Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A Hybrid Real-Time Framework for Efficient Fussell-Vesely Importance Evaluation Using Virtual Fault Trees and Graph Neural Networks

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Graph model predicts Fussell-Vesely risk importance in milliseconds

desk verdict The accuracy and speed claims don't survive the paper's own per-event numbers and time comparison, but the ISM+GCN idea has merit for a resubmission. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10484 v1 pith:IPCPHDCS submitted 2024-12-13 cs.LG cs.LO

Xingyu Xiao , Peng Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.LO
keywords Fussell-Veselyimportanceminimalcutsetsinterpretivestructuralmodelinggraphneuralnetworksvirtualfaulttreeanalysisreal-timeriskassessmentreliabilityengineering
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

The paper proposes a way to compute Fussell-Vesely (FV) importance — a reliability metric that ranks how much each basic failure event contributes to overall system failure — without building a full fault tree or enumerating minimal cut sets. Its method replaces the Boolean fault tree with a 'virtual fault tree': a small directed graph of basic events and their dependencies, constructed from expert judgment via Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM). A graph convolutional network reads this graph plus occurrence probabilities and predicts each event's FV importance. On two nuclear-plant subsystems the predictions match reference values computed by standard fault-tree software (R² = 0.9788), and inference takes milliseconds rather than minutes. The paper argues this makes real-time, risk-informed ranking of critical events practical for large dynamic systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 'virtual fault tree': a directed acyclic graph produced by Interpretive Structural Modeling, in which nodes are basic events only and edges encode expert-elicited direct influence (a self-interaction matrix promoted to a reachability matrix via Boolean closure, then leveled into a hierarchy). The paper feeds this DAG, with basic-event occurrence probabilities as node features, into a graph convolutional network whose propagation rule is $Z = f(A,X) = D^{-1}AXW$, averaging feature messages from neighbors. The claim is that this message-passing over the dependency graph is enough to predict FV importance, which in classical reliability analysis is defined through Boolean AND/OR gates and minimal cut sets.

