Methodology for integrating fuzzy expert systems and discrete event simulation in construction engineering
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
This paper demonstrates how fuzzy expert systems can be integrated within discrete event simulation models to enhance their modeling and predictive capabilities for construction engineering applications. A proposed methodology is presented for extracting the information from experts to develop the fuzzy expert system rules. The developed fuzzy expert system is integrated within a discrete event simulation model to enhance its modeling capability by explicitly accounting for the different factors affecting some of the simulation activities. A tunneling case study is used to illustrate the features of the integrated system. The outputs generated from the integrated system are very comparable to those from the original probabilistic simulation model. The integrated system represents a more realistic modeling scenario, since it thoroughly accounts for the different factors affecting the tunnel boring machine (TBM) advance rate. This paper is relevant to researchers because it provides an advance in combining artificial intelligence techniques with simulation models to yield better tools for construction modeling. It is of relevance to practitioners because it provides a useful tool for modeling construction engineering problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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