Recommendations for Active-Learning Kriging Reliability Analysis of Bridge Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Active-learning Kriging (AK) was developed as a surrogate-aided reliability technique to address the need for efficient reliability estimation when assessing complex limit states. The results of AK analyses are sensitive to the choice of the regression function, correlation function, learning function and associated stopping criteria, and reliability estimation technique, with unique sets of these input parameters referred to as AK configurations. For the reliable use of AK analysis in bridge reliability assessment, recommendations regarding the best-performing AK configurations are needed to balance the desired accuracy-to-efficiency of the simulation. The objective of this study was to recommend sets of AK configurations for the reliability analysis of reinforced-concrete bridge girders and piers that can be readily used by engineers to perform AK analysis for bridge design optimization and assessment. An extensive parametric analysis, using 432 unique AK configurations and over 3,000 AK analyses, was performed, combined with the application of a comprehensive metric system to recommend the top five best-performing AK configurations for bridge analysis based on the root mean square error, the absolute average error, the degree of consistency, and total number of training points.
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 | 0.013 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".