What would settle it

Train the model on one small fault-tree topology and test it on a different topology of the same size that shares no gates or cut sets; if predictions degrade sharply or the ranking of critical events flips, the virtual fault tree has not captured the Boolean logic. A sharper test: keep the ISM reachability graph identical but change an AND gate to an OR gate inside the fault tree and recompute reference FV values; the GNN's output should change if the graph geometry encodes the logic, and should stay flat if it only fits probabilities.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that an ISM-derived reachability graph over basic events — a directed acyclic graph capturing expert-judged influences — can stand in for the full fault tree as the input representation for computing FV importance. Feeding this graph and the basic-event probabilities into a three-layer graph convolutional network yields FV values with MSE 0.0035, RMSE 0.0588, MAE 0.0236 and R² 0.9788 on the safety-injection and containment-spray systems, improving on a structure learned by HillClimbSearch and on a multilayer perceptron, and outperforming an LLM baseline. The authors assert that this hybrid structure-data approach captures dependencies between basic events, eliminates the need to handle intermediate events and minimal cut sets, and enables real-time recalculation as data streams update.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that the expert-drawn influence graph of basic events contains the same information as the full fault-tree logic, so that a graph network can reproduce Fussell-Vesely values without ever seeing the AND/OR gates or minimal cut sets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FV importance becomes a real-time quantity: each change in basic-event probabilities can be re-ranked in milliseconds, supporting dynamic risk control.
  • The virtual fault tree contains only basic events, so model complexity and space no longer scale with intermediate-event structures.
  • The explicit ISM edges encode inter-event dependencies, avoiding the independence assumption of classical fault tree analysis.
  • The model's predicted importance ranking aligns with reference FV ordering in the case study, giving operators a prioritized list of events to monitor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Cross-topology generalization remains open: the study reports only within-system holdout performance, so a decisive next test is training on one fault tree and evaluating on another with different gate structure.
  • Because each node's only feature is its occurrence probability, the ISM edges must carry all logical structure; an ablation that randomly permutes edges while keeping probabilities fixed would measure how much accuracy is genuinely structural.
  • The demonstration uses six basic events in two small systems, so the sufficiency of the reachability DAG for larger, repairable, or time-dependent systems is untested.
  • If the surrogate approach proves general, the same expert-graph-plus-GNN pattern could be applied to other importance measures, such as Risk Achievement Worth or Birnbaum importance, which share the same minimal-cut-set foundation.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a hybrid framework that combines Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) with a Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) to estimate Fussell-Vesely importance for basic events. The ISM step converts expert-elicited pairwise relations among six basic events into a directed acyclic graph, called a virtual fault tree; the GCN then takes event probabilities as node features and is trained to predict FV values. The paper presents aggregate error metrics, a comparison with an MLP and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, a time-efficiency comparison, and a scenario case study for a simplified nuclear-power-plant system. The central claims are that the virtual fault tree reduces complexity and that the GNN enables rapid, accurate, real-time FV calculation.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the idea of replacing fault-tree gate logic with an expert-elicited influence graph and learning FV importance with a graph neural network could be a useful direction for fast risk screening. The paper also makes a reasonable effort to compare against an MLP and an LLM, and it explicitly acknowledges the small scale of the tested fault trees. However, the evidence offered for the central claim is not convincing: per-event predictions for rare events are off by orders of magnitude, the reported accuracy metrics are internally inconsistent, and the time-efficiency claim is contradicted by the paper's own numbers. No code or data are provided, and the reported experiment is an interpolation test on two small systems rather than a demonstration of generalization to new fault-tree topologies. In its current form, the contribution does not support the abstract's claims of accurate and rapid FV evaluation.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.4, Table 6] The per-event FV predictions for exactly the rare events that FV importance is designed to prioritize are off by orders of magnitude. The predicted FV for CCF-SI-RF2-ALL is 1.985e-3 versus a reference of 2.02e-5 (about 98x too high), and for BUS-A-UN and BUS-B-UN the predictions are 2.929e-4 versus references of 5.55e-7 (about 527x too high). The aggregate metrics in Table 5 are dominated by the two events with FV near 1.0 and therefore mask this failure. Please report per-event errors, preferably on a logarithmic scale or stratified by FV magnitude, and state explicitly whether the model can resolve FV values at the 1e-5 to 1e-7 scale.
  2. [Section 5.2, Table 5] The numerical results for the proposed model are inconsistent between the text and the table. Section 5.2 reports MSE 0.0191, RMSE 0.1381, MAE 0.0979, and R2 0.8832, while Table 5 reports MSE 0.0035, RMSE 0.0588, MAE 0.0236, and R2 0.9788 for the same model. In addition, the Claude row swaps RMSE and MAE: sqrt(2,333,439,021.98) = 48,305.68, so RMSE should be 48,305.68 and MAE should be 2,986.07. The paper must state which numbers are final; as written, the accuracy and comparison claims are not reliably assessable.
  3. [Section 5.3] The time-efficiency claim is contradicted by the reported numbers. The text says construction times were 1 minute 18.70 seconds and 2 minutes 0.16 seconds for the traditional and virtual fault trees, respectively, and then concludes that the virtual fault tree 'offers a significant advantage in terms of construction efficiency.' As written, the virtual tree took longer. Please clarify the measurement protocol, the units, the system under test, and either correct the claim or the reported times.
  4. [Sections 3.2-3.3] The central methodological claim is that an ISM-derived DAG over basic events can serve as a virtual fault tree and that message passing over this graph can reproduce FV importance values defined by Boolean gate logic and minimal cut sets. No logical equivalence is established between the ISM reachability graph and the fault-tree semantics, and the GCN is trained on FV labels produced by RiskSpectrum from the same two fault trees on which it is later evaluated. The reported accuracy is therefore an interpolation test on a single data generator, not a predictive test on new fault-tree topologies. Please provide either a formal equivalence argument or an experiment with held-out topologies.
  5. [Section 4.2-4.3] The experimental protocol is not sufficiently documented to evaluate the reported point estimates. The paper states that 304 and 316 data points were collected for the CS and SI systems but does not specify the train/validation/test split, the number of independent runs, the range of probability fluctuations used for data generation, or the variability of the metrics. In addition, Eq. (1) defines a single linear propagation D^{-1}AXW with no activation or self-loops, which does not match the three-layer GCN described in Section 4.3. Please document the full protocol and the exact layer update used.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The R2 formula is incorrect: it is missing the squared terms and should read R2 = 1 - Sum((yi - yhat_i)^2) / Sum((yi - ybar)^2).
  2. [Table 3] The caption 'The Parameters α, β, and γ in the HCR Model' appears unrelated to the reachability-set table shown; please correct the caption.
  3. [Figure 6] The caption 'Simplified system diagram for a NPP' seems to describe a different figure than the SSIM matrix shown; please verify all figure captions.
  4. [Section 4.3] Please clarify the exact GCN update: Eq. (1) has no nonlinearity or self-loop term, while the text states three convolutional layers with hidden dimension 32.
  5. [Section 5.3] The parenthetical '(time units to be clarified)' should be resolved and the time measurement should identify which system and which construction task are being timed.
  6. [Author contributions] The author-contributions section lists five individuals (Qi Ben, Peng Pengcheng, Liang Jingang, Tong Jiejuan, Wang Haitao) who are not present in the byline; this needs editorial verification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GNN is a supervised surrogate trained on RiskSpectrum-generated FV labels, and no derivation step reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a GCN, fed with event probabilities and an ISM-derived graph, can approximate FV importance values that were originally computed by RiskSpectrum. This is a standard supervised regression setup: labels are generated by an external tool, the model is trained to reproduce them, and the reported metrics compare predictions to held-out labels from the same generator. Nothing in the paper defines FV importance in terms of the GNN output, and no equation makes the prediction equivalent to the training target by construction. The ISM-based 'virtual fault tree' is an expert-supplied graph structure used as input; the paper does not claim that this graph is logically equivalent to the Boolean fault tree, only that it captures expert-elicited relationships. The self-citations in Section 2.2 (references [22], [23], [24]) support background claims about ISM applications and expert knowledge and are not load-bearing for the model's derivation. The per-event inaccuracies in Table 6, the disagreement between Section 5.2 metrics and Table 5, and the swapped RMSE/MAE for Claude are correctness and reporting concerns, not circularity. The paper also openly limits its scope to small-scale fault trees in the conclusion. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or citations, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework relies on three unpaid inputs upstream of the GCN: expert-elicited ISM edges, RiskSpectrum-generated FV labels, and the assumption that graph convolution over an influence diagram can substitute for fault-tree gate logic. Free parameters are limited to the GCN weights, hand-set hyperparameters, and an unreported data-generation range.

