Corrosion Growth Modeling Based on Mass In-Line Inspection Data Using Variational Inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In-line inspection (ILI) data is commonly used in corrosion growth models (CGMs) to predict the corrosion growth in energy pipelines. A hierarchical stochastic corrosion growth model is considered in this paper which considers the variations in the corrosion growth, both spatially and temporally, the inherent measurement error of the ILI tools as well as the model uncertainties. These uncertainties are represented as unknown model variables and are often inferred using a Bayesian method [1], [2] and samples of the unknown parameters’ posterior probability density functions (PDFs) are obtained using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling techniques [3]. ILIs can result in massive data sets. In order for MCMC-based inference techniques to yield reasonably accurate results, many samples (approaching infinity) are required. This fact in addition to the massive data sets exponentially increases the scale of the inference problem from an attainable solution to a potentially impossible one that is limited by today’s computing power. For this reason, MCMC-based inference techniques can become inefficient in the cases where ILI datasets are large. The objective is to propose variational inference (VI) as an alternative to MCMC to determine a Bayesian solution for the unknown parameters in complex stochastic CGMs. VI produces approximations of the posterior PDFs by treating the inference as an optimization problem. Variational inference emerged from machine learning for Bayesian inference of large data sets; therefore, it is an appropriate tool to use in the analysis of mass pipeline inspection data[4]–[7]. This paper introduces VI to solve the inference problem and provide a solution for a hierarchical stochastic CGM to describe the defect-specific corrosion growth experienced in pipelines based on excessively large ILI datasets. To gauge the accuracy of the VI implementation in the model, the results are compared to a set of values generated using a stochastic gamma process that represents the corrosion growth process experienced by the pipe.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".