Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Constructing Dynamic Master Logic Models as Knowledge Graphs for Complex System Diagnostics Using Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A retrieval-augmented pipeline can reconstruct a Dynamic Master Logic model of a nuclear safety system from technical text alone, matching a manually built reference at the upper hierarchy layers.

desk verdict A candid, well-structured pipeline paper whose headline accuracy numbers are only as good as the undocumented reference model they are measured against. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12304 v1 pith:WNATDDRW submitted 2026-08-12 cs.AI

Saman Marandi , Yu-Shu Hu , Mohammad Modarres This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords DynamicMasterLogicFunctionalModelingKnowledgeGraphsFaultDiagnosisRetrieval-AugmentedGenerationLargeLanguageModels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that Dynamic Master Logic (DML) functional models—hierarchical representations linking system goals to component behaviors—can be constructed automatically from engineering documentation by combining retrieval-augmented generation with large language models, and stored as queryable knowledge graphs (KG-DML). The authors argue this can scale to systems far larger than prior work allowed, and they test it on the low-pressure coolant injection safety system of a decommissioned boiling water reactor. Their central evidence is that five repeated runs reconstruct the upper hierarchy (goals, functions, subfunctions) with perfect precision and recall, the lower layers with F2 scores near 0.98, and an overall integrity score near 90 out of 100. If correct, the framework would cut DML model construction time from months of expert effort to days while preserving the logical structure needed for fault diagnosis and failure propagation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the KG-DML, a knowledge-graph rendering of a Dynamic Master Logic model: a strict means-end hierarchy in which system objectives decompose through functions and subfunctions down to components and success conditions, connected by AND/OR gate nodes that encode the logical conditions for success. The machinery that carries the argument is the layer-by-layer retrieval-augmented construction loop: at each level, a retrieval query built from the layer's semantic definition and the already-accepted parent elements selects the top-k documentation chunks, and a schema-constrained language model produces candidate child nodes and gates; the accepted JSON accumulates into a master representation, and a separate module compiles it into graph-database statements. This parent-conditioned, schema-constrained extraction is what converts unstructured text into an executable functional hierarchy, and the evaluation machinery—layer-wise precision/recall/F2 plus an integrity score with an exponential structural penalty—is what lets the authors argue the reconstruction is faithful.

What would settle it

Take the same LPCI documentation, have two independent expert teams build reference KG-DML models, then run the pipeline and measure integrity against each reference: if the scores differ by more than the reported run-to-run variation, the gold standard is not stable enough for the claimed fidelity. Alternatively, compare minimal cut sets and success path sets of the constructed and reference models—if they disagree on any reachable failure scenario, structural alignment is not implying functional equivalence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is a staged construction procedure in which each DML layer (goals, functions, subfunctions, components, success conditions) is generated from documentation passages retrieved on the basis of the layer definition plus the parent nodes already accepted, with the language model constrained to output a predefined JSON schema. The accepted elements accumulate in a master JSON, which is translated into graph-database statements creating the KG-DML with explicit AND/OR gate nodes, including nested gates. On the LPCI case study, the authors report that this procedure reproduces the reference model consistently across runs, with perfect node and link reconstruction at the Goal-Function and Function-Subfunction levels, and with the main variability concentrated at the Subfunction-Component layer, where gate accuracy ranges from 0.889 to 0.963. They further argue that because diagnostic reasoning is executed by deterministic graph traversal and Boolean propagation over the KG-DML, while the language model only interprets queries and invokes tools, the model's structural quality directly determines diagnostic quality, which motivates their multi-level evaluation framework.

