Authors : Jherrod Thomas

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 5 - May

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/bdh82tra

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/y5rbvh5b

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26May044

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Modern safety-critical systems fail at the boundary between engineered products and their operational environments rather than from isolated component faults. Existing domain-specific standards for functional safety, performance sufficiency, and cybersecurity each address one slice of this boundary but provide no unified method for measuring how uncertainty propagates across their combined scope, nor any instrument for identifying failure combinations that span multiple domains simultaneously. This paper proposes Systemic Uncertainty Engineering, a quantitative framework that treats uncertainty as a measurable, propagating system property and expresses residual systemic risk as expected financial loss. The framework was constructed through theoretical development and retrospective empirical validation. A four-quadrant uncertainty model decomposed uncertainty along reducibility and origin axes, establishing the measurement structure for a lifecycle-spanning propagation model with linear and nonlinear interaction terms. A dualprocess model ordered analytical activities from product-environment interface characterization through risk assessment, goal architecture, and economic translation. The framework was instantiated for autonomous vehicle development and validated against six documented failures spanning five decades of automotive engineering history. Three findings emerged that existing single-domain methods cannot produce. Cross-domain minimal cut sets spanning functional safety, performance sufficiency, cybersecurity, and organizational domains were identified before domain decomposition occurred. An 80cell risk tensor quantified residual uncertainty across all domains simultaneously and translated it into expected financial loss and return-on-investment metrics. Retrospective analysis confirmed that the constructs would have identified each failure’s dominant risk pathway before deployment in all six cases. The framework demonstrates applicability to five additional technology domains sharing the structural conditions of novelty, open-world operation, and multi-domain regulatory oversight.

Keywords : Systemic Uncertainty Engineering, Safety Critical Systems, Autonomous Vehicles, Cross-Domain Risk Analysis, ProductEnvironment Interface, Uncertainty Propagation, Risk Quantification, Functional Safety Integration.

References :

1. N. G. Leveson, Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.
2. C. Perrow, Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies, 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999.
3. V. Venkatasubramanian and Z. Zhang, “TeCSMART: A hierarchical framework for modeling and analyzing systemic risk in sociotechnical systems,” AIChE Journal, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 3065–3084, 2016.
4. V. Venkatasubramanian, “Systemic failures: Challenges and opportunities in risk management in complex systems,” AIChE Journal, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 2–9, 2010.
5. T. Pawlicki, A. Samost, D. W. Brown, R. P. Manger, G. Kim, and N. G. Leveson, “Application of systems and control theorybased hazard analysis to radiation oncology,” Medical Physics, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 1514–1530, 2016.
6. J. Betz, T. Betz, F. Fent, M. Geisslinger, A. Heilmeier, L. Hermansdorfer, T. Herrmann, S. Huch, P. Karle, M. Lienkamp, B. Lohmann, F. Nobis, L. Ögretmen, M. Rowold, F. Sauerbeck, T. Stahl, R. Trauth, F. Werner, and A. Wischnewski, “TUM autonomous motorsport: An autonomous racing software for the Indy Autonomous Challenge,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 783–809, 2023.
7. A. Bansal, H. Kim, S. Yu, B. Li, N. Hovakimyan, M. Caccamo, and L. Sha, “Perception simplex: Verifiable collision avoidance in autonomous vehicles amidst obstacle detection faults,” Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, vol. 34, no. 6, 2024.
8. C. Ryan, F. Murphy, and M. Mullins, “Semiautonomous vehicle risk analysis: A telematics-based anomaly detection approach,” Risk Analysis, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1125–1140, 2018.
9. C. Deng, Y. Li, Q. Liu, X. Zheng, and K. Sun, “Quantitative risk assessment for autonomous vehicles: Integrating functional resonance analysis method and Bayesian network,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 970– 991, 2024.
10. National Transportation Safety Board, “Collision between vehicle controlled by developmental automated driving system and pedestrian, tempe, arizona, march 18, 2018,” National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, Tech. Rep. NTSB/HAR-19/03, 2019.
11. P. Koopman and M. Wagner, “Autonomous vehicle safety: An interdisciplinary challenge,” IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 90–96, 2017.
12. International Organization for Standardization, “Road vehicles — safety of the intended functionality,” ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, International Standard ISO 21448:2022, 2022.
13. “Road vehicles — functional safety,” ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, International Standard ISO 26262:2018, 2018.
14. M. J. Harry and R. Schroeder, Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy Revolutionizing the World’s Top Corporations. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000.
