Enabling efficient regional seismic fragility assessment of multi‐component bridge portfolios through Gaussian process regression and active learning
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 Regional seismic fragility assessment of bridge portfolios must address the embedded uncertainties and variations stemming from both the earthquake hazard and bridge attributes (e.g., geometry, material, design detail). To achieve bridge‐specific fragility assessment, multivariate probabilistic seismic demand models (PSDM) have recently been developed that use both the ground motion intensity measure and bridge parameters as inputs. However, explicitly utilizing bridge parameters as inputs requires numerous nonlinear response history analyses (NRHAs). In this situation, the associated computational cost increases exponentially for high‐fidelity bridge models with complex component connectivity and sophisticated material constitutive laws. Moreover, it remains unclear how many analyses are sufficient for the response data and the resulting demand model to cover the entire solution space without overfitting. To deal with these issues, this study integrates Gaussian process regression (GPR) and active learning (AL) into a multistep workflow to achieve efficient regional seismic fragility assessment of bridge portfolios. The GPR relaxes the probability distribution assumptions made in typical cloud analysis‐based PSDMs to enable heteroskedastic nonparametric seismic demand modeling. The AL leverages the varying standard deviation to select the least but most representative bridge‐model‐ground‐motion sample pairs to conduct NRHA with much‐improved efficiency. Both independent and correlated multi‐output GPRs are proposed to deal with bridge portfolios with seismic demand correlations among multiple components (column, bearing, shear key, abutment, unseating, and joint seal). Considering a single benchmark highway bridge class in California as the case study, the AL‐GPR framework and the associated component‐level fragility results are investigated in terms of their efficiency, accuracy, and robustness. The fragility results show that 70 AL‐selected samples would enable the GPR to derive bridge‐specific fragility models comparable to the ones using the multiple stripes analysis approach with 1950 ground motions considered for each individual bridge. The AL‐GPR model also successfully captures the physics of how bridge span length, deck area, column slenderness, and steel reinforcement ratio would change the damage state exceedance probabilities of different bridge components. The efficiency of AL stems from the fact that, with the multi‐output independent GPR, a stable and reliable fragility model can be achieved using 50 AL‐selected samples compared to at least 270 randomly chosen samples. The proposed methodology advances the state of the art in enabling more efficient and reliable regional seismic fragility assessment of multi‐component bridge portfolios.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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