A Hybrid Fuzzy System Dynamics Approach for Risk Analysis of AUV Operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The maturing of autonomous technology has fostered a rapid expansion in the use of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs). To prevent the loss of AUVs during deployments, existing risk analysis approaches tend to focus on technicalities, historical data and experts’ opinion for probability quantification. However, data may not always be available and the complex interrelationships between risk factors are often neglected due to uncertainties. To overcome these shortfalls, a hybrid fuzzy system dynamics risk analysis (FuSDRA) is proposed. The approach utilises the strengths while overcoming limitations of both system dynamics and fuzzy set theory. Presented as a three-step iterative framework, the approach was applied on a case study to examine the impact of crew operating experience on the risk of AUV loss. Results showed not only that initial experience of the team affects the risk of loss, but any loss of experience in earlier stages of the AUV program have a lesser impact as compared to later stages. A series of risk control policies were recommended based on the results. The case study demonstrated how the FuSDRA approach can be applied to inform human resource and risk management strategies, or broader application within the AUV domain and 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".