15. W. E. Vesely, F. F. Goldberg, N. H. Roberts, and D. F. Haasl, “Fault tree handbook,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Tech. Rep. NUREG-0492, 1981.
16. J. Famfulik, M. Richtar, R. Rehak, J. Smiraus, P. Dresler, M. Fusek, and J. Mikova, “Application of hardware reliability calculation procedures according to ISO 26262 standard,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1822–1836, 2020.
17. International Organization for Standardization and SAE International, “Road vehicles — cybersecurity engineering,” ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, International Standard ISO/SAE 21434:2021, 2021.
18. J. Dobaj, G. Macher, D. Ekert, A. Riel, and R. Messnarz, “Towards a security-driven automotive development lifecycle,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 35, no. 8, 2021.
19. J. Yu, F. Luo, and S. Abdelwahed, “A systematic approach for cybersecurity design of in-vehicle network systems with tradeoff considerations,” Security and Communication Networks, vol. 2020, no. 1, 2020.
20. A. Yousefi, M. R. Hernandez, and V. L. P. na, “Systemic accident analysis models: A comparison study between AcciMap, FRAM, and STAMP,” Process Safety Progress, vol. 38, no. 2, 2018.
21. D. C. Montgomery and W. H. Woodall, “An overview of Six Sigma,” International Statistical Review, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 329– 346, 2008.
22. M. S. Shaikh and B. Moiz, “Analytical performance evaluation of a high-volume hematology laboratory utilizing sigma metrics as standard of excellence,” International Journal of Laboratory Hematology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 193–197, 2016.
23. J. K. Visich, A. M. Wicks, and F. Zalila, “Practitioner perceptions of the A3 method for process improvement in health care,” Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 191–213, 2010.
24. E. V. Gijo, J. Scaria, and J. Antony, “Application of Six Sigma methodology to reduce defects of a grinding process,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1221–1234, 2011.
25. B. W. Oppenheim, E. M. Murman, and D. A. Secor, “Lean enablers for systems engineering,” Systems Engineering, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 29–55, 2011.
26. P. Baraldi and E. Zio, “A combined Monte Carlo and possibilistic approach to uncertainty propagation in event tree analysis,” Risk Analysis, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1309–1326, 2008.
27. P. Hester and T. Dohi, “Epistemic uncertainty analysis: An approach using expert judgment and evidential credibility,” Journal of Quality and Reliability Engineering, vol. 2012, 2012.
28. C. Lijie, L. Zhenzhou, L. Guijie, and Y. N. Sotskov, “Reliability analysis in presence of random variables and fuzzy variables,” Journal of Applied Mathematics, vol. 2015, 2015.
29. C. Ponsard, J. Grandclaudon, and P. Massonet, “A goal-driven approach for the joint deployment of safety and security standards for operators of essential services,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 33, no. 9, 2021.
30. Z. A. Collier, B. Briglia, T. Finkelston, M. C. Manasco, D. L. Slutzky, and J. H. Lambert, “On metrics and prioritization of investments in hardware security,” Systems Engineering, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 425–437, 2023.
31. G. L. Reniers and K. Sörensen, “An approach for optimal allocation of safety resources: Using the knapsack problem to take aggregated cost-efficient preventive measures,” Risk Analysis, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 2056–2067, 2013.
32. S. Ray, P. Das, B. K. Bhattacharyay, and J. Antony, “Measuring Six Sigma project effectiveness using fuzzy approach,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 417–430, 2012.
33. R. K. Sharma and R. G. Sharma, “Integrating Six Sigma culture and TPM framework to improve manufacturing performance in SMEs,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 745–765, 2013.
34. H. Yu, F. Khan, and B. Veitch, “A flexible hierarchical Bayesian modeling technique for risk analysis of major accidents,” Risk Analysis, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1668–1682, 2017.
35. M. Kaushik and M. Kumar, “An application of fault tree analysis for computing the bounds on system failure probability through qualitative data in intuitionistic fuzzy environment,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 2420– 2444, 2022.
36. A. Bouafia, M. Bougofa, W. Benhamlaoui, and M. Rouainia, “Integrating functional resonance and Bayesian networks for quantitative risk assessment: Application to Adrar’s refinery pre-fractionation,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 503–523, 2025.
37. R. Messnarz, C. Kreiner, G. Macher, and A. Walker, “Extending Automotive SPICE 3.0 for the use in ADAS and future selfdriving service architectures,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 30, no. 5, 2018.
38. A. Plioutsias, N. Karanikas, and M. M. Chatzimihailidou, “Hazard analysis and safety requirements for small drone operations: To what extent do popular drones embed safety?” Risk Analysis, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 562–584, 2017.