free parameters (3)
  • GCN trainable weight matrices W = learned from data, values not reported
    Eq. 1 uses W as the learnable weight matrix; all reported metrics depend on the fitted weights.
  • GCN hyperparameters (layers, hidden dimension, learning rate) = 3 layers, 32 hidden units, 0.001
    Set by hand in Section 4.3 with no sensitivity analysis; they determine the fitted model and reported performance.
  • Data-generation fluctuation range = unspecified, within one order of magnitude
    Section 4.2 says data were generated by fluctuating parameter values within the same order of magnitude; the exact sampling scheme shapes the training distribution and is not reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption RiskSpectrum PSA v1.5.4 computes correct FV importance and minimal cut sets for the benchmark systems.
    Section 4.2 uses RiskSpectrum output as reference labels; the paper does not verify the software outputs against analytic fault-tree solutions.
  • domain assumption The two-round Delphi expert survey correctly identifies all pairwise influence relationships among the six basic events.
    Section 4.2.3: the SSIM and reachability matrix are built entirely from expert consensus, with no independent technical validation of the edges.
  • ad hoc to paper GCN message passing over the ISM influence graph can represent FV importance values determined by Boolean fault-tree logic.
    Section 3.3 assumes adjacency matrix A in Eq. 1 is sufficient for regression, but no theorem or experiment shows that influence edges between basic events encode AND/OR gate logic or minimal cut sets.
  • domain assumption The lognormal distributions and mean values in Table 2 adequately characterize the failure behavior of the simulated system.
    Standard PSA practice; these parameters define the data-generating distribution for both training and evaluation.
invented entities (1)
  • Virtual fault tree
    purpose: A directed acyclic graph of basic events built from ISM reachability, used as the adjacency input to the GCN in place of a Boolean fault tree.
    Introduced in Sections 3.2 and 3.3; no external benchmark or logical proof shows the graph preserves FV importance semantics, and the case study only demonstrates its use as an adjacency matrix.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Hybrid Real-Time Framework for Efficient Fussell-Vesely Importance Evaluation Using Virtual Fault Trees and Graph Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IPCPHDCS