Load-bearing premise

The entire evaluation compares the automatically built model against a manually drawn 'reference KG-DML' whose construction is never described: if that reference is incomplete, ambiguous, or reflects one analyst's reading of the same documents, the reported precision, recall, and integrity scores measure agreement with that particular reference, not correctness about the real system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Model-building time for a complex safety system can drop from months of manual expert analysis to days of mostly automated extraction, with expert review still required for the lower layers.
  • Because the KG-DML is stored as a traversable graph with explicit Boolean gates, the same constructed model supports upward failure consequence tracing, downward minimal success path enumeration, and natural-language explanatory queries without the language model performing open-ended reasoning.
  • Consistent across-run reconstruction suggests that the constrained schema and parent-conditioned retrieval tame language-model output variability enough for engineering use; residual errors concentrate in the densest layer, Subfunction-Component.
  • Batch size controls a trade-off: processing one parent per prompt maximizes structural integrity, while a batch size of five gives nearly the same quality at roughly one-fifth the API call count, guiding practical deployment choices.
  • The integrity score, though sensitive in magnitude to its penalty scale, preserves the relative ordering of configurations, so it can serve as a stable internal benchmark for pipeline tuning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the framework generalizes, the DML's strict means-end hierarchy could become a standard intermediate representation for language-model-based reliability analysis, letting diagnostic agents reason over structures rather than raw text; a natural test is applying it to a multi-document, multi-source system and comparing against expert review.
  • The reported near-perfect reconstruction of upper layers may partly reflect the small number of goal and function nodes in the reference; a stress test with a system having dozens of functions and deeply nested gates would show whether the variability currently seen at the Subfunction-Component layer grows or stays bounded.
  • The paper's own limitation statement implies a stronger validation is possible: comparing minimal cut sets or success path sets of constructed versus reference models would test behavioral equivalence, not just structural alignment, and would be a concrete way to decide whether structural fidelity translates into diagnostic fidelity.
  • Because the reference model is not fully specified in the paper, an independent re-derivation of that gold model from the same underlying documentation, or an expert-consensus construction, would let readers calibrate whether the ~90 integrity score measures fidelity to the system or fidelity to one analyst's interpretation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a framework for automatically constructing Dynamic Master Logic (DML) models as knowledge graphs (KG-DML) from engineering documentation, using retrieval-augmented generation with a large language model. Construction proceeds layer by layer (goals, functions, subfunctions, components, success conditions), with parent-conditioned retrieval and schema-constrained JSON generation, followed by synthesis into a Neo4j graph. The framework is evaluated on the Low-Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) system of a decommissioned BWR, with the NUREG/CR-3085/1 report as the documentation source. The evaluation reports layer-wise precision/recall/F2, gate accuracy, and an aggregate integrity score across five runs, claiming near-perfect reconstruction at upper layers and high F2 scores at lower layers, with modest variability. The paper also describes upward and downward propagation tools for diagnostic interaction and includes a detailed limitations section that acknowledges the lack of cut-set/path-set equivalence testing, the absence of baselines and ablations, single-system evaluation, and unquantified labor savings.

Significance. If the results hold, the framework would be a meaningful step toward scaling DML construction from months of expert effort to days, and the integrity-score evaluation methodology could be reused for similar schema-constrained KG-construction tasks. The authors are appropriately cautious: Section 7.1 explicitly discloses that structural similarity is not functional equivalence, that no ablation or no-retrieval baseline was run, and that labor-time savings are not formally measured. These disclosures are a strength. However, the central claim that the constructed models 'closely reflect expert-derived DML structures' rests on an undocumented and unvalidated gold reference model, and the reported metrics therefore currently measure agreement with one unspecified interpretation rather than with validated ground truth.

