Gaussian Process Regression–Based Model Error Diagnosis and Quantification Using Experimental Data of Prestressed Concrete Beams in Shear
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To facilitate considering model uncertainty for rigorous reliability/probabilistic analysis, this paper proposed a Gaussian process regression–based (GPR-based) model error quantification framework and applied to shear capacity prediction of prestressed concrete (PC) beams. Firstly, the model error of shear capacity models from five well-received concrete structure and bridge design codes were diagnosed based on a compiled experimental database, where systematic correlations between model error and model parameters were observed. To consider the systematic correlation, model error was then calibrated as a function of model parameters based on GPR. Different covariance functions were considered, and a model selection was conducted based on 10-fold cross validations. Then, the model error quantification performance was evaluated by investigating the residual systematic correlation between model error and model parameters, as well as by comparisons with the traditional professional factor approach. In the end, relative importance of model parameters on the model error for each design code were analyzed, indicating that the shear span-to-effective depth ratio is the most important source of model error for all considered design code models.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".