39. M. M. Chatzimichailidou, J. Ward, T. Horberry, and J. P. Clarkson, “A comparison of the bow-tie and STAMP approaches to reduce the risk of surgical instrument retention,” Risk Analysis, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 978–990, 2017.
40. A. Mashkoor, A. Egyed, R. Wille, and S. Stock, “Modeldriven engineering of safety and security software systems: A systematic mapping study and future research directions,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 35, no. 7, 2022.
41. Y. Y. Haimes, “Systems-based guiding principles for risk modeling, planning, assessment, management, and communication,” Risk Analysis, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1451–1467, 2012.
42. J. Pence and Z. Mohaghegh, “A discourse on the incorporation of organizational factors into probabilistic risk assessment: Key questions and categorical review,” Risk Analysis, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1183–1211, 2020.
43. D. A. Broniatowski and J. Moses, “Measuring flexibility, descriptive complexity, and rework potential in generic system architectures,” Systems Engineering, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 207– 221, 2016.
44. Automotive SIG, “Automotive SPICE process assessment / reference model,” Automotive SIG / VDA QMC, Tech. Rep., 2017.
45. M. Ashrafi, “Forward and backward risk assessment throughout a system life cycle using dynamic Bayesian networks: A case in a petroleum refinery,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 309–334, 2020.
46. E. Borgonovo, “Epistemic uncertainty in the ranking and categorization of probabilistic safety assessment model elements: Issues and findings,” Risk Analysis, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 983–1001, 2008.
47. C. Xie, G. Li, and E. R. Vaidogas, “Quantification of margins and uncertainties approach for structure analysis based on evidence theory,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2016, 2016.
48. M. Vogel, P. Knapik, M. Cohrs, B. Szyperrek, W. Pueschel, H. Etzel, D. Fiebig, A. Rausch, and M. Kuhrmann, “Metrics in automotive software development: A systematic literature review,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 33, no. 2, 2020.
49. G. Carrozza, R. Pietrantuono, and S. Russo, “Defect analysis in mission-critical software systems: A detailed investigation,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 22–49, 2014.
50. M. Azzeh, Y. Alqasrawi, and Y. Elsheikh, “A soft computing approach for software defect density prediction,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 36, no. 4, 2023.
51. J. E. Hale and D. P. Hale, “Evaluating testing effectiveness during software evolution: A time-series cross-section approach,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 35–49, 2011.
52. D. R. Karanki, H. S. Kushwaha, A. K. Verma, and S. Ajit, “Uncertainty analysis based on probability bounds (P-box) approach in probabilistic safety assessment,” Risk Analysis, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 662–675, 2009.
53. P. Uday and K. Marais, “Designing resilient systems-of-systems: A survey of metrics, methods, and challenges,” Systems Engineering, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 491–510, 2015.
54. M. C. Dietze, “Prediction in ecology: A first-principles framework,” Ecological Applications, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 2048–2060, 2017.
55. P. Winter, J. Downer, J. Wilson, D. B. Abeywickrama, S. Lee, S. Hauert, and S. Windsor, “Applying the “SOTEC” framework of sociotechnical risk analysis to the development of an autonomous robot swarm for a public cloakroom,” Risk Analysis, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 878–895, 2024.
56. W. N. Caballero, D. R. Insua, and R. Naveiro, “Some statistical challenges in automated driving systems,” Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 629–652, 2023.
57. A. D. Adesiji, S. E. Ibitoye, R. M. Mahamood, O. A. Olayemi, P. O. Omoniyi, T. Jen, and E. T. Akinlabi, “Safety considerations in deployment of robotic systems: A systematic review,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 5–33, 2025.
58. A. U. Kulkarni, A. Salado, and C. Wernz, “Optimal verification strategies in multi-firm projects,” Systems Engineering, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 254–270, 2022.
59. A. U. Kulkarni, A. Salado, P. Xu, and C. Wernz, “An evaluation of the optimality of frequent verification for vertically integrated systems,” Systems Engineering, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 17–33, 2020.
60. N. K. Singh, M. Lawford, T. S. E. Maibaum, and A. Wassyng, “A formal approach to rigorous development of critical systems,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 33, no. 4, 2021.
61. A. Ruiz-Tagle, E. L. Droguett, and K. M. Groth, “Exploiting the capabilities of Bayesian networks for engineering risk assessment: Causal reasoning through interventions,” Risk Analysis, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1306–1324, 2021.
62. C. D. Persis, J. L. Bosque, I. Huertas, M. R. Sillero-Denamiel, and S. P. Wilson, “Quantitative system risk assessment from incomplete data with belief networks and pairwise comparison elicitation,” Risk Analysis, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 4014–4038, 2025.
