MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7108477367 · doi:10.1145/3768184.3768231

Learning to Simulate Structural Failures: A CVAE Framework for Engineering Risk

2025· article· W7108477367 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Benchmark (surveying)InferenceBayesian inferenceSurrogate modelBayesian probabilityUncertainty quantificationImportance samplingBayes' theoremConditional probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In engineering risk analysis, accurately estimating the structural failure probability of complex nonlinear systems remains a formidable challenge due to the high cost of repeated simulator evaluations. This paper proposes a conditional variational autoencoder (CVAE)-based simulation-based inference (SBI) framework to address this issue. By learning a generative model of the conditional limit-state function \(g( x )\mid x\), the proposed method enables efficient reliability estimation through conditional sampling and Bayesian inference. We demonstrate our method on a two-dimensional benchmark problem involving a four-branch limit-state surface, where each branch represents a distinct failure mechanism such as cracking, sliding, overload, or dynamic instability—typical of dam components under seismic or hydraulic loading. The CVAE surrogate successfully captures the structure of the failure boundary and provides credible intervals for the predicted failure probability. Experimental results show that the estimation achieves high accuracy, with relative error less than 3%, using only a small number of simulator calls. This confirms the potential of CVAE-based SBI as a general-purpose surrogate for structural reliability analysis. Looking ahead, our method will be extended to high-dimensional, physics-informed models and applied to real-world reliability assessments in hydropower infrastructure systems, where accurate uncertainty-aware risk quantification is critical for structural safety and decision-making.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207