Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

A physics and data co-driven surrogate modeling method for high-dimensional rare event simulation

Published 30 Sep 2023 in stat.CO and stat.AP | (2310.00261v2)

Abstract: This paper presents a physics and data co-driven surrogate modeling method for efficient rare event simulation of civil and mechanical systems with high-dimensional input uncertainties. The method fuses interpretable low-fidelity physical models with data-driven error corrections. The hypothesis is that a well-designed and well-trained simplified physical model can preserve salient features of the original model, while data-fitting techniques can fill the remaining gaps between the surrogate and original model predictions. The coupled physics-data-driven surrogate model is adaptively trained using active learning, aiming to achieve a high correlation and small bias between the surrogate and original model responses in the critical parametric region of a rare event. A final importance sampling step is introduced to correct the surrogate model-based probability estimations. Static and dynamic problems with input uncertainties modeled by random field and stochastic process are studied to demonstrate the proposed method.

Authors (2)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (77)
  1. Estimation of rare event probabilities in complex aerospace and other systems: A practical approach. Woodhead Publishing, 2015.
  2. The risk of the electrical power grid due to natural hazards and recovery challenge following disasters and record floods: What next? In Climate Change and Extreme Events, pages 215–238. Elsevier, 2021.
  3. TRISO particle fuel performance and failure analysis with BISON. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 548:152795, 2021.
  4. A mixture distribution with fractional moments for efficient seismic reliability analysis of nonlinear structures. Engineering Structures, 208:109912, 2020.
  5. An adaptive mixture of normal-inverse Gaussian distributions for structural reliability analysis. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 148(3):04022011, 2022.
  6. Stochastic dynamics of structures. John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
  7. Direct probability integral method for stochastic response analysis of static and dynamic structural systems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 357:112612, 2019.
  8. Seismic reliability analysis of energy-dissipation structures by combining probability density evolution method and explicit time-domain method. Structural Safety, 88:102010, 2021.
  9. A unified formalism of the GE-GDEE for generic continuous responses and first-passage reliability analysis of multi-dimensional nonlinear systems subjected to non-white-noise excitations. Structural Safety, 98:102233, 2022.
  10. Modern simulation and modeling, volume 7. Wiley New York, 1998.
  11. A guide to Monte Carlo simulations in statistical physics. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
  12. Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 16(4):263–277, 2001.
  13. Cross-entropy-based adaptive importance sampling using Gaussian mixture. Structural Safety, 42:35–44, 2013.
  14. Cross-entropy-based adaptive importance sampling using von Mises-Fisher mixture for high dimensional reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 59:42–52, 2016.
  15. Bayesian updating and marginal likelihood estimation by cross entropy based importance sampling. Journal of Computational Physics, 473:111746, 2023.
  16. Mircea Grigoriu. Data-based importance sampling estimates for extreme events. Journal of Computational Physics, 412:109429, 2020.
  17. Sequential importance sampling for structural reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 62:66–75, 2016.
  18. Hamiltonian Monte Carlo methods for subset simulation in reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 76:51–67, 2019.
  19. Relaxation-based importance sampling for structural reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 106:102393, 2024.
  20. A new look at the response surface approach for reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 12(3):205–220, 1993.
  21. An improvement of the response surface method. Structural Safety, 33(2):165–172, 2011.
  22. Comparison of finite element reliability methods. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 17(4):337–348, 2002.
  23. An active-learning algorithm that combines sparse polynomial chaos expansions and bootstrap for structural reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 75:67–74, 2018.
  24. Data-driven polynomial chaos expansion for machine learning regression. Journal of Computational Physics, 388:601–623, 2019.
  25. Jorge E Hurtado. An examination of methods for approximating implicit limit state functions from the viewpoint of statistical learning theory. Structural Safety, 26(3):271–293, 2004.
  26. Support vector machine in structural reliability analysis: A review. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, page 109126, 2023.
  27. Irfan Kaymaz. Application of kriging method to structural reliability problems. Structural Safety, 27(2):133–151, 2005.
  28. Efficient global reliability analysis for nonlinear implicit performance functions. AIAA journal, 46(10):2459–2468, 2008.
  29. AK-MCS: An active learning reliability method combining Kriging and Monte Carlo simulation. Structural Safety, 33(2):145–154, 2011.
  30. A combined importance sampling and kriging reliability method for small failure probabilities with time-demanding numerical models. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 111:232–240, 2013.
  31. Assessing small failure probabilities by AK–SS: An active learning method combining Kriging and Subset Simulation. Structural Safety, 59:86–95, 2016.
  32. A novel active learning-based Gaussian process metamodelling strategy for estimating the full probability distribution in forward UQ analysis. Structural Safety, 84:101937, 2020.
  33. Donald R Jones. A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces. Journal of Global Optimization, 21:345–383, 2001.
  34. The design and analysis of computer experiments, volume 1. Springer, 2003.
  35. Bruno Sudret. Meta-models for structural reliability and uncertainty quantification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.2062, 2012.
  36. Extending classical surrogate modeling to high dimensions through supervised dimensionality reduction: A data-driven approach. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification, 10(1), 2020.
