Knowledge Extraction from Trained Neural Network Scour Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study extends the earlier contribution of Azamathulla et al. in 2005. Artificial neural networks (ANNs), due to their excellent capabilities for modeling complex processes, have been successfully applied to a variety of problems in hydraulics. However, one of the major criticisms of ANNs is that they are just black-box models, since a satisfactory explanation of their behavior has not been offered. They, in particular, do not explain easily how the inputs are related to the output, and also whether the selected inputs have any significant relationship with an output. In this paper, a perturbation analysis for determining the order of influence of the elements in the input vector on the output vector is discussed. The approach is illustrated though networks recommended in Azamathulla et al. 2005 for prediction of scour using neural networks. The analyses of the results suggest that each variable in the input vector (discharge intensity, head, tail water depth, bed material, lip angle and radius of the bucket) influences the depth of scour in different ways. However, the magnitude of the influence cannot be clearly quantified by this approach. Further it adds that the selection of input vector based on linear measures between the variables of interest, which is commonly employed, may still include certain spurious elements that only increase the complexity of the model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".