major comments (5)
  1. [4.2.1, Figure 6] The reference KG-DML used as the gold model is not adequately described. The paper does not state who constructed it, from which specific sections of NUREG/CR-3085/1, under which DML/GTST-MLD construction rules, or how it was independently validated. DML decomposition is interpretive: different analysts can defensibly choose different goals, subfunctions, and AND/OR gate assignments. As a result, the reported upper-layer recall of 1.0, component-layer F2 of 0.978–0.990, and mean integrity score of 90.38 measure agreement with an unstated reference interpretation, not fidelity to 'the' system structure. This is load-bearing for the paper's main claim. The authors should document the reference construction process, make the reference model available, and provide evidence of expert agreement or independent validation.
  2. [Algorithm 2, lines 8–10 (Section 4.2.1)] Node alignment between predicted and gold nodes uses embedding-based one-to-one matching with a threshold tau_L, but tau_L is never specified in the paper. This threshold directly controls which nodes count as true positives, false positives, and false negatives. Without reporting tau_L (and the embedding model used in Algorithm 2, which is not stated to be the same text-embedding-3-small used in retrieval), the reported F2 scores may be inflated by a lenient semantic-matching threshold. The authors should report the threshold value and a sensitivity analysis over tau_L.
  3. [Section 6.1 vs. Table A7] The text states that 'higher-level relationships (Goal-Function and Function-Subfunction) are reconstructed perfectly across all runs,' but Table A7 reports a Function-Subfunction gate accuracy of 0.889 in Run 2. This contradicting the stability claim of perfect upper-layer reconstruction. The authors should correct either the claim or the table; if the 0.889 value is correct, the discussion of upper-layer consistency needs to be revised, since an incorrect logical gate at the Function-Subfunction layer can change how failures propagate even when nodes and links are correct.
  4. [Section 7.1 (Limitations)] The paper explicitly acknowledges that no no-retrieval baseline and no ablation studies were performed. While full-context extraction may be infeasible for this document set, other ablations are feasible and would directly support the claim that RAG and layer-wise parent conditioning are responsible for the reported accuracy: e.g., removing parent conditioning, varying top-K, varying chunk size/overlap, or using a different LLM. Without such comparisons, the contribution of each framework component to the central result is not established. This is acknowledged as future work, but it weakens the current attribution of the results to the retrieval-augmented construction method.
  5. [Eq. (2), Section 4.2.3] The integrity score depends on layer weights w_l and penalty scale S, which are chosen by the authors. Sensitivity is reported only for S (Table 2), not for the layer weights. Since the integrity score is a stated contribution and is used to compare batch sizes in Table 1, the ranking of configurations could change under a different, equally plausible weighting scheme. The authors should report the exact w_l values and include a sensitivity analysis, or justify the weights with a reference to prior DML evaluation practice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1.1] The preprocessing choices (1,500-character chunks with 150-character overlap, K=10) are reported without justification or sensitivity analysis; a brief rationale or reference would help readers assess generality.
  2. [Data Availability Statement] The code is promised 'upon acceptance,' but the reference KG-DML model and the master JSON files used for evaluation are not described as release artifacts. For reproducibility, the gold model and the generated models from all five runs should be published alongside the code.
  3. [Section 6.1] The text says temperature=0 'enforce deterministic model outputs,' but the paper also attributes run-to-run variation to 'residual nondeterminism' in retrieval and LLM inference. This is not contradictory, but the wording should be softened to avoid suggesting that temperature=0 guarantees deterministic outputs.
  4. [Figure 8] The interaction screenshots are difficult to read in the provided figure; including the exact textual inputs and outputs in a table or appendix would make the diagnostic examples more inspectable.
  5. [Section 4.2.3] Equation (2) introduces w_l as 'importance weight' but does not list the layer-weight values used in the experiments; please add them to the table captions or text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the automated KG-DML construction is evaluated against an external gold reference, not fit to it.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a RAG/LLM pipeline constructs KG-DML models from technical documentation and that the constructed models agree with a reference KG-DML. The derivation chain is: documentation preprocessing and embedding (Section 4.1.1); layer-by-layer retrieval and schema-constrained LLM extraction (Section 4.1.2); JSON-to-Cypher graph synthesis (Section 4.1.3); and comparison against a gold reference model using node, link, and gate metrics plus an integrity score (Section 4.2). Nothing in this chain fits a parameter to the reference and then reports that fit as a prediction: the layer weights, penalty scale, and retrieval parameters are fixed design choices, and the reported precision, recall, and F2 values are computed from the constructed versus reference structure, not defined in terms of each other. The DML formalism and propagation semantics are inherited from prior work by the same authors, but those citations support the modeling framework rather than the specific empirical claim that automated construction reproduces the reference structure; the evaluation is against an external gold model, so the central result has independent content. The main weaknesses, including the undocumented provenance of the gold reference, the semantic alignment threshold tau_L, and the admitted absence of cut-set/path-set equivalence testing (Section 7.1), are threats to construct validity and generalizability, not circularity, because they do not make the predicted outputs equal to the evaluation inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the DML formalism, the chosen retrieval and generation configuration, and the unvalidated gold model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Layer weights w_l in integrity score
    Chosen by authors to reflect relative impact of each DML layer; held constant across experiments; affects final integrity scores (Eq. 2, Section 4.2.3).
  • Penalty scale S = 0.5 (default, sensitivity tested 0.4 to 0.6)
    Controls sensitivity of the exponential structural penalty in the integrity score; chosen by hand (Section 4.2.3, Table 2).
  • Retrieval top-K = 10
    Number of chunks retrieved per query; fixed at 10 in the construction pipeline (Section 4.1.2).
  • Chunk size and overlap = 1500 characters, 150 overlap
    Paragraph-based chunking choices that affect retrieval context (Section 4.1.1).
  • Node alignment threshold tau_L = not reported
    Similarity threshold for one-to-one matching in Algorithm 2; not specified numerically, affecting evaluation outcomes.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DML hierarchy with goals, functions, subfunctions, components, and success conditions is a valid and sufficient representation for diagnostics.
    The paper builds on the DML/GTST-MLD framework without proving its adequacy for the LPCI case (Sections 1, 2.1).
  • domain assumption The NUREG report used is authoritative and complete enough for model construction.
    The pipeline relies on a 1983 NRC report as the sole source; if the documentation omits success logic, the LLM must infer it (Section 5).
  • domain assumption GPT-4o with temperature 0, constrained JSON schema, and top-K retrieval yields sufficiently reliable extractions.
    The framework depends on modern LLM behavior; only one model configuration is tested (Sections 4.1.2, 7.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The reference KG-DML model is ground truth.
    Evaluation compares against a gold model whose construction is not described (Section 4.2.1, Figure 6).
  • domain assumption Boolean independence when generating success paths.
    The graph assumes component independence; CCF is only handled qualitatively during interaction (Sections 4.3.2, 7.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constructing Dynamic Master Logic Models as Knowledge Graphs for Complex System Diagnostics Using Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WNATDDRW

