MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990993108 · doi:10.1177/1748006x19888421

AK-PDF: An active learning method combining kriging and probability density function for efficient reliability analysis

2019· article· en· W2990993108 on OpenAlexafffund
Chengning Zhou, Ning‐Cong Xiao, Ming J. Zuo, Xiaoxu Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and Reliability · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsKrigingProbability density functionFunction (biology)Monte Carlo methodReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationAlgorithmLimit (mathematics)MathematicsStatisticsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important challenge in structural reliability is to reduce the number of calls to evaluate the performance function, especially the complex implicit performance functions. To reduce the computational burden and improve the reliability analysis efficiency, a new active learning method is developed to consider the probability density function of samples based on the learning function U in an active learning reliability method that combines the kriging and Monte Carlo simulation. In the proposed method, the proposed active learning function contains two parts: part A is based on function U, and part B is based on the probability density function and function U. By changing the weights of parts A and B, the sample points close the limit-state function, and those in the region with a higher probability density function have more weight to be selected compared to the others. Subsequently, the kriging model can be constructed more effectively. The proposed method avoids a large number of time-consuming function evaluations, and the recommended weight is also reported. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated through three numerical examples and one engineering example. The results demonstrate the efficiency and accuracy of the proposed method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and ReliabilitySame topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207