@misc{pith2026241210484,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Hybrid Real-Time Framework for Efficient Fussell-Vesely Importance Evaluation Using Virtual Fault Trees and Graph Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IPCPHDCS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10484}
}
read the original abstract

The Fussell-Vesely Importance (FV) reflects the potential impact of a basic event on system failure, and is crucial for ensuring system reliability. However, traditional methods for calculating FV importance are complex and time-consuming, requiring the construction of fault trees and the calculation of minimal cut set. To address these limitations, this study proposes a hybrid real-time framework to evaluate the FV importance of basic events. Our framework combines expert knowledge with a data-driven model. First, we use Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) to build a virtual fault tree that captures the relationships between basic events. Unlike traditional fault trees, which include intermediate events, our virtual fault tree consists solely of basic events, reducing its complexity and space requirements. Additionally, our virtual fault tree considers the dependencies between basic events rather than assuming their independence, as is typically done in traditional fault trees. We then feed both the event relationships and relevant data into a graph neural network (GNN). This approach enables a rapid, data-driven calculation of FV importance, significantly reducing processing time and quickly identifying critical events, thus providing robust decision support for risk control. Results demonstrate that our model performs well in terms of MSE, RMSE, MAE, and R2, reducing computational energy consumption and offering real-time, risk-informed decision support for complex systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10484 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hybrid framework for real-time fussell-vesely importance evaluation integrating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simplified system diagram for a nuclear power plant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fault tree for the safety injection system in the case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fault tree for the containment spray system in the case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The relationships among various variables needed to be consulted. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simplified system diagram for a NPP 4. Calculate the reachability matrix M from SSIM. The reachability ma￾trix (M) denotes whether there is a connected path from one variable to another. If node Ni can be connected to node Nj after a certain length of path, it is consi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The reachability matrix (M) 5. Partition M into different levels to construct the influence diagram. Define the reachability set R(Xi) as elements that are reachable from Xi (including Xi), and the antecedent set A(Xi) as the elements that can reach Xi (including Xi). …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The hierarchical structure of safety injection and containment spray systems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Structural representation of basic event dependencies identified via HillClimb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Architecture of the constructed four-layer MLP for comparative experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The prompt content with Claude 3.5 Sonnet for solving FV importance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of inference time across GNN, MLP, and Claude algorithms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. 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

53 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Dewey, David Brown, William H

    Todd M. Dewey, David Brown, William H. Ryan, Morley A. Herbert, Syma L. Prince, and Michael J. Mack, Reliability of risk algorithms in 25 predicting early and late operative outcomes in high-risk patients under- going aortic valve replacement , The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovas- cular Surgery, vol. 135, no. 1, pp. 180–187, 2008. Published by Elsevier

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Tero Tyrv¨ ainen,Risk importance measures in the dynamic flowgraph methodology, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 118, pp. 35– 50, 2013. Published by Elsevier

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Firmansyah Nur Budiman and Ali Muhammad Rushdi, Reliability Eval- uation of an Electric Power System Utilizing Fault-Tree Analysis , Jour- nal of Engineering and Computer Sciences, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 37–63, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Enno Ruijters and Mari¨ elle Stoelinga, Fault tree analysis: A survey of the state-of-the-art in modeling, analysis and tools , Computer Science Review, vol. 15, pp. 29–62, 2015. Published by Elsevier