@misc{pith2026260812304,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constructing Dynamic Master Logic Models as Knowledge Graphs for Complex System Diagnostics Using Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WNATDDRW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12304}
}
read the original abstract

Dynamic Master Logic (DML) provides a hierarchical framework for representing system behavior by linking functional objectives to underlying structural elements. However, DML construction typically relies on expert interpretation of technical documentation, limiting scalability for complex systems. This study presents a framework for automated construction of DML models from system descriptions and their representation as Knowledge Graphs (KG-DML), using Retrieval-Augmented Generation and Large Language Models as enabling tools. Building on prior work with small-scale systems, the framework extends automated KG-DML construction and evaluation to substantially larger and more complex systems. Model construction proceeds across the DML hierarchy using targeted retrieval while preserving functional dependencies and explicit logical relationships. The resulting KG-DML supports diagnostic reasoning, safety assessment, upward failure propagation, and downward dependency tracing. A multi-level validation methodology evaluates layer-specific precision and recall, logical gate consistency, and overall structural integrity. Application to the Low-Pressure Coolant Injection system of a decommissioned Boiling Water Reactor demonstrates consistent reconstruction across repeated runs. The results show that automated KG-DML construction can transform technical documentation into executable functional models for diagnostic and reliability analysis.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mathematical foundations of event trees,

    I. A. Papazoglou, “Mathematical foundations of event trees,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 169–183, Sep. 1998, doi: 10.1016/S0951-8320(98)00010-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0951-8320(98)00010-6 1998

  2. [2]

    Fault Trees vs. Event Trees in Reliability Analysis,

    M. E. Paté-Cornell, “Fault Trees vs. Event Trees in Reliability Analysis,” Risk Analysis, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 177–186, Sep. 1984, doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1984.tb00137.x

    work page arXiv 1984

  3. [3]

    An overview of fault tree analysis and its application in model based dependability analysis,

    S. Kabir, “An overview of fault tree analysis and its application in model based dependability analysis,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 77, pp. 114–135, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2017.01.058

    doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2017.01.058 2017

  4. [4]

    Fault tree analysis: A survey of the state-of-the-art in modeling, analysis and tools,

    E. Ruijters and M. Stoelinga, “Fault tree analysis: A survey of the state-of-the-art in modeling, analysis and tools,” Computer Science Review , vol. 15 –16, pp. 29 –62, Feb. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.cosrev.2015.03.001

    doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2015.03.001 2015

  5. [5]

    Lind, Foundations for Functional Modeling of Technical Artefacts , Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2024, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-45918-4

    M. Lind, Foundations for Functional Modeling of Technical Artefacts , Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2024, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-45918-4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-45918-4 2024

  6. [6]

    Functional modeling of complex systems using a GTST -MPLD framework,

    M. Modarres, “Functional modeling of complex systems using a GTST -MPLD framework,” in Proc. Int. Workshop on Functional Modeling of Complex Technical Systems, Ispra, Italy, May 1993

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Evaluating system behavior through Dynamic Master Logic Diagram (DMLD) modeling,

    Y. -S. Hu and M. Modarres, “Evaluating system behavior through Dynamic Master Logic Diagram (DMLD) modeling,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 241–269, May 1999, doi: 10.1016/S0951-8320(98)00066-0

    doi:10.1016/s0951-8320(98)00066-0 1999

  8. [8]

    Time -dependent system knowledge representation based on dynamic master logic diagrams,

    Y. -S. Hu and M. Modarres, “Time -dependent system knowledge representation based on dynamic master logic diagrams,” Control Engineering Practice , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 89 –98, Jan. 1996, doi: 10.1016/0967-0661(95)00211-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0967-0661(95)00211-5 1996

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Logic -Based Hierarchies for Modeling Behavior of Complex Dynamic Systems with Applications,

    Y.-S. Hu and M. Modarres, “Logic -Based Hierarchies for Modeling Behavior of Complex Dynamic Systems with Applications,” in Fuzzy Systems and Soft Computing in Nuclear Engineering, vol. 38, D. Ruan, Ed., Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag, 2000, pp. 364–395, doi: 10.1007/978-...

    doi

  2. [10]

    Apply Fuzzy -Logic-Based Functional-Center Hierarchies as Inference Engines for Self -Learning Manufacture Process Diagnoses,

    Y.-S. Hu and M. Modarres, “Apply Fuzzy -Logic-Based Functional-Center Hierarchies as Inference Engines for Self -Learning Manufacture Process Diagnoses,” in Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 3614, L. Wang and Y. Jin, Eds., Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2005, pp. 1012–10...

