Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

KRAIL: A Knowledge-Driven Framework for Base Human Reliability Analysis Integrating IDHEAS and Large Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims KRAIL, a two-stage LLM and knowledge-graph framework, can semi-automate base human error probability estimation, achieving under 150 seconds per estimate with top-5 accuracy up to 0.946.

desk verdict KRAIL builds a sensible LLM+RAG framework for base HEP estimation, but the claimed superior performance rests on a circular benchmark and a top-5 attribute metric rather than end-to-end HEP accuracy. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18627 v1 pith:HJKJCLMS submitted 2024-12-20 cs.CL

Xingyu Xiao , Peng Chen , Ben Qi , Hongru Zhao , Jingang Liang , Jiejuan Tong , Haitao Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords humanreliabilityanalysisbaseerrorprobabilityIDHEAS-DATAlargelanguagemodelsretrieval-augmentedgenerationknowledgegraphmulti-agentLLMfew-shotclassification
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 attempts to show that the base human error probability (HEP) step in human reliability analysis—normally a manual, expert-heavy lookup through IDHEAS-DATA tables—can be semi-automated by a two-stage pipeline that pairs large language models with a knowledge graph. The proposed framework, KRAIL, decomposes a case description with four specialist agents, uses few-shot prompting to classify the five IDHEAS-DATA attributes, and then queries graph relationships to return the base HEP. The reported experiments find that more prompt examples improve accuracy and that KRAIL finishes in under 150 seconds with statistically significant time savings over manual classification. If the result holds, reliability analysts would get candidate error probabilities in minutes and could spend their effort on review rather than manual attribute assignment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a knowledge graph constructed from the IDHEAS-DATA base-HEP appendices (A1 for scenario familiarity, A2 for information availability and reliability, A3 for task complexity), with each node carrying an attribute value and edges encoding the lookup relationships. The graph is converted into natural language and fed to the LLM together with few-shot examples and the decomposed case from the multi-agent stage, so the model's attribute classification is retrieval-augmented. After expert review, the same graph relationships are used to fetch the final base HEP, which makes every estimate traceable to a specific table row. The performance metric is top-5 accuracy, because the authors position attribute classification as an auxiliary aid rather than a fully autonomous decision.

