An Efficient Reliability Analysis Method for Structures With Epistemic Uncertainty Using Evidence Theory
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
Evidence theory has a strong ability to deal with the epistemic uncertainty, based on which the uncertain parameters existing in many complex engineering problems with limited information can be conveniently treated. However, the heavy computational cost caused by its discrete property severely influences the practicability of evidence theory, which has become a main difficulty in structural reliability analysis using evidence theory. This paper aims to develop an efficient method to evaluate the reliability for structures with evidence variables, and hence improves the applicability of evidence theory for engineering problems. A non-probabilistic reliability index approach is introduced to obtain a design point on the limit-state surface. An assistant area is then constructed through the obtained design point, based on which a small number of focal elements can be picked out for extreme analysis instead of using all the elements. The vertex method is used for extreme analysis to obtain the minimum and maximum values of the limit-state function over a focal element. A reliability interval composed of the belief measure and the plausibility measure is finally obtained for the structure. Two numerical examples are investigated to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
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 | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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