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    A Survey of Large Language Models,

    W. X. Zhao et al., “A Survey of Large Language Models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.18223

    2025 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    The Limitations of Large Language Models for Understanding Human Language and Cognition,

    C. Cuskley, R. Woods, and M. Flaherty, “The Limitations of Large Language Models for Understanding Human Language and Cognition,” Open Mind, vol. 8, pp. 1058–1083, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1162/opmi_a_00160

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Words vs. worlds,

    M. Hutson, “Words vs. worlds,” Science, vol. 392, no. 6805, pp. 1336 –1339, Jun. 2026, doi: 10.1126/science.aej9814

    2026 doi

  6. [14]

    Complex System Diagnostics Using a Knowledge Graph - Informed and Large Language Model -Enhanced Framework,

    S. Marandi, Y.-S. Hu, and M. Modarres, “Complex System Diagnostics Using a Knowledge Graph - Informed and Large Language Model -Enhanced Framework,” Applied Sciences, vol. 15, no. 17, p. 9428, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.3390/app15179428

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    A Survey on Knowledge Graphs: Representation, Acquisition and Applications,

    S. Ji, S. Pan, E. Cambria, P. Marttinen, and P. S. Yu, “A Survey on Knowledge Graphs: Representation, Acquisition and Applications,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 494–514, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3070843

    2022

  8. [16]

    A new risk assessment method based on belief rule base and fault tree analysis,

    H.-L. Zhu et al., “A new risk assessment method based on belief rule base and fault tree analysis,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability , vol. 236, no. 3, pp. 420–438, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1177/1748006X211011457

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Complex system reliability modelling with Dynamic Object Oriented Bayesian Networks (DOOBN),

    P. Weber and L. Jouffe , “Complex system reliability modelling with Dynamic Object Oriented Bayesian Networks (DOOBN),” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 149–162, Feb. 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2005.03.006

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    Function -centered modeling of engineering systems using the goal tree–success tree technique and functional primitives,

    M. Modarres and S. W. Cheon, “Function -centered modeling of engineering systems using the goal tree–success tree technique and functional primitives,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety , vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 181–200, May 1999, doi: 10.1016/S0951-8320(98)00062-3

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    Challenges in Functional Modelling for Safety and Risk Analysis,

    J. Wu, X. Zhang, M. Song, and M. Lind, “Challenges in Functional Modelling for Safety and Risk Analysis,” in Proceedings of the 33rd European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2023), M. P. Brito, T. Aven, P. Baraldi, M. Čepin, and E. Zio, Eds., Singapore: Research Publi...

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Functional modeling of complex systems with applications,

    M. Modarres, “Functional modeling of complex systems with applications,” in Proc. Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS), Washington, DC, USA: IEEE, 1999, pp. 418–425, doi: 10.1109/RAMS.1999.744153

    1999

  13. [21]

    Z. Hao, F. Di Maio, and E. Zio, “A sequential decision problem formulation and deep reinforcement learning solution of the optimization of O&M of cyber -physical energy systems (CPESs) for reliable and safe power production and supply,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety,...

    2023

  14. [22]

    GOTRES: An expert system for fault detection and analysis,

    D. T. Chung, M. Modarres, and R. N. M. Hunt, “GOTRES: An expert system for fault detection and analysis,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety , vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 113 –137, Jan. 1989, doi: 10.1016/0951-8320(89)90088-4

    1989 doi

  15. [23]

    Dynamic Reliability Assessment of Cyber-Physical Energy Systems (CPESs) by GTST-MLD,

    Z. Hao, F. Di Maio, and E. Zio, “Dynamic Reliability Assessment of Cyber-Physical Energy Systems (CPESs) by GTST-MLD,” in Proc. 5th Int. Conf. System Reliability and Safety (ICSRS), Palermo, Italy: IEEE, Nov. 2021, pp. 98–102, doi: 10.1109/ICSRS53853.2021.9660671

    2021

  16. [24]

    Reactor safety assessment systems: Summary of methods and experience,

    M. Modarres, D. Marksberry, T. Ballard, and V. Krivtsov, “Reactor safety assessment systems: Summary of methods and experience,” in Proc. PSAM III / ESREL ’96 Conf., Crete, Greece, Jun. 1996