What would settle it

Run KRAIL on a set of independently sourced event descriptions whose base HEPs have been established by expert panel consensus without using the IDHEAS-DATA appendices or the paper's cited sources; if top-5 attribute accuracy falls well below the reported values or the estimation time exceeds 150 seconds on ordinary cases, the central claim is undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the attribute classification underpinning base HEP estimation is tractable for a large language model when the IDHEAS-DATA tables are reorganized as a knowledge graph and supplied as retrieval context. Given a case description, four agents produce task, context, cognitive-activity, and time-constraint analyses; the LLM then outputs the attribute tuple (PIF, CFM, task/error measure, PIF measure, other PIFs); and the knowledge graph maps the accepted tuple to a numeric base HEP. The authors report top-5 accuracy of up to 0.946 for task classification in scenario familiarity, CFM accuracy of 1.000 in information availability and task-complexity conditions, and a total estimation time below 150 seconds. They conclude that KRAIL is a higher-efficiency alternative to the conventional manual method for base HEP computation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the test cases, which were generated from the same IDHEAS-DATA tables that power the knowledge graph, fairly represent real human-reliability situations; if that is not true, the reported accuracy may not transfer to practice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Base HEP estimation can drop from hours of manual expert work to under 150 seconds per case, with statistically significant time savings across scenario familiarity, information availability, and task complexity.
  • Increasing the number of few-shot examples tends to improve attribute classification accuracy, with the best results at five shots, so the framework can be tuned by adding worked examples rather than retraining.
  • The multi-agent decomposition stage improves several attribute categories, including 100% improvement for PIF, PIF measure, and other PIFs in the information availability condition, indicating that structured task analysis helps the LLM.
  • Because the knowledge graph stores the lookup relationships, every returned HEP is traceable to a specific IDHEAS-DATA row, which allows an expert to review and correct attributes before the final probability is issued.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Outside the paper's claims, the same two-stage pattern—decompose with agents, retrieve from a knowledge graph, classify with few-shot prompts—should transfer to other HRA taxonomies if comparable data tables are converted into graphs.
  • The authors do not establish independence between their test cases and the knowledge graph; a natural next experiment is to validate on cases drawn from sources outside the tables, where the reported top-5 accuracy is likely to be a ceiling rather than a typical result.
  • Because KRAIL outputs the attribute tuple before the graph lookup, the method could double as an auditing tool: every HEP estimate is traceable to specific IDHEAS-DATA rows, which may be useful for regulatory documentation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes KRAIL, a two-stage framework that combines multi-agent LLM-based task decomposition with a knowledge graph built from IDHEAS-DATA to semi-automate the estimation of base human error probability (HEP). The first stage decomposes case information into task, context, cognitive activities, and time constraints; the second stage converts the IDHEAS-DATA knowledge graph into natural language, augments it with few-shot examples, and asks an LLM to output five IDHEAS-DATA attributes (PIF, CFM, task/error measure, PIF measure, other PIFs). The final HEP is obtained by deterministic lookup in the knowledge graph after expert review. The paper evaluates attribute classification accuracy across 0-, 1-, 3-, and 5-shot settings for three scenario types, compares KRAIL's time against a manual baseline, performs an ablation of the multi-agent stage, and presents a case study. The abstract and conclusion claim superior base HEP estimation and time savings under 150 seconds.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, KRAIL would be a practically useful decision-support tool for HRA practitioners, reducing the time spent on attribute classification and providing a structured path from qualitative case information to a base HEP value. The framework is clearly described, the use of RAG over IDHEAS-DATA is a sensible design choice, and the case study illustrates a plausible workflow. However, the paper's validation does not actually test the central claim: no end-to-end HEP accuracy is reported, and the evaluation set is derived from the same IDHEAS-DATA sources that are injected into the prompt as few-shot demonstrations and knowledge-graph context. The paper also does not provide code, data, or a permanent repository, and the time comparison rests on a single human subject. The framework itself may be of interest to the HRA community, but the evidence presented is insufficient to support the claimed superior performance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.3 and 4.1] The evaluation is circular. The test dataset is constructed from IDHEAS-DATA table rows and the references cited in those rows (Section 4.1), while the prompt fed to the LLM in Section 3.3 includes few-shot examples drawn from IDHEAS-DATA and the natural-language conversion of a knowledge graph built from the same IDHEAS-DATA tables (Section 4.2). The correct attributes are therefore present in the retrieval and demonstration context, so the reported accuracies may reflect matching near-duplicate text rather than performing HRA reasoning. An independent test set, constructed from cases that are not represented in the knowledge graph and few-shot pools, is required before any claim about generalization to realistic HRA cases can be made.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Tables 3-5] The experiments measure top-5 per-attribute classification accuracy, not base HEP estimation, yet the abstract and Section 5 claim superior performance on base HEP estimation. The paper never reports the accuracy of the final HEP value against a reference. Because the final HEP is a deterministic lookup from the knowledge graph, any attribute error propagates to the HEP value. For scenario familiarity at 5-shot, the reported accuracies are PIF 0.777, CFM 0.888, Task 0.946, PIF Measure 0.872, and Other PIFs 0.666; even under conditional independence, the joint probability that all five attributes are correct is approximately 0.38, and the top-5 criterion makes each individual metric more lenient than exact match. The authors should report exact-match HEP accuracy on an independent test set and compare the resulting HEP values with expert-produced references.
  3. [Section 4.4] The time comparison is based on a single PhD student performing manual classification, which does not support the conclusion in Section 5 that KRAIL 'limits the time required for base HEP estimation to under 150 seconds.' The manuscript does not report the number of manual trials, the student's level of HRA expertise, or the exact protocol for measuring manual time. Multiple raters with a predefined measurement protocol are needed before an efficiency claim can be considered robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1] In the sentence describing the curated dataset, 'vase HEPs' should read 'base HEPs.'
  2. [Sections 4.2 and 4.5] There are unresolved placeholders: 'tables ??' in Section 4.2 and 'Section ??' in the ablation experiment description in Section 4.5. These cross-references should be fixed before publication.
  3. [Section 5.3] The data availability statement says the data 'will be made publicly available' but provides no repository or link. For reproducibility, the dataset, knowledge-graph construction scripts, and prompt templates should be released in a persistent archive.
  4. [Table 2 and Figure 4] Table 2 would be clearer if it explicitly indicated which cases were mapped to which IDHEAS-DATA rows in Table 1; the mapping is currently described only in prose. Figure 4's boxplots should specify the number of trials and the units of measurement, and the caption should state the t-test details (e.g., number of samples per condition).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The evaluation is self-referential: the test cases are generated from the same IDHEAS-DATA tables that are injected into the LLM as few-shot demonstrations and knowledge-graph context, so the reported accuracy largely measures echoing the prompt rather than independent HEP estimation.

