Fuzzy-Based Multivariate Analysis for Input Modeling of Risk Assessment in Wind Farm Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, input modeling for Monte Carlo simulation (MSC) is performed either by fitting a probability distribution to historical data or using expert elicitation methods when historical data are limited. These approaches, however, are not suitable for wind farm construction, where—although lacking in historical data—large amounts of subjective knowledge describing the impacts of risk factors are available. Existing approaches are also limited by their inability to consider a risk factor’s impact on cost and schedule as dependent. This paper is proposing a methodology to enhance input modeling in Monte Carlo risk assessment of wind farm projects based on fuzzy set theory and multivariate modeling. In the proposed method, subjective expert knowledge is quantified using fuzzy logic and is used to determine the parameters of a marginal generalized Beta distribution. Then, the correlation between the cost and schedule impact is determined and fit jointly into a bivariate distribution using copulas. To evaluate the feasibility of the proposed methodology and to demonstrate its main features, the method was applied to an illustrative case study, and sensitivity analysis and face validation were used to evaluate the method. The results demonstrated that the proposed approach provides a reliable method for enhancing input modeling in Monte Carlo simulation (MCS).
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".