Fuzzy-Logistic Models for Incorporating Epistemic Uncertainty in Bridge Management Decisions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many bridge management systems (BMSs) plan future maintenance and inspection based on deterioration models derived from probabilistic analysis of field inspection data. Such analysis considers the aleatoric but not the epistemic uncertainty arising from subjective or imprecise data. This raises questions regarding the efficiency and safety of maintenance and inspection decisions. Several methodologies have been proposed to address both uncertainties; however, they tend to be taxing in terms of inspection data requirements. Thus, this work proposes a new BMS-compatible methodology to derive deterioration models using logistic regression to capture aleatoric uncertainty and fuzzy set theory to capture epistemic uncertainty. To formulate the models, subjective or imprecise data, such as bridge condition rating, is modeled using membership functions, rather than discrete values, and then integrated into logistic regression analysis. This results in logistic models with fuzzy coefficients. The proposed fuzzy-logistic models can be used to predict a range of possible future bridge conditions, rather than a discrete condition and hence lead to a range of possible management strategies that can be then optimized using life-cycle cost analysis. The application of the proposed framework is demonstrated through a case study.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it