  1. other [Section 4.1 (Data Setup) vs. Section 3.3 (Integration Framework for Base HEP Calculation)]
    "Due to the scarcity of HRA data and the lack of publicly available case data in the IDHEAS-DATA, we referred to the IDHEAS-DATA to prepare a dataset. Specifically, we use LLMs and expert knowledge to generate a high-quality HRA case dataset. ... we generate a few-shot learning content using the IDHEAS-DATA. ... the natural language conversion of the knowledge graph are all fed into the LLM."

    The test cases are built from the same IDHEAS-DATA tables, and from the same source references (refs [30-32] listed in Table 1), that are used to construct the Neo4j knowledge graph and the few-shot prompts. Section 3.3 feeds the natural-language conversion of that knowledge graph into the LLM, and Section 4.1 creates the test cases from the very rows and references encoded in that graph. Thus the correct PIF, CFM, task, PIF-measure, and other-PIF labels for each test case are already present in the prompt or retrieval source. The reported top-5 accuracy therefore measures whether the LLM can match text already supplied from IDHEAS-DATA, not whether KRAIL can estimate base HEPs on independent cases.

full rationale

The central claim of superior base HEP estimation rests on experiments whose test data, few-shot demonstrations, and retrieval knowledge graph all derive from the same IDHEAS-DATA tables. Section 4.1 says the dataset was prepared 'referred to the IDHEAS-DATA,' and Section 3.3 says the LLM receives few-shot content 'using the IDHEAS-DATA' plus 'the natural language conversion of the knowledge graph.' The knowledge graph itself is built from IDHEAS-DATA Appendix A1-A3 tables (Section 4.2). Therefore the correct attributes are present in the prompt context by construction, making the reported top-5 accuracy a form of context-echoing rather than independent prediction. This is not a formal equation-level equivalence, but it is a benchmark-containment circularity that directly affects the paper's central claim. The paper also reports top-5 attribute classification rather than end-to-end HEP accuracy, so the abstract's phrase 'superior performance on base HEP estimation' is unsupported even setting aside leakage. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears; the circularity is in the evaluation design. Score 7 reflects that the central performance claim reduces substantially to a self-referential benchmark, even though the framework itself has independent engineering content.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on no fitted numeric model parameters, but on three assumptions: the authority of IDHEAS-DATA, the representativeness of the self-created test set, and the validity of the attribute-to-HEP lookup chain. The most damaging is the second, since the test set is not independent of the retrieval source.

free parameters (1)
  • Top-5 metric threshold = k=5
    The evaluation counts a prediction as correct if it appears in the top five model outputs (Section 4.2). This hand-chosen threshold inflates reported accuracy and is not justified by any operating requirement or error-cost trade-off.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption IDHEAS-DATA tables are authoritative ground truth for base HEP attributes
    The entire framework and evaluation treat IDHEAS-DATA as the correct source for PIF, CFM, and HEP values. Invoked throughout Sections 2.2 and 3.3.
  • ad hoc to paper The self-generated HRA case dataset is representative of real-world scenarios
    Section 4.1 constructs the test set from five references with LLM and expert help, yielding only 59, 11, and 26 entries for the three scenario types. There is no external evidence that these cases represent the diversity of real HRA applications.
  • domain assumption LLM attribute predictions combined with knowledge graph lookup yield correct HEPs
    The final HEP is read from the graph once attributes are accepted (Section 3.3). No independent HEP measurements are compared against the predicted HEP, so the chain from attribute accuracy to HEP accuracy is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of KRAIL: A Knowledge-Driven Framework for Base Human Reliability Analysis Integrating IDHEAS and Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HJKJCLMS

@misc{pith2026241218627,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: KRAIL: A Knowledge-Driven Framework for Base Human Reliability Analysis Integrating IDHEAS and Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HJKJCLMS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18627}
}
read the original abstract

Human reliability analysis (HRA) is crucial for evaluating and improving the safety of complex systems. Recent efforts have focused on estimating human error probability (HEP), but existing methods often rely heavily on expert knowledge,which can be subjective and time-consuming. Inspired by the success of large language models (LLMs) in natural language processing, this paper introduces a novel two-stage framework for knowledge-driven reliability analysis, integrating IDHEAS and LLMs (KRAIL). This innovative framework enables the semi-automated computation of base HEP values. Additionally, knowledge graphs are utilized as a form of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) for enhancing the framework' s capability to retrieve and process relevant data efficiently. Experiments are systematically conducted and evaluated on authoritative datasets of human reliability. The experimental results of the proposed methodology demonstrate its superior performance on base HEP estimation under partial information for reliability assessment.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. InSight-R: A Framework for Risk-informed Human Failure Event Identification and Interface-Induced Risk Assessment Driven by AutoGraph

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An interface knowledge graph combined with logged operator behavior can identify human failure events from error-prone and time-deviated paths, and simple layout metrics can be mapped to interface risk levels, but val...