  37. Uncertainty quantification for complex systems with very high dimensional response using Grassmann manifold variations. Journal of Computational Physics, 364:393–415, 2018.
  38. Data-driven surrogates for high dimensional models using Gaussian process regression on the Grassmann manifold. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 370:113269, 2020.
  39. Grassmannian diffusion maps–based dimension reduction and classification for high-dimensional data. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 44(2):B250–B274, 2022.
  40. A survey of unsupervised learning methods for high-dimensional uncertainty quantification in black-box-type problems. Journal of Computational Physics, 464:111313, 2022.
  41. High dimensional structural reliability with dimension reduction. Structural Safety, 69:35–46, 2017.
  42. Active learning and active subspace enhancement for PDEM-based high-dimensional reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 88:102026, 2021.
  43. N Navaneeth and Souvik Chakraborty. Surrogate assisted active subspace and active subspace assisted surrogate—A new paradigm for high dimensional structural reliability analysis. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 389:114374, 2022.
  44. Adaptive active subspace-based metamodeling for high-dimensional reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 106:102404, 2024.
  45. A recursive dimension-reduction method for high-dimensional reliability analysis with rare failure event. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 213:107710, 2021.
  46. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 378:686–707, 2019.
  47. Physics-constrained deep learning for high-dimensional surrogate modeling and uncertainty quantification without labeled data. Journal of Computational Physics, 394:56–81, 2019.
  48. Bayesian physics informed neural networks for real-world nonlinear dynamical systems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 402:115346, 2022.
  49. PINN-FORM: A new physics-informed neural network for reliability analysis with partial differential equation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 414:116172, 2023.
  50. Survey of multifidelity methods in uncertainty propagation, inference, and optimization. Siam Review, 60(3):550–591, 2018.
  51. Multifidelity importance sampling. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 300:490–509, 2016.
  52. Multifidelity probability estimation via fusion of estimators. Journal of Computational Physics, 392:385–402, 2019.
  53. Overview of the incompressible navier–stokes simulation capabilities in the MOOSE framework. Advances in Engineering Software, 119:68–92, 2018.
  54. Improving variable-fidelity surrogate modeling via gradient-enhanced kriging and a generalized hybrid bridge function. Aerospace Science and Technology, 25(1):177–189, 2013.
  55. Isaac M Held. The gap between simulation and understanding in climate modeling. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 86(11):1609–1614, 2005.
  56. A survey of projection-based model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems. SIAM review, 57(4):483–531, 2015.
  57. Nonlinear model order reduction via lifting transformations and proper orthogonal decomposition. AIAA Journal, 57(6):2297–2307, 2019.
  58. D Patsialis and AA Taflanidis. Reduced order modeling of hysteretic structural response and applications to seismic risk assessment. Engineering Structures, 209:110135, 2020.
  59. Stephen H Crandall. A half-century of stochastic equivalent linearization. Structural Control and Health Monitoring: The Official Journal of the International Association for Structural Control and Monitoring and of the European Association for the Control of Structures, 13(1):27–40, 2006.
  60. Sixty years of stochastic linearization technique. Meccanica, 52:299–305, 2017.
  61. Ziqi Wang. Optimized equivalent linearization for random vibration. Structural Safety, 106:102402, 2024.
  62. Active learning with multifidelity modeling for efficient rare event simulation. Journal of Computational Physics, 468:111506, 2022.
  63. Reliability estimation of an advanced nuclear fuel using coupled active learning, multifidelity modeling, and subset simulation. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 226:108693, 2022.
  64. Retrieval of biophysical parameters with heteroscedastic Gaussian processes. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 11(4):838–842, 2013.
  65. Probabilistic modelling of wind turbine power curves with application of heteroscedastic Gaussian process regression. Renewable Energy, 148:1124–1136, 2020.
  66. Estimation of first-passage probability under stochastic wind excitations by active-learning-based heteroscedastic Gaussian process. Structural Safety, 100:102268, 2023.
  67. Comparison of values of Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaestiones geographicae, 30(2):87–93, 2011.
  68. Mutual information for explainable deep learning of multiscale systems. Journal of Computational Physics, 444:110551, 2021.
  69. Samir Beneddine. Nonlinear input feature reduction for data-based physical modeling. Journal of Computational Physics, 474:111832, 2023.
  70. Introduction to derivative-free optimization. SIAM, 2009.
  71. Reliability-based design optimization using kriging surrogates and subset simulation. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 44:673–690, 2011.
  72. Active learning for structural reliability: Survey, general framework and benchmark. Structural Safety, 96:102174, 2022.
  73. Radford M Neal et al. MCMC using Hamiltonian dynamics. Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo, 2(11):2, 2011.
  74. MCMC algorithms for subset simulation. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 41:89–103, 2015.
  75. Simulation of stochastic processes by spectral representation. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 44(4):191–204, 1991.
  76. Stochastic sensitivity analysis of energy-dissipating structures with nonlinear viscous dampers by efficient equivalent linearization technique based on explicit time-domain method. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 61:103080, 2020.
  77. YK Wen. Equivalent linearization for hysteretic systems under random excitation. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 47(1):150–154, 1980.
Citations (7)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.