    1996

  17. [25]

    Extended GTST-MLD for aerospace system safety analysis,

    C. Guo, S. Gong, L. Tan, and B. Guo, “Extended GTST-MLD for aerospace system safety analysis,” Risk Analysis, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1060–1071, Jun. 2012, doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01718.x

    2012

  18. [26]

    A methodology for the construction of safety-oriented advisory systems for operators,

    R. Pennings, M. Ponamalé, and G. Gerlinger, “A methodology for the construction of safety-oriented advisory systems for operators,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 367–374, Apr. 1996, doi: 10.1016/0169-8141(95)00061-5

    1996 doi

  19. [27]

    Reliability analysis of smart pressure transmitter,

    V. Garg, M. Prasad, G. Vinod, and J. Chattopadhyay, “Reliability analysis of smart pressure transmitter,” in Reliability, Safety and Hazard Assessment for Risk-Based Technologies, P. V. Varde, R. V. Prakash, and G. Vinod, Eds., Singapore: Springer, 2020, pp. 133–141, doi: 10.1...

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Reliability assessment of generic geared wind turbines by GTST-MLD model and Monte Carlo simulation,

    Y. F. Li, S. Valla, and E. Zio, “Reliability assessment of generic geared wind turbines by GTST-MLD model and Monte Carlo simulation,” Renewable Energy , vol. 83, pp. 222 –233, Nov. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2015.04.035

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    Reliability study of an intelligent transmitter,

    F. Brissaud, A. Barros, C. Berenguer, and D. Charpentier, “Reliability study of an intelligent transmitter,” in Proc. 15th ISSAT Int. Conf. Reliability and Quality in Design, Aug. 2009

    2009

  22. [30]

    Software development life cycle model to ensure software quality,

    M. Modarres and N. Kececi, “Software development life cycle model to ensure software quality,” in Proc. PSAM IV Conf., New York, NY, USA, Sep. 1998

    1998

  23. [31]

    Fuzzy hierarchical modeling for business environment scanning and decision making,

    M. Modarres and Y. -S. Hu, “Fuzzy hierarchical modeling for business environment scanning and decision making,” in Proc. PSAM 9 Conf., Hong Kong, China, May 2008

    2008

  24. [32]

    A methodology to perform dynamic risk assessment using system theory and modeling and simulation: Application to nuclear batteries,

    F. Antonello, J. Buongiorno, and E. Zio, “A methodology to perform dynamic risk assessment using system theory and modeling and simulation: Application to nuclear batteries,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 228, p. 108769, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2022.108769

    2022

  25. [33]

    An examination of the use of large language models to aid analysis of textual data,

    R. H. Tai et al., “An examination of the use of large language models to aid analysis of textual data,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods , vol. 23, p. 16094069241231168, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1177/16094069241231168

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Structured information extraction from scientific text with large language models,

    J. Dagdelen et al., “Structured information extraction from scientific text with large language models,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 1418, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-45563-x

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions,

    L. Huang et al. , “A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 1–55, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1145/3703155

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy,

    S. Farquhar, J. Kossen, L. Kuhn, and Y. Gal, “Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy,” Nature, vol. 630, no. 8017, pp. 625 –630, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41586 -024- 07421-0

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey,

    Y. Gao et al., “Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2023, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.10997

    2023 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Mitigating hallucination in large language models (LLMs): An application -oriented survey on RAG, reasoning, and agentic systems,

    Y. Li, X. Fu, G. Verma, P. Buitelaar, and M. Liu, “Mitigating hallucination in large language models (LLMs): An application -oriented survey on RAG, reasoning, and agentic systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.24476, 2025, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.24476

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    Tool learning with language models: A comprehensive survey of methods, pipelines, and benchmarks,

    J. Chen, H. Wu, J. Pang, Y. Wang, D. Zhang, and C. Sun, “Tool learning with language models: A comprehensive survey of methods, pipelines, and benchmarks,” Vicinagearth, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 16, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44336-025-00024-x

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    Assessing consistency and reproducibility in the outputs of large language models: Evidence across diverse finance and accounting tasks,

    J. Wang and V. X. Wang, “Assessing consistency and reproducibility in the outputs of large language models: Evidence across diverse finance and accounting tasks,” SSRN preprint , 2025, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5189069

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    The fine art of fine - tuning: A structured review of advanced LLM fine-tuning techniques,