  2. A Dynamic and High-Precision Method for Scenario-Based HRA Synthetic Data Collection in Multi-Agent Collaborative Environments Driven by LLMs

    cs.AI 2025-01 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Fine-tuning Qwen2.5-7B on reactor-operator simulator data yields workload estimates that the authors report as more accurate than zero-shot commercial LLMs, but the evaluation lacks a demonstrated train/test split.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Energies 17(10):2439

    Xiao X, Liang J, Tong J, et al (2024) Emergency decision support techniques for nuclear power plants: Current state, challenges, and future trends. Energies 17(10):2439

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Chang J, Xing J (2016) The general methodology of an integrated human event analysis system (idheas) for human reliability analysis method development. PSAM 13

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Xing J, Chang Y, DeJesus J (2020) Integrated human event analysis system for event and condition assessment (idheas-eca). US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    RIL-2021-XX

    Xing J, CHANG Y, SEGARRA J (2021) Draft—integrated human event analysis system for human reliability data (idheas-data). RIL-2021-XX

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Journal of medical systems 47(1):33

    Cascella M, Montomoli J, Bellini V, et al (2023) Evaluating the feasibility of chatgpt in healthcare: an analysis of multiple clinical and research scenarios. Journal of medical systems 47(1):33

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    In: 85th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition (including the Workshop Programme), European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp 1–5

    Dubovik A, Tishechkin D, Kozhevin A, et al (2024) Advanced llm applications in oil & gas: Cross-domain implementations. In: 85th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition (including the Workshop Programme), European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp 1–5

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    In: International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p V010T12A004

    Xiao X, Liu S, Zuo Z, et al (2024) A text intelligence-based approach for automatic generation of fault trees in nuclear power plants. In: International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p V010T12A004

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:240217385

    Eigner E, H¨ andler T (2024) Determinants of llm-assisted decision-making. arXiv preprint arXiv:240217385

    work page 2024

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp 103–119

    Chiang CW, Lu Z, Li Z, et al (2024) Enhancing ai-assisted group decision making through llm-powered devil’s advocate. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp 103–119

    2024

  2. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:240316812

    Ma S, Chen Q, Wang X, et al (2024) Towards human-ai deliberation: Design and evaluation of llm-empowered deliberative ai for ai-assisted decision-making. arXiv preprint arXiv:240316812

    2024

  3. [11]

    Operations management 9:978–953

    Di Pasquale V, Iannone R, Miranda S, et al (2013) An overview of human relia- bility analysis techniques in manufacturing operations. Operations management 9:978–953

    2013

  4. [12]

    Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies 24 19(1):12–17

    Cuschieri A, Tang B (2010) Human reliability analysis (hra) techniques and observational clinical hra. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies 24 19(1):12–17

    2010

  5. [13]

    Applied ergonomics 27(6):359–373

    Kirwan B (1996) The validation of three human reliability quantification tech- niques—therp, heart and jhedi: Part 1—technique descriptions and validation issues. Applied ergonomics 27(6):359–373

    1996

  6. [14]

    In: Conference record for 1985 IEEE third conference on human factors and nuclear safety

    Hannaman G, Spurgin A, Lukic Y (1985) A model for assessing human cognitive reliability in pra studies. In: Conference record for 1985 IEEE third conference on human factors and nuclear safety

    1985

  7. [15]

    Swain AD (1987) Accident sequence evaluation program: Human reliability anal- ysis procedure. Tech. rep., Sandia National Lab.(SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States); US Nuclear

    1987

  8. [16]

    Reliability Engineering & System Safety 191:106507

    Groth KM, Smith R, Moradi R (2019) A hybrid algorithm for developing third generation hra methods using simulator data, causal models, and cognitive science. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 191:106507

    2019

  9. [17]

    Elsevier

    Hollnagel E (1998) Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM). Elsevier

    1998

  10. [18]

    Cooper SE, Ramey-Smith A, Wreathall J, et al (1996) A technique for human error analysis (atheana). Tech. rep., Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    1996

  11. [19]

    Reliability Engineering & System Safety p 109967

    Levine CS, Al-Douri A, Paglioni VP, et al (2024) Identifying human failure events for human reliability analysis: A review of gaps and research opportunities. Reliability Engineering & System Safety p 109967

    2024

  12. [20]

    Reliability Engineering & System Safety 251:110390

    Porthin M, Podofillini L, Dang VN (2024) Task reliability index for opera- tor performance and failure probability assessment in control room simulators. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 251:110390

