FedAvg-Based CTMC Hazard Model for Federated Bridge Deterioration Assessment
Organizations: 1Yachiyo Engineering Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan
Abstract
Bridge periodic inspection records contain sensitive information about public infrastructure, making cross-organizational data sharing impractical under existing data governance constraints. We propose a federated framework for estimating a Continuous-Time Markov Chain (CTMC) hazard model of bridge deterioration, enabling municipalities to collaboratively train a shared benchmark model without transferring raw inspection records. Each User holds local inspection data and trains a log-linear hazard model over three deterioration-direction transitions -- GoodMinor, GoodSevere, and MinorSevere -- with covariates for bridge age, coastline distance, and deck area. Local optimization is performed via mini-batch stochastic gradient descent on the CTMC log-likelihood, and only a 12-dimensional pseudo-gradient vector is uploaded to a central server per communication round. The server aggregates User updates using sample-weighted Federated Averaging (FedAvg) with momentum and gradient clipping. All experiments in this paper are conducted on fully synthetic data generated from a known ground-truth parameter set with region-specific heterogeneity, enabling controlled evaluation of federated convergence behaviour. Simulation results across heterogeneous Users show consistent convergence of the average negative log-likelihood, with the aggregated gradient norm decreasing as User scale increases. Furthermore, the federated update mechanism provides a natural participation incentive: Users who register their local inspection datasets on a shared technical-standard platform receive in return the periodically updated global benchmark parameters -- information that cannot be obtained from local data alone -- thereby enabling evidence-based life-cycle planning without surrendering data sovereignty.
Figures & tables
| Metric | 500 | 2,000 | 4,000 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transition pairs (total) | 70,487 | 278,627 | 552,844 |
| Users per round | 50 | 200 | 400 |
| Avg samples/round | 6,000 | 28,000 | 55,000 |
| Round 1 Avg NLL | 3.42 | 3.57 | 3.55 |
| Round 50 Avg NLL | 0.775 | 0.763 | 0.766 |
| Round 50 | 0.354 | 0.175 | 0.140 |
| Transition | Coef | True | Learned | Error |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario ( ) | State 0 | State 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Young, far, small | : 0.570, : 0.398, : 0.032 | : 0.630, : 0.370 |
| Mid-age, near, medium | : 0.535, : 0.438, : 0.027 | : 0.646, : 0.354 |
| Old, near, large | : 0.562, : 0.425, : 0.013 | : 0.724, : 0.276 |