63. S. N. Hall, M. A. Gallagher, and D. S. Fenn, “Risk framework for an organizational system with major components,” Risk Analysis, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 2509–2523, 2020.
64. A. Sarwar, F. Khan, M. Abimbola, and L. James, “Resilience analysis of a remote offshore oil and gas facility for a potential hydrocarbon release,” Risk Analysis, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1601– 1617, 2018.
65. C. Bao, M. Cai, J. Li, Q. Zheng, D. Wu, and Q. Meng, “Risk aggregation considering probabilistic and consequential interactions: A general formulation with computational cost handling,” Risk Analysis, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1440–1459, 2023.
66. V. Salehi, B. Veitch, and D. Smith, “Modeling complex sociotechnical systems using the FRAM: A literature review,” Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 118–142, 2020.
67. O. Štumbauer and A. Lališ, “Progressing the aerospace performance factor toward nonlinear interactions,” Risk Analysis, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 2243–2252, 2022.
68. S. F. D. Team, “Quantitative framework for systemic risk reduction, version 2,” Technical Framework Document, 2024, unpublished; provided as project source material. Section III.D establishes the calibration requirement: explicit, consistent, auditable.
69. M. J. Barons, S. Mascaro, and A. M. Hanea, “Balancing the elicitation burden and the richness of expert input when quantifying discrete Bayesian networks,” Risk Analysis, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1196–1234, 2021.
70. P. Baybutt, “The validity of engineering judgment and expert opinion in hazard and risk analysis: The influence of cognitive biases,” Process Safety Progress, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 205–210, 2017.
71. C. Wiecher, C. Mandel, M. Günther, J. Fischbach, J. Greenyer, M. Greinert, C. Wolff, R. Dumitrescu, D. Mendez, and A. Albers, “Model-based analysis and specification of functional requirements and tests for complex automotive systems,” Systems Engineering, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 728–744, 2024.
72. C. Macrae, “Managing risk and resilience in autonomous and intelligent systems: Exploring safety in the development, deployment, and use of artificial intelligence in healthcare,” Risk Analysis, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 910–927, 2024.
73. X. Wang, C. Li, and L. Zhao, “Requirement specification extraction and analysis based on propositional projection temporal logic,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 36, no. 4, 2023.
74. F. Talha, T. Tahir, and T. Nadeem, “A semiautomated approach for detecting ambiguities in software requirements using SpanBERT and named entity recognition,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 37, no. 8, 2025.
75. R. Dreves, F. Hällmayer, L. Haunert, B. Sechser, and A. Rieß, “A method to realize traceability in development processes,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 1011–1019, 2016.
76. R. Messnarz, T. Wegner, D. Ekert, B. Steger, R. Mayer, R. Dreves, B. Sechser, C. Schlager, and C. Karner, “Process improvement guidance for successful automotive SPI implementation,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 35, no. 8, 2021.
77. T. Varkoi, T. Mäkinen, F. Cameron, and R. Nevalainen, “Validating effectiveness of safety requirements compliance evaluation in process assessments,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 32, no. 3, 2019.
78. V. Anes, E. Henriques, M. Freitas, and L. Reis, “A new risk prioritization model for failure mode and effects analysis,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 516–528, 2018.
79. J. R. Bradley and H. H. Guerrero, “An alternative FMEA method for simple and accurate ranking of failure modes,” Decision Sciences, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 743–771, 2011.
80. Z. Wang, Y. Ran, H. Yu, C. Jin, and G. Zhang, “Failure mode and effects analysis using function-motion-action decomposition method and integrated risk priority number for mechatronic products,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 2875–2899, 2021.
81. Y. Li and L. Zhu, “Risk analysis of human error in interaction design by using a hybrid approach based on FMEA, SHERPA, and fuzzy TOPSIS,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1657–1677, 2020.
82. J. A. Moseman, “Retrospective on the risk matrix, part II: Mathematics,” Process Safety Progress, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 455– 468, 2024.
83. P. Younse, J. Cameron, and T. H. Bradley, “Comparative analysis of model-based and traditional systems engineering approaches for simulating a robotic space system architecture through automatic knowledge processing,” Systems Engineering, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 360–386, 2022.
84. M. Hillenbrand, M. Heinz, J. Matheis, and K. D. Müller-Glaser, “Development of electric/electronic architectures for safetyrelated vehicle functions,” Software: Practice and Experience, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 817–851, 2012.
