.

No abstract