Domino Effect Analysis Using Bayesian Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new methodology is introduced based on Bayesian network both to model domino effect propagation patterns and to estimate the domino effect probability at different levels. The flexible structure and the unique modeling techniques offered by Bayesian network make it possible to analyze domino effects through a probabilistic framework, considering synergistic effects, noisy probabilities, and common cause failures. Further, the uncertainties and the complex interactions among the domino effect components are captured using Bayesian network. The probabilities of events are updated in the light of new information, and the most probable path of the domino effect is determined on the basis of the new data gathered. This study shows how probability updating helps to update the domino effect model either qualitatively or quantitatively. The methodology is applied to a hypothetical example and also to an earlier-studied case study. These examples accentuate the effectiveness of Bayesian network in modeling domino effects in processing facility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it