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Steffen Klamt, Radhakrishnan Mahadevan, and Axel von Kamp, Speed- ing up the core algorithm for the dual calculation of minimal cut sets in large metabolic networks , BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 510,

    work page

  6. [6]

    Jørn Vatn, Finding minimal cut sets in a fault tree , Reliability Engi- neering & System Safety, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 59–62, 1992. Published by Elsevier

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    Clarotti, Limitations of minimal cut-set approach in evaluating reliability of systems with repairable components , IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol

    Carlo A. Clarotti, Limitations of minimal cut-set approach in evaluating reliability of systems with repairable components , IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 335–338, 1981. Published by IEEE

    work page 1981

  8. [8]

    266–280, 2016

    Ola B¨ ackstr¨ om, Yuliya Butkova, Holger Hermanns, Jan Krˇ c´ al, and Pavel Krˇ c´ al,Effective static and dynamic fault tree analysis , Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security: 35th International Conference, SAFECOMP 2016, Trondheim, Norway, September 21-23, 2016, Proceedings 35, pp. 266–280, 2016. Published by Springer

    work page 2016

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Joachim Grimstad and Andrey Morozov, Reinforcement Learning and Graph Neural Networks for Probabilistic Risk Assessment , arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18246, 2024. 26

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    D. Wang, P. Zhang and L. Chen, Fuzzy fault tree analysis for fire and explosion of crude oil tanks , Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Elsevier, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1390–1398, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Howard Edward Lambert, Fault Trees for Decision-Making in Systems Analysis, University of California, Berkeley, 1975

    1975

  4. [12]

    Fussell, How to hand-calculate system reliability and safety charac- teristics, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol

    J.B. Fussell, How to hand-calculate system reliability and safety charac- teristics, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 169–174,

  5. [13]

    Woo Sik Jung, Sang Hoon Han, and Jaejoo Ha, A fast BDD algorithm for large coherent fault trees analysis , Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 369–374, 2004. Published by Elsevier

    2004

  6. [14]

    Andrea Bobbio, Luigi Portinale, Michele Minichino, and Ester Cian- camerla, Improving the analysis of dependable systems by mapping fault trees into Bayesian networks , Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 249–260, 2001. Published by Elsevier

    2001

  7. [15]

    779–790, 2013

    Merav Parter and David Peleg, Sparse fault-tolerant BFS trees , Eu- ropean Symposium on Algorithms, pp. 779–790, 2013. Published by Springer

    2013

  8. [16]

    Reay and John D

    Karen A. Reay and John D. Andrews, A fault tree analysis strategy using binary decision diagrams, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 45–56, 2002. Published by Elsevier

    2002

  9. [17]

    Nima Khakzad, Faisal Khan, and Paul Amyotte, Safety analysis in process facilities: Comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network ap- proaches, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 96, no. 8, pp. 925–932, 2011. Published by Elsevier

    2011

  10. [18]

    Durga Rao, V

    K. Durga Rao, V. Gopika, V. V. S. Sanyasi Rao, H. S. Kushwaha, Ajit Kumar Verma, and Ajit Srividya, Dynamic fault tree analysis using Monte Carlo simulation in probabilistic safety assessment , Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 872–883, 2009. Pub- li...

    2009

  11. [19]

    1–6, 2024

    Yunfei Zhao and Joseph O’Leary, Solving Large Fault Trees with Impor- tance Sampling and Tree Search, 2024 Annual Reliability and Maintain- ability Symposium (RAMS), pp. 1–6, 2024. Published by IEEE

    2024

  12. [20]

    Olexandr Yevkin, An efficient approximate Markov chain method in dy- namic fault tree analysis , Quality and Reliability Engineering Interna- tional, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1509–1520, 2016. Published by Wiley Online Library

    2016

  13. [21]

    Yuchang Mo, Farong Zhong, Huawen Liu, Quansheng Yang, and Gang Cui, Efficient ordering heuristics in binary decision diagram-based fault tree analysis, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 307–315, 2013. Published by Wiley Online Library

    2013

  14. [22]

