Abstract
Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is a vital step in using mathematical modelsand simulations to take decisions. The field of cardiac simulation has begun toexplore and adopt UQ methods to characterise uncertainty in model inputs andhow that propagates through to outputs or predictions. In this perspectivepiece we draw attention to an important and under-addressed source ofuncertainty in our predictions --- that of uncertainty in the model structureor the equations themselves. The difference between imperfect models andreality is termed model discrepancy, and we are often uncertain as to the sizeand consequences of this discrepancy. Here we provide two examples of theconsequences of discrepancy when calibrating models at the ion channel andaction potential scales. Furthermore, we attempt to account for thisdiscrepancy when calibrating and validating an ion channel model usingdifferent methods, based on modelling the discrepancy using Gaussian processes(GPs) and autoregressive-moving-average (ARMA) models, then highlight theadvantages and shortcomings of each approach. Finally, suggestions and lines ofenquiry for future work are provided.