CoNBONet: Conformalized Neuroscience-inspired Bayesian Operator Network for Reliability Analysis
Authors: Shailesh Garg, Souvik Chakraborty
Organizations: Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India. · Department of Applied Mechanics, Yardi School of Artificial Intelligence (YScAI), Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India.
Time-dependent reliability analysis of nonlinear dynamical systems under stochastic excitations is a critical yet computationally demanding task. Conventional approaches, such as Monte Carlo simulation, necessitate repeated evaluations of computationally expensive numerical solvers, leading to significant computational bottlenecks. To address this challenge, we propose CoNBONet, a neuroscience-inspired surrogate model that enables fast, energy-efficient, and uncertainty-aware reliability analysis, providing a scalable alternative to techniques such as Monte Carlo simulations. CoNBONet, short for Conformalized Neuroscience-inspired Bayesian Operator Network, leverages the expressive power of deep operator networks while integrating neuroscience-inspired neuron models to achieve fast, low-power inference. Unlike traditional surrogates such as Gaussian processes, polynomial chaos expansions, or support vector regression, