4.6 Article

Subjective machines: Probabilistic risk assessment based on deep learning of soft information

Journal

RISK ANALYSIS
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/risa.13930

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/P000673/1]
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [RGPIN-2020-07114]
  3. Canada Research Chairs program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explores the use of machine learning methods in simulating expert risk assessments, proposes a natural language-based probabilistic risk assessment model, and validates its feasibility.
For several years machine learning methods have been proposed for risk classification. While machine learning methods have also been used for failure diagnosis and condition monitoring, to the best of our knowledge, these methods have not been used for probabilistic risk assessment. Probabilistic risk assessment is a subjective process. The problem of how well machine learning methods can emulate expert judgments is challenging. Expert judgments are based on mental shortcuts, heuristics, which are susceptible to biases. This paper presents a process for developing natural language-based probabilistic risk assessment models, applying deep learning algorithms to emulate experts' quantified risk estimates. This allows the risk analyst to obtain an a priori risk assessment when there is limited information in the form of text and numeric data. Universal sentence embedding (USE) with gradient boosting regression (GBR) trees trained over limited structured data presented the most promising results. When we apply these models' outputs to generate survival distributions for autonomous systems' likelihood of loss with distance, we observe that for open water and ice shelf operating environments, the differences between the survival distributions generated by the machine learning algorithm and those generated by the experts are not statistically significant.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available