Understanding and taxonomy of uncertainty in modeling, simulation, and risk profiling for border control automation
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 addresses the problem of trust in Modeling and Simulation (M&S) technologies, and uncertainty in applications to homeland security. The key goal of this paper is an extension of the notion of trusted M&S techniques for traveler risk assessment in mass-transit applications such as e-borders. Theories of uncertainty suggest that different understandings of uncertainty result in different mechanisms of its reduction. We show that a taxonomy of uncertainty that is accepted in philosophical studies, as well as the NATO methodology of uncertainty assessment (known as the Admiralty Code), can be useful in M&S. This paper overviews various approaches to M&S and focuses on a framework that is based on multi-source fusion mechanisms using Dempster–Shafer (DS) theory. The DS metric is useful for the development of simulators, recommender machines, and risk profilers when expert knowledge is given in an imprecise form. The difference between the Bayesian and DS metrics is introduced via a demonstrative experiment from the area of traveler risk assessment using a biometric-enabled watchlist.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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