MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhanced Prediction and Uncertainty Modeling of Pavement Roughness Using Machine Learning and Conformal Prediction

2025· article· en· W4411802521 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfrastructures · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConformal mapComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceSurface finishPredictive modellingEngineeringMathematicsMechanical engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pavement performance models are considered a key element in pavement management systems since they can predict the future condition of pavements using historical data. Several indicators are used to evaluate the condition of pavements (such as the pavement condition index, rutting depth, and cracking severity), and the international roughness index (IRI), which is the most widely employed worldwide. This study aimed to develop an accurate IRI prediction model. Ten prediction methods were trained on a dataset of 35 independent variables. The performance of the methods was compared, and the light gradient boosting machine was identified as the best-performing method for IRI prediction. Then, the SHAP was synchronized with the best-performing method to prioritize variables based on their relative influence on IRI. The results suggested that initial IRI, mean annual temperature, and the duration between data collections had the strongest relative influence on IRI prediction. Another objective of this study was to determine the optimal uncertainty model for IRI prediction. In this regard, 12 uncertainty models were developed based on different conformal prediction methods. Gray relational analysis was performed to identify the optimal uncertainty model. The results showed that Minmax/80 was the optimal uncertainty model for IRI prediction, with an effective coverage of 93.4% and an average interval width of 0.256 m/km. Finally, a further analysis was performed on the outcomes of the optimal uncertainty model, and initial IRI, duration, annual precipitation, and a few distress parameters were identified as uncertain. The results of the framework indicate in which situations the predicted IRI may be unreliable.

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 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 score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.216 · 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