Unsupervised machine and deep learning methods for structural damage detection: A comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While many structural damage detection methods have been developed in recent decades, few data‐driven methods in unsupervised learning mode have been developed to solve the practical difficulties in data acquisition for civil infrastructures in different scenarios. To address such a challenge, this article proposes a number of improved unsupervised novelty detection methods and conducts extensive comparative studies on a laboratory scale steel bridge to examine their performances of damage detection. The key concept behind unsupervised novelty detection in this article is that only normal data from undamaged/baseline structural scenarios are required to train statistical models with these methods. Then, these trained models are used to identify abnormal testing data from damaged scenarios. To detect structural damage in the form of loosening bolts in the steel bridge, four machine‐learning methods (i.e., K‐nearest neighbors method, Gaussian mixture models, one‐class support vector machines, density peaks‐based fast clustering method) and one deep learning method using a deep auto‐encoder are selected. Meanwhile, some modifications and improvements are made to enable these methods to detect structural damage in unsupervised novelty detection mode. In their comparative studies, the advantages and disadvantages of these methods are analyzed based on their results of structural damage detection.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".