    Deng, Qing, Xiao, Xingyu, Zhu, Lin, Cao, Xue, Liu, Kai, Zhang, Hui, Huang, Lida, Yu, Feng, Jiang, Huiling, and Liu, Yi, A national risk analysis model (NRAM) for the assessment of COVID-19 epidemic, Risk Analysis, Wiley Online Library, volume 43, number 10, pages 1946–1961, 2023

    1946

  15. [23]

    Ma, Yaping, Yao, Mengjiao, Yu, Feng, Xiao, Xingyu, Huang, Lida, Zhang, Hui, and Deng, Qing, An international relations quantitative evaluation model (IRQEM) based on an integrated method , Risk Analy- sis, Wiley Online Library, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Xiao, Xingyu, Liang, Jingang, Tong, Jiejuan, and Wang, Haitao, Emer- gency Decision Support Techniques for Nuclear Power Plants: Current State, Challenges, and Future Trends, Energies, MDPI, volume 17, num- ber 10, pages 2439, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Li, Yuzhuo, Xue, Cheng, Zargari, Faraz, and Li, Yunwei, From Graph Theory to Graph Neural Networks (GNNs): The Opportunities of GNNs in Power Electronics , IEEE Access, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Zhou, Jie, Cui, Ganqu, Hu, Shengding, Zhang, Zhengyan, Yang, Cheng, Liu, Zhiyuan, Wang, Lifeng, Li, Changcheng, and Sun, Maosong, Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications , AI Open, Else- vier, volume 1, pages 57–81, 2020. 28

    2020

  19. [27]

    Liu, Ruonan, Zhang, Quanhu, Lin, Di, Zhang, Weidong, and Ding, Steven X, Causal intervention graph neural network for fault diagno- sis of complex industrial processes , Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Elsevier, volume 251, pages 110328, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Nguyen, Bang LH, Vu, Tuyen V, Nguyen, Thai-Thanh, Panwar, Mayank, and Hovsapian, Rob, Spatial-temporal recurrent graph neural networks for fault diagnostics in power distribution systems , IEEE Ac- cess, IEEE, volume 11, pages 46039–46050, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Wu, Shiwen, Sun, Fei, Zhang, Wentao, Xie, Xu, and Cui, Bin, Graph neural networks in recommender systems: a survey , ACM Computing Surveys, ACM New York, NY, volume 55, number 5, pages 1–37, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    M.D. Singh and Ravi Kant, Knowledge management barriers: An inter- pretive structural modeling approach , International Journal of Manage- ment Science and Engineering Management, Taylor & Francis, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 141–150, 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    Miguel Ramirez de la Huerga, Victor A. Ba˜ nuls Silvera, and Murray Turoff, A CIA–ISM scenario approach for analyzing complex cascading effects in operational risk management , Elsevier, Engineering Applica- tions of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 46, pp. 289–302, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    Yimeng Song and Shengyue Hao, ISM based method for risk manage- ment of international EPC projects , IOP Publishing, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 455, no. 1, pp. 012208, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Saad Jameel, and Abid Haleem, Knowledge man- agement in project management: An ISM approach , LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2013

    Bisma Mannan, S.M. Saad Jameel, and Abid Haleem, Knowledge man- agement in project management: An ISM approach , LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    Hedieh Shakeri and Mohammad Khalilzadeh, Analysis of factors affect- ing project communications with a hybrid DEMATEL-ISM approach (A case study in Iran) , Elsevier, Heliyon, vol. 6, no. 8, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Debesh Mishra and Suchismita Satapathy, An Integrated SWARA, QFD, and ISM Approach for Agricultural Injuries in India , IGI Global, International Journal of Decision Support System Technology (IJDSST), vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1–24, 2020. 29

    2020

  28. [36]

    Vinodh, Development of a structural model based on ISM for analysis of barriers to integration of lean with Industry 4.0 , Emerald Publishing Limited, The TQM Journal, vol

    S. Vinodh, Development of a structural model based on ISM for analysis of barriers to integration of lean with Industry 4.0 , Emerald Publishing Limited, The TQM Journal, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1201–1221, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Fenyu Hu, Yanqiao Zhu, Shu Wu, Liang Wang, and Tieniu Tan, Hier- archical graph convolutional networks for semi-supervised node classifi- cation, arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.06667, 2019

