MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

International Roughness Index Modeling utilizing Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS)

2023· article· en· W4385059430 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ala Sati, Khaled Hamad, Saleh Abu Dabous

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemMean absolute percentage errorInternational Roughness IndexMean squared errorPavement managementServiceability (structure)RutComputer scienceStatisticsWind speedEnvironmental scienceEngineeringFuzzy logicMathematicsMeteorologyStructural engineeringArtificial intelligenceCivil engineeringFuzzy control systemSurface finishAsphaltMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As an essential component of pavement management systems (PMS), deterioration models have been adopted for predicting future conditions of pavement sections. It assists in selecting the best maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation decisions. As a result of the formation and growth of distresses such as cracks and rutting, pavement deterioration reduces serviceability and results in the failure of pavement sections. This paper aimed to develop a pavement condition forecasting model based on a pavement performance indicator called the international roughness index (IRI). The Long-term pavement performance (LTPP) database was used to obtain historical IRI data for pavement sections, including pavement sections in the United States (US) and Canada. Additionally, other pavement characteristics were collected to be used as model inputs, such as pavement age, annual precipitation, annual temperature, Freezing Index, Freeze Thaw, annual Average Humidity min, annual Average Humidity max, wind speed, the ratio of AADTT to AADT, KESAL, and SN. ANOVA analysis was implemented to select the most significant factors to include in the model. Moreover, Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) method was applied to develop the deterioration model. In preparation for model development, the dataset was cleansed and preprocessed. In addition, the data was split into 85% training and 15% testing. The ANFIS model analysis was performed using MATLAB software. The developed model's performance was measured using mean squared error (MSE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and it was found to be 0.019, 0.139, and 0.0983, respectively. This study concluded that ANFIS was able to model pavement conditions effectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207