Predicting seismic-induced liquefaction through ensemble learning frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The regional nature of liquefaction records and limited information available for a certain set of explanatories motivate the development of complex prediction techniques. Indirect methods are commonly applied to incidentally derive a hyperplane to this binary classification problem. Machine learning approaches offer evolutionary prediction models which can be used as direct prediction methods to liquefaction occurrence. Ensemble learning is a recent advancement in this field. According to a predefined ensemble architecture, a number of learners are trained and their inferences are integrated to produce stable and improved generalization ability. However, there is a need to consider several aspects of the ensemble learning frameworks when exploiting them for a particular application; a comprehensive evaluation of an ensemble learner's generalization ability is required but usually overlooked. Also, the literature falls short on work utilizing ensemble learning in liquefaction prediction. To this extent, this work examines useful ensemble learning approaches for seismic-induced liquefaction prediction. A comprehensive analysis of fifteen ensemble models is performed. The results show improved prediction performance and diminishing uncertainty of ensembles, compared with single machine learning models.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".