    1902 arXiv

  30. [38]

    841–851, 2020

    Sami Abu-El-Haija, Amol Kapoor, Bryan Perozzi, and Joonseok Lee, N-GCN: Multi-scale graph convolution for semi-supervised node classifi- cation, PMLR, Proceedings of the Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence Conference, pp. 841–851, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Liang Yao, Chengsheng Mao, and Yuan Luo, Graph convolutional net- works for text classification , Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, no. 01, pp. 7370–7377, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    388–396, 2019

    Kai Lei, Meng Qin, Bo Bai, Gong Zhang, and Min Yang, GCN-GAN: A non-linear temporal link prediction model for weighted dynamic net- works, IEEE, IEEE INFOCOM 2019 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, pp. 388–396, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Zhao Li, Zhanlin Liu, Jiaming Huang, Geyu Tang, Yucong Duan, Zhiqiang Zhang, and Yifan Yang, MV-GCN: Multi-view graph convo- lutional networks for link prediction , IEEE, IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 176317–176328, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Tsitsiklis, Introduction to Probability , Athena Scientific, vol

    Dimitri Bertsekas and John N. Tsitsiklis, Introduction to Probability , Athena Scientific, vol. 1, 2008

    2008

  35. [43]

    Maxim Finkelstein, Failure Rate Modelling for Reliability and Risk , Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    2008

  36. [44]

    Balth Van der Pol and Jan Van Der Mark, Frequency demultiplication, Nature Publishing Group, Nature, vol. 120, no. 3019, pp. 363–364, 1927

    1927

  37. [45]

    Kullstam, Availability, MTBF and MTTR for repairable M out of N system , IEEE, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol

    Per A. Kullstam, Availability, MTBF and MTTR for repairable M out of N system , IEEE, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 393–394, 1981. 30

    1981

  38. [46]

    Spencer, Lisa A

    Richard Paylor, Corinne M. Spencer, Lisa A. Yuva-Paylor, and Sandra Pieke-Dahl, The use of behavioral test batteries, II: effect of test interval, Elsevier, Physiology & Behavior, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 95–102, 2006

    2006

  39. [47]

    H. A. Linstone, M. Turoff, The Delphi Method , Addison-Wesley, Read- ing, MA, 1975

    1975

  40. [48]

    Lalouni, Sofia, Rekioua, Djamila, Idjdarene, Kassa, and Tounzi, Abdel- mounaim, Maximum power point tracking based hybrid hill-climb search method applied to wind energy conversion system , Electric Power Com- ponents and Systems, Taylor & Francis, volume 43, numbers 8-10, pag...

    2015

  41. [49]

    Scutari, Marco, An empirical-Bayes score for discrete Bayesian net- works, Conference on Probabilistic Graphical Models, PMLR, pages 438–448, 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    Diagnosis Please

    Kurokawa, Ryo, Ohizumi, Yuji, Kanzawa, Jun, Kurokawa, Mariko, Son- oda, Yuki, Nakamura, Yuta, Kiguchi, Takao, Gonoi, Wataru, and Abe, Osamu, Diagnostic performances of Claude 3 Opus and Claude 3.5 Sonnet from patient history and key images in Radiology’s “Diagnosis Please” cas...

    2024

  43. [51]

    Bae, Jaehyeon, Kwon, Seoryeong, and Myeong, Seunghwan, Enhanc- ing Software Code Vulnerability Detection Using GPT-4o and Claude- 3.5 Sonnet: A Study on Prompt Engineering Techniques , Electronics, MDPI, volume 13, number 13, pages 2657, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Zamfirescu-Pereira, JD, Wong, Richmond Y, Hartmann, Bjoern, and Yang, Qian, Why Johnny can ’t prompt: how non-AI experts try (and fail) to design LLM prompts, Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, MIT Press One Rogers Street, Cambridge, ...

    2023

  45. [2020]

    Published by Springer

Pith tools

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