    S. Pratap, A. R. Aranha, D. Kumar, G. Malhotra, A. P. N. Iyer, and S. S. S., “The fine art of fine - tuning: A structured review of advanced LLM fine-tuning techniques,” Natural Language Processing Journal, vol. 11, p. 100144, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.nlp.2025.100144

    2025

  34. [42]

    Unleashing the potential of prompt engineering for large language models,

    B. Chen, Z. Zhang, N. Langrené, and S. Zhu, “Unleashing the potential of prompt engineering for large language models,” Patterns, vol. 6, no. 6, p. 101260, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2025.101260

    2025

  35. [43]

    Empirical study on fine -tuning pre-trained large language models for fault diagnosis of complex systems,

    S. Zheng, K. Pan, J. Liu, and Y. Chen, “Empirical study on fine -tuning pre-trained large language models for fault diagnosis of complex systems,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 252, p. 110382, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2024.110382

    2024

  36. [44]

    Domain -specific large language models for fault diagnosis of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems by labeled -data-supervised fine-tuning,

    J. Zhang, C. Zhang, J. Lu, and Y. Zhao, “Domain -specific large language models for fault diagnosis of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems by labeled -data-supervised fine-tuning,” Applied Energy, vol. 377, p. 124378, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124378

    2025

  37. [45]

    FD-LLM: Large language model for fault diagnosis of machines,

    H. A. A. M. Qaid, B. Zhang, D. Li, S. -K. Ng, and W. Li, “FD-LLM: Large language model for fault diagnosis of machines,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01218, 2024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01218

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    DiagLLM: Multimodal reasoning with large language model for explainable bearing fault diagnosis,

    J. Wang, T. Li, Y. Yang, S. Chen, and W. Zhai, “DiagLLM: Multimodal reasoning with large language model for explainable bearing fault diagnosis,” Science China Information Sciences, vol. 68, no. 6, p. 160103, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11432-024-4333-7

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    FR-LLM: Multi-task large language model with signal- to-text encoding and adaptive optimization for joint fault diagnosis and RUL prediction,

    Y. Lai, Z. Wu, M. Chen, C. Liu, and H. Shao, “FR-LLM: Multi-task large language model with signal- to-text encoding and adaptive optimization for joint fault diagnosis and RUL prediction,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 269, p. 112091, May 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.r...

    2026

  40. [48]

    Multimodal large language model- based fault detection and diagnosis in the context of Industry 4.0,

    K. M. Alsaif, A. A. Albeshri, M. A. Khemakhem, and F. E. Eassa, “Multimodal large language model- based fault detection and diagnosis in the context of Industry 4.0,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 24, p. 4912, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.3390/electronics13244912

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Exploring LLM -based agentic frameworks for fault diagnosis,

    X. Y. Lee, L. Vidyaratne, A. Farahat, and C. Gupta, “Exploring LLM -based agentic frameworks for fault diagnosis,” Proc. Annual Conf. PHM Society , vol. 17, no. 1, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.36001/phmconf.2025.v17i1.4350

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    Argos: Agentic time-series anomaly detection with autonomous rule generation via large language models,

    Y. Gu et al., “Argos: Agentic time-series anomaly detection with autonomous rule generation via large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14170, 2025, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14170

    2025 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    Intelligent fault diagnosis for CNC through the integration of large language models and domain knowledge graphs,

    Y. Liu, Y. Zhou, Y. Liu, Z. Xu, and Y. He, “Intelligent fault diagnosis for CNC through the integration of large language models and domain knowledge graphs,” Engineering, vol. 53, pp. 311 –322, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2025.04.003

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    Knowledge-graph-enhanced and LLM-guided fault diagnosis for VSC -HVDC systems,

    Y. Lan, M. Zhang, M. Su, and F. Zhou, “Knowledge-graph-enhanced and LLM-guided fault diagnosis for VSC -HVDC systems,” AIP Advances , vol. 15, no. 11, p. 115330, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1063/5.0309229

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    CTI-Thinker: An LLM -driven system for CTI knowledge graph construction and attack reasoning,

    X. Yang et al., “CTI-Thinker: An LLM -driven system for CTI knowledge graph construction and attack reasoning,” Cybersecurity, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 106, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.1186/s42400-025-00505-y

    2026 doi

  46. [54]

    Reinforcement learning driven adaptive graph construction for fault diagnosis of chemical processes,

    C. Dong, D. Li, and H. R. Karimi, “Reinforcement learning driven adaptive graph construction for fault diagnosis of chemical processes,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 266, p. 111781, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2025.111781

    2026

  47. [55]

    Domain-specific large language model-driven risk analysis of battery energy storage systems,