85. K. Seo, K. Park, and Z. Gao, “Interface data modeling to detect and diagnose intersystem faults for designing and integrating system of systems,” Complexity, vol. 2018, p. 7081501, 2018.
86. SAE International, “Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles,” SAE International, Warrendale, PA, SAE Standard SAE J3016:2021, 2021.
87. T. Kletz, HAZOP and HAZAN: Identifying and Assessing Process Industry Hazards, 4th ed. Rugby, UK: Institution of Chemical Engineers, 1999.
88. G. C. Waycaster, T. Matsumura, V. Bilotkach, R. T. Haftka, and N. H. Kim, “Review of regulatory emphasis on transportation safety in the United States, 2002–2009: Public versus private modes,” Risk Analysis, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 1085–1101, 2017.
89. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Takata airbag inflator recall: Coordinated remedy programme,” NHTSA, Washington, DC, Tech. Rep., 2016, covers over 100 million inflators under consent order; root cause: ammonium nitrate propellant degradation.
90. “Technical assessment of Toyota electronic throttle control (ETC) systems,” NHTSA and NASA, Washington, DC, Tech. Rep., 2011.
91. M. Barr, “Software analysis finds that unintended acceleration fault could cause a crash in Toyota vehicles,” Expert Witness Report, Bookout v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2013, expert analysis of ETCS software identifying task-scheduling vulnerabilities and insufficient exception handling.
92. A. R. Valukas, “Report to board of directors of General Motors Company regarding ignition switch recalls,” Jenner and Block LLP, commissioned by GM, 2014, independent investigation; documents decade-long organisational failure to act on known defect evidence; linked to at least 124 fatalities.
93. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Investigation PE22-002: Tesla motors, inc. autopilot advanced driver assistance system,” NHTSA, Washington, DC, Tech. Rep., 2022, multi-incident investigation covering collisions with emergency vehicles and other stationary objects.
94. California Department of Motor Vehicles, “Order of suspension of autonomous vehicle deployment permit: Cruise LLC,” California DMV, Sacramento, CA, 2023, suspension citing material non-disclosure of post-collision dragging incident; October 2023.
95. Z. H. Qureshi and A. Campbell, “Systemic safety and accident modelling of complex socio-technical systems,” in INCOSE International Symposium, vol. 19, no. 1, 2009, pp. 21–35.
96. S. Tan, D. Weinert, P. Joseph, and K. A. Moinuddin, “Incorporation of technical, human and organizational risks in a dynamic probabilistic fire risk model for high-rise residential buildings,” Fire and Materials, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 779–810, 2020.
97. J. P. Mendes, “Model-based risk analysis for system design,” Systems Engineering, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 5–20, 2023.
98. A. Rauzy, “New algorithms for fault trees analysis,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 203–211, 1993.
99. European Union Aviation Safety Agency, “Special condition for small-category VTOL aircraft,” EASA, Cologne, Germany, Tech. Rep. SC-VTOL-01, 2022.
100. A. J. Hung, A. Goh et al., “Artificial intelligence in urologic robotic surgery,” Urology Practice, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 10–18, 2021.
101. D. T. Ingersoll, Z. J. Houghton, R. Bromm, and C. Desportes, “Nuscale small modular reactor for co-generation of electricity and water,” Desalination, vol. 340, pp. 84–93, 2014.
102. T. Porathe, “Remote control of unmanned vessels in the MUNIN project: A challenge for human factors research,” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 1467–1471, 2014.
103. V. Villani, F. Pini, F. Leali, and C. Secchi, “Survey on humanrobot collaboration in industrial settings: Safety, intuitive interfaces and applications,” Mechatronics, vol. 55, pp. 248–266, 2018.
104. M. L. Cummings, “Artificial intelligence and the future of warfare,” International Security, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 31–47, 2017.
105. W. E. Walker, P. Harremoës, J. Rotmans, J. P. van der Sluijs, M. B. A. van Asselt, P. Janssen, and M. P. K. von Krauss, “Defining uncertainty: A conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support,” Integrated Assessment, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 5–17, 2003.
106. T. Aven, “On the need for restricting the probabilistic analysis in risk assessments to variability,” Risk Analysis, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 354–360, 2010.
107. T. P. Kelly, “Arguing safety — a systematic approach to managing safety cases,” in Proceedings of the 17th International System Safety Conference, Orlando, FL, 1999, foundational paper introducing Goal Structuring Notation (GSN).
108. P. Bishop and R. Bloomfield, “A methodology for safety case development,” in Safety-Critical Systems: The Convergence of Art and Science. London: Springer, 2000, pp. 194–203, claims, Arguments, and Evidence (CAE) safety case methodology.