Subjective machines: Probabilistic risk assessment based on deep learning of soft information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For several years machine learning methods have been proposed for risk classification. While machine learning methods have also been used for failure diagnosis and condition monitoring, to the best of our knowledge, these methods have not been used for probabilistic risk assessment. Probabilistic risk assessment is a subjective process. The problem of how well machine learning methods can emulate expert judgments is challenging. Expert judgments are based on mental shortcuts, heuristics, which are susceptible to biases. This paper presents a process for developing natural language-based probabilistic risk assessment models, applying deep learning algorithms to emulate experts' quantified risk estimates. This allows the risk analyst to obtain an a priori risk assessment when there is limited information in the form of text and numeric data. Universal sentence embedding (USE) with gradient boosting regression (GBR) trees trained over limited structured data presented the most promising results. When we apply these models' outputs to generate survival distributions for autonomous systems' likelihood of loss with distance, we observe that for open water and ice shelf operating environments, the differences between the survival distributions generated by the machine learning algorithm and those generated by the experts are not statistically significant.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".