    J. Liang, H. Meng, and Y. Mu, “Domain-specific large language model-driven risk analysis of battery energy storage systems,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 274, p. 112416, Oct. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2026.112416

    2026

  48. [56]

    Large Language Model Based Intelligent Fault Information Retrieval System for New Energy Vehicles,

    H. Zhang, Y. Zhao, B. Sun, Y. Wu, Z. Fu, and X. Xiao, “Large Language Model Based Intelligent Fault Information Retrieval System for New Energy Vehicles,” Appl. Sci., vol. 15, no. 7, p. 4034, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.3390/app15074034

    2025 doi

  49. [57]

    An automotive fault diagnosis framework based on knowledge graphs and large language models,

    W. Lin and K. Miao, “An automotive fault diagnosis framework based on knowledge graphs and large language models,” Electronics, vol. 14, no. 21, p. 4180, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.3390/electronics14214180

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    Joint knowledge graph and large language model for fault diagnosis and its application in aviation assembly,

    P. Liu, L. Qian, X. Zhao, and B. Tao, “Joint knowledge graph and large language model for fault diagnosis and its application in aviation assembly,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 8160–8169, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1109/TII.2024.3366977

    2024

  51. [59]

    Text -augmented contrastive evaluation method: Pioneeringly achieving quantitative assessment for RAG -enhanced LLM of industrial fault diagnosis,

    J. Xu, Z. Chen, H. Ren, Z. Jiang, Y. Wang, and W. Gui, “Text -augmented contrastive evaluation method: Pioneeringly achieving quantitative assessment for RAG -enhanced LLM of industrial fault diagnosis,” SSRN preprint, 2025, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5146755

    2025 doi

  52. [60]

    Integrating large language models and knowledge graphs for system diagnostics,

    S. Marandi, Y. -S. Hu, and M. Modarres, “Integrating large language models and knowledge graphs for system diagnostics,” in Proc. Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS), Miramar Beach, FL, USA: IEEE, Jan. 2026, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/RAMS50514.2026.11424548

    2026

  53. [61]

    Large language models and data quality for knowledge graphs,

    S. Marchesin, G. Silvello, and O. Alonso, “Large language models and data quality for knowledge graphs,” Information Processing & Management , vol. 62, no. 6, p. 104281, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104281

    2025

  54. [62]

    Can LLMs be good graph judges for knowledge graph construction?,

    H. Huang, C. Chen, Z. Sheng, Y. Li, and W. Zhang, “Can LLMs be good graph judges for knowledge graph construction?,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17388, 2024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.17388

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    A survey on spatio-temporal knowledge graph models,

    P. Plamper, H. Köpcke, and A. Groß, “A survey on spatio-temporal knowledge graph models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16487, 2025, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.16487

    2025 doi

  56. [64]

    Neo4j GitHub repository,

    Neo4j, Inc., “Neo4j GitHub repository,” GitHub. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j. Accessed: Nov. 2025

    2025

  57. [65]

    Exponential consensus ranking improves the outcome in docking and receptor ensemble docking,

    K. Palacio -Rodríguez, I. Lans, C. N. Cavasotto, and P. Cossio, “Exponential consensus ranking improves the outcome in docking and receptor ensemble docking,” Scientific Reports, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 5142, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-41594-3

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    Compliance as a trust metric,

    W. Wu and G. Konstantinidis, “Compliance as a trust metric,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.01287, 2026, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.01287

    2026 doi

  59. [67]

    J. J. Curry, D. W. Gallagher, M. Modarres, and J. A. Radder, Interim reliability-evaluation program: Analysis of the Millstone Point Unit 1 nuclear power plant. Volume I: Main report , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-3085/1, May 1983

    1983

  60. [68]

    A new method for explicit modelling of single failure event within different common cause failure groups,

    D. Kančev and M. Čepin, “A new method for explicit modelling of single failure event within different common cause failure groups,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. , vol. 103, pp. 84 –93, Jul. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2012.03.009

    2012 doi

  61. [69]

    A pragmatic approach to estimate alpha factors for common cause failure analysis,

    V. Hassija, C. Senthil Kumar, and K. Velusamy, “A pragmatic approach to estimate alpha factors for common cause failure analysis,” Ann. Nucl. Energy , vol. 63, pp. 317 –325, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2013.07.053

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    PRA importance measures for maintenance prioritization applications,

    W. E. Vesely, M. Belhadj, and J. T. Rezos, “PRA importance measures for maintenance prioritization applications,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. , vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 307 –318, Jan. 1994, doi: 10.1016/0951 - 8320(94)90035-3. Appendix A This appendix provides full per -run evaluation ...

    1994 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.