Fuzzy System Dynamics Risk Analysis (FuSDRA) of Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Operations in the Antarctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the maturing of autonomous technology and better accessibility, there has been a growing interest in the use of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). The deployment of AUVs for under-ice marine science research in the Antarctic is one such example. However, a higher risk of AUV loss is present during such endeavors due to the extreme operating environment. To control the risk of loss, existing risk analyses approaches tend to focus more on the AUV's technical aspects and neglect the role of soft factors, such as organizational and human influences. In addition, the dynamic and complex interrelationships of risk variables are also often overlooked due to uncertainties and challenges in quantification. To overcome these shortfalls, a hybrid fuzzy system dynamics risk analysis (FuSDRA) is proposed. In the FuSDRA framework, system dynamics models the interrelationships between risk variables from different dimensions and considers the time-dependent nature of risk while fuzzy logic accounts for uncertainties. To demonstrate its application, an example based on an actual Antarctic AUV program is presented. Focusing on funding and experience of the AUV team, simulation of the FuSDRA risk model shows a declining risk of loss from 0.293 in the early years of the Antarctic AUV program, reaching a minimum of 0.206 before increasing again in later years. Risk control policy recommendations were then derived from the analysis. The example demonstrated how FuSDRA can be applied to inform funding and risk management strategies, or broader application both within the AUV domain and on other complex technological systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".