Bayesian Failure Rate Estimation for the Reliability and Risk Assessment of Energy Pipelines
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
Abstract Failure rates, which quantify the normalized likelihood of pipeline failure, are an integral part of assessing the reliability and risk of pipelines. The industry-wide trend of utilizing probabilistic methods for estimating failure rates raises the question whether the frequentist or Bayesian definition of probability is more suitable. The paper illustrates some limitations of the frequentist probability definition for pipeline risk assessment and supports the Bayesian approach for analyzing pipeline failure rates. The Bayesian quantification of probabilities leads to coherent uncertainty assessment and propagation even if evidence is combined from different sources either through a repetition of the prior-likelihood model or a multi-level / hierarchical approach that integrates all available data and information in one model. Selecting or disregarding data for estimating failure rates is no longer necessary as they all contribute to the result based on their relative uncertainties. Examples are provided in the paper to illustrate the benefits of the Bayesian probability approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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