    2024

  13. [21]

    Park J (2021) Dynamic hra for flex. Tech. rep., Idaho National Lab.(INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)

    2021

  14. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:240305530

    Reid M, Savinov N, Teplyashin D, et al (2024) Gemini 1.5: Unlocking mul- timodal understanding across millions of tokens of context. arXiv preprint arXiv:240305530

    2024

  15. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:240311996

    Buehler MJ (2024) Accelerating scientific discovery with generative knowl- edge extraction, graph-based representation, and multimodal intelligent graph reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:240311996

    2024

  16. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:240502957

    Li J, Wang S, Zhang M, et al (2024) Agent hospital: A simulacrum of hospital with evolvable medical agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:240502957

    2024

  17. [25]

    Science 248(4962):1517–1523 25

    Oettinger MA, Schatz DG, Gorka C, et al (1990) Rag-1 and rag-2, adjacent genes that synergistically activate v (d) j recombination. Science 248(4962):1517–1523 25

    1990

  18. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:240801107

    Wang C, Long Q, Xiao M, et al (2024) Biorag: A rag-llm framework for biological question reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:240801107

    2024

  19. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:240310446

    Li J, Yuan Y, Zhang Z (2024) Enhancing llm factual accuracy with rag to counter hallucinations: A case study on domain-specific queries in private knowledge- bases. arXiv preprint arXiv:240310446

    2024

  20. [28]

    In: 14th Interna- tional Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 14), Los Angeles, CA, US, pp 16–21

    Xing J, Chang Y (2018) Use of idheas general methodology to incorporate human performance data for estimation of human error probabilities. In: 14th Interna- tional Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 14), Los Angeles, CA, US, pp 16–21

    2018

  21. [29]

    In: Proceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp 1–5

    Ahmed T, Devanbu P (2022) Few-shot training llms for project-specific code- summarization. In: Proceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp 1–5

    2022

  22. [30]

    Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 52(5):584–602

    Cohen MR, Smetzer JL, Westphal JE, et al (2012) Risk models to improve safety of dispensing high-alert medications in community pharmacies. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 52(5):584–602

    2012

  23. [31]

    Human factors 48(4):656–665

    McGuirl JM, Sarter NB (2006) Supporting trust calibration and the effective use of decision aids by presenting dynamic system confidence information. Human factors 48(4):656–665

    2006

  24. [32]

    US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES)

    Xing J (2017) An integrated human event analysis system (IDHEAS) for nuclear power plant internal events at-power application. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Reliability Engineering & System Safety 109:150–159

    Preischl W, Hellmich M (2013) Human error probabilities from operational expe- rience of german nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 109:150–159

    2013

  26. [34]

    Reliability Engineering & System Safety 148:44–56

    Preischl W, Hellmich M (2016) Human error probabilities from operational expe- rience of german nuclear power plants, part ii. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 148:44–56

    2016

  27. [35]

    International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 7:229–238

    Aalipour M, Ayele YZ, Barabadi A (2016) Human reliability assessment (hra) in maintenance of production process: a case study. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 7:229–238

    2016

  28. [36]

    Human factors 44(2):314–334

    Lee JD, McGehee DV, Brown TL, et al (2002) Collision warning timing, driver distraction, and driver response to imminent rear-end collisions in a high-fidelity driving simulator. Human factors 44(2):314–334

    2002

  29. [37]

    diagnosis please

    Kurokawa R, Ohizumi Y, Kanzawa J, et al (2024) Diagnostic performances of claude 3 opus and claude 3.5 sonnet from patient history and key images in radiology’s “diagnosis please” cases. Japanese Journal of Radiology pp 1–4 26

    2024

  30. [38]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the southern association for information systems conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, pp 141–147

    Miller JJ (2013) Graph database applications and concepts with neo4j. In: Pro- ceedings of the southern association for information systems conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, pp 141–147

    2013

  31. [39]

    Campochiaro E, Casatta R, Cremonesi P, et al (2009) Do metrics make recom- mender algorithms? In: 2009 International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, IEEE, pp 648–653

    2009

  32. [40]

    95, sage

    Mooney CZ, Duval RD, Duvall R (1993) Bootstrapping: A nonparametric approach to statistical inference. 95, sage

    1993

  33. [41]

    Korean journal of anesthesiology 68(6):540–546

    Kim TK (2015) T test as a parametric statistic. Korean journal of anesthesiology 68(6):540–546

    2015

  34. [42]

    US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 230(4):35 27

    Gertman D, Blackman H, Marble J, et al (2005) The spar-h human reliability analysis method. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 230(4):35 27

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.