Probabilistic neural network for evaluating seismic liquefaction potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simplified techniques based on in situ testing methods are commonly used to assess seismic liquefaction potential. Many of these simplified methods are based on finding the liquefaction boundary separating two categories (the occurrence or non-occurrence of liquefaction) through the analysis of liquefaction case histories. As the liquefaction classification problem is highly nonlinear in nature, it is difficult to develop a comprehensive model taking into account all the independent variables, such as the seismic and soil properties, using conventional modeling techniques. Hence, in many of the conventional methods that have been proposed, simplified assumptions have been made. In this study, a probabilistic neural network (PNN) approach based on the Bayesian classifier method is used to evaluate seismic liquefaction potential based on actual field records. Two separate analyses are performed, one based on cone penetration test data and one based on shear wave velocity data. The PNN model effectively explores the relationship between the independent and dependent variables without any assumptions about the relationship between the various variables. Through the iterative presentation of the data (the learning phase), this study serves to demonstrate that the PNN can "discover" the intrinsic relationship between the seismic and soil parameters and the liquefaction potential. Comparisons indicate that the PNN models perform far better than the conventional methods in predicting the occurrence or non-occurrence of liquefaction.Key words: cone penetration test, neural networks, prediction, probabilistic neural network, sand, seismic liquefaction, shear wave velocity.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".