Application of probabilistic modeling and automated machine learning framework for high-dimensional stress field

Modern computational methods, involving highly sophisticated mathematical formulations, enable several tasks like modeling complex physical phenomenon, predicting key properties and design optimization. The higher fidelity in these computer models makes it computationally intensive to query them hundreds of times for optimization and one usually relies on a simplified model albeit at the cost of losing predictive accuracy and precision. Towards this, data-driven surrogate modeling methods have shown a lot of promise in emulating the behavior of the expensive computer models. However, a major bottleneck in such methods is the inability to deal with high input dimensionality and the need for relatively large datasets. With such problems, the input and output quantity of interest are tensors of high dimensionality. Commonly used surrogate modeling methods for such problems, suffer from requirements like high number of computational evaluations that precludes one from performing other numerical tasks like uncertainty quantification and statistical analysis. In this work, we propose an end-to-end approach that maps a high-dimensional image like input to an output of high dimensionality or its key statistics. Our approach uses two main framework that perform three steps: a) reduce the input and output from a high-dimensional space to a reduced or low-dimensional space, b) model the input-output relationship in the low-dimensional space, and c) enable the incorporation of domain-specific physical constraints as masks. In order to accomplish the task of reducing input dimensionality we leverage principal component analysis, that is coupled with two surrogate modeling methods namely: a) Bayesian hybrid modeling, and b) DeepHyper's deep neural networks. We demonstrate the applicability of the approach on a problem of a linear elastic stress field data.

[1]  R. Umretiya,et al.  Elucidating precipitation in FeCrAl alloys through explainable AI: A case study , 2023, Computational Materials Science.

[2]  V. Dheeradhada,et al.  On Uncertainty Quantification in Materials Modeling and Discovery: Applications of GE's BHM and IDACE , 2023, AIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum.

[3]  R. Umretiya,et al.  Understanding oxidation of Fe-Cr-Al alloys through explainable artificial intelligence , 2023, MRS Communications.

[4]  D. Ruscitto,et al.  Data-driven predictive modeling of FeCrAl oxidation , 2023, Materials Letters: X.

[5]  Michael D. Todd,et al.  A Comparative Study of Surrogate Modeling of Nonlinear Dynamic Systems , 2022, Volume 2: 42nd Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (CIE).

[6]  Kathryn A. Maupin,et al.  Integrated Computational Materials Engineering With Monotonic Gaussian Processes , 2022, Volume 2: 42nd Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (CIE).

[7]  L. Graham‐Brady,et al.  Stress field prediction in fiber-reinforced composite materials using a deep learning approach , 2021, Composites Part B: Engineering.

[8]  Christian Soize,et al.  Probabilistic learning on manifolds (PLoM) with partition , 2021, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering.

[9]  Y. Marzouk,et al.  Nonlinear dimension reduction for surrogate modeling using gradient information , 2021, ArXiv.

[10]  Christopher S. Meyer,et al.  Probabilistic modeling of discrete structural response with application to composite plate penetration models. , 2020, 2011.11780.

[11]  Michael D. Shields,et al.  On the usefulness of gradient information in surrogate modeling: Application to uncertainty propagation in composite material models , 2020 .

[12]  Yiming Zhang,et al.  Advances in Bayesian Probabilistic Modeling for Industrial Applications , 2020, ASCE-ASME J Risk and Uncert in Engrg Sys Part B Mech Engrg.

[13]  C. Abrams,et al.  Free energy calculation using space filled design and weighted reconstruction: a modified single sweep approach , 2020 .

[14]  Anurag Purwar,et al.  Computational Creativity Via Assisted Variational Synthesis of Mechanisms Using Deep Generative Models , 2019, Journal of Mechanical Design.

[15]  Prasanna Balaprakash,et al.  DeepHyper: Asynchronous Hyperparameter Search for Deep Neural Networks , 2018, 2018 IEEE 25th International Conference on High Performance Computing (HiPC).

[16]  Haitao Liu,et al.  When Gaussian Process Meets Big Data: A Review of Scalable GPs , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems.

[17]  Kevin Ryan,et al.  An intelligent sampling framework for multi-objective optimization in high dimensional design space , 2018 .

[18]  Anindya Bhaduri,et al.  An efficient adaptive sparse grid collocation method through derivative estimation , 2017, 1709.04562.

[19]  Liping Wang,et al.  Expected-Improvement-Based Methods for Adaptive Sampling in Multi-Objective Optimization Problems , 2016, DAC 2016.

[20]  Jitesh H. Panchal,et al.  Extending Expected Improvement for High-dimensional Stochastic Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions , 2016, DAC 2016.

[21]  Roger G. Ghanem,et al.  Reduced Wiener Chaos representation of random fields via basis adaptation and projection , 2016, J. Comput. Phys..

[22]  Ilias Bilionis,et al.  Gaussian processes with built-in dimensionality reduction: Applications in high-dimensional uncertainty propagation , 2016, 1602.04550.

[23]  Paul G. Constantine,et al.  Active Subspaces - Emerging Ideas for Dimension Reduction in Parameter Studies , 2015, SIAM spotlights.

[24]  Alberto D. Pascual-Montano,et al.  A survey of dimensionality reduction techniques , 2014, ArXiv.

[25]  Liping Wang,et al.  Calibrating Transient Models With Multiple Responses Using Bayesian Inverse Techniques , 2013 .

[26]  Qiqi Wang,et al.  Erratum: Active Subspace Methods in Theory and Practice: Applications to Kriging Surfaces , 2013, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[27]  Sankaran Mahadevan,et al.  Surrogate modeling of 3D crack growth , 2013 .

[28]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Variational Bayesian Inference with Stochastic Search , 2012, ICML.

[29]  Liping Wang,et al.  Improving High-Dimensional Physics Models Through Bayesian Calibration With Uncertain Data , 2012 .

[30]  Alex Graves,et al.  Practical Variational Inference for Neural Networks , 2011, NIPS.

[31]  P. Gemperline,et al.  Principal Component Analysis , 2009, Encyclopedia of Biometrics.

[32]  Carl E. Rasmussen,et al.  A Unifying View of Sparse Approximate Gaussian Process Regression , 2005, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[33]  Charbel Farhat,et al.  Modeling and Simulation of Multiphysics Systems , 2005, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[34]  Matthias W. Seeger,et al.  Gaussian Processes For Machine Learning , 2004, Int. J. Neural Syst..

[35]  Tong Zhang An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and Other Kernel-Based Learning Methods , 2001, AI Mag..

[36]  Christopher K. I. Williams Prediction with Gaussian Processes: From Linear Regression to Linear Prediction and Beyond , 1999, Learning in Graphical Models.

[37]  Norman R. Draper,et al.  Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments , 1997 .

[38]  R. Ghanem,et al.  Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach , 1990 .

[39]  P. Dong,et al.  Data-driven modeling of multiaxial fatigue in frequency domain , 2022, Marine Structures.

[40]  P. Dong,et al.  A multi-axial vibration fatigue evaluation procedure for welded structures in frequency domain , 2022, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing.

[41]  Ralf Zimmermann,et al.  Gradient-enhanced surrogate modeling based on proper orthogonal decomposition , 2013, J. Comput. Appl. Math..

[42]  Liping Wang,et al.  Challenges in Uncertainty, Calibration, Validation and Predictability of Engineering Analysis Models , 2011 .

[43]  A. O'Hagan,et al.  Bayesian calibration of computer models , 2001 .