4.7 Article

A double inference engine belief rule base for oil pipeline leakage

期刊

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
卷 240, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122587

关键词

Belief rule base; Sensitivity analysis; Evidence reasoning; Double inference engine; Interpretability optimization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces a belief rule base (BRB) model for oil pipeline leakage prediction and proposes a double inference engine BRB-DI model. Compared with traditional BRB models, the new model improves the modeling capability and interpretability through rule reduction and the design of a double inference engine.
Accurate prediction of oil pipeline leakage is important for energy security and environmental protection. The belief rule base (BRB) is a rule-based modeling approach that can make use of information with uncertainty to describe causal relationships in predicting oil pipeline leaks. Due to the complexity and uncertainty of oil pipeline systems, traditional BRB models produce a large rule base, which reduces the modeling capability and interpretability of BRB. Therefore, this paper proposes a double inference engine BRB (BRB-DI) model. Compared with the traditional BRB models, the new model diminishes the number of the rules from 56 to 25, while maintaining the accuracy. In the BRB-DI model, firstly, rule reduction is used to reduce the complexity of the model by comprehensively analyzing the importance of rules. Secondly, to ensure the completeness of the model rule base, a double inference engine consisting of the evidence reasoning (ER) algorithm and ER rule is proposed, and a new reasoning computation process is designed. Finally, an optimization algorithm based on projection covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy (P-CMA-ES) is proposed to prevent the diminishing interpret-ability of the optimized model. In order to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, an oil pipeline leakage prediction problem is studied as a numerical example.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据