Automatic Classification of Design Conflicts Using Rule-based Reasoning and Machine LearningAn Example of Structural Clashes Against the MEP Model
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
Automatic Classification of Design Conflicts Using Rule-based Reasoning and Machine LearningAn Example of Structural Clashes Against the MEP Model Ying-Hua Huang and Will Y. Lin Pages 324-331 (2019 Proceedings of the 36th ISARC, Banff, Canada, ISBN 978-952-69524-0-6, ISSN 2413-5844) Abstract: With the emergence of 3D technologies in a recent decade, BIM software makes it easy to detect those conflicts in the early stage of a project. Clash detection in BIM software is now a common task. Among those conflicts found by BIM software, however, a relatively high percentage belongs to pseudo conflictswhich are permissible or tolerable, but BIM software does not reveal this information. Thus, currently BIM managers have to manually inspect every detected conflict to classify the type of conflict. Some researchers urged an automated process to facilitate this laborious process. This study implemented both a rule-based reasoning system and machine learning classifiers to help classify those BIM-detected conflicts. Preliminary testing results indicate that machine learning algorithms can achieve comparable results to a traditional rule-based system, but with much less costs and energy in developing. Keywords: Clash detection, Machine learning, Rule-based reasoning, BIM DOI: https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2019/0044 Download fulltext Download BibTex Download Endnote (RIS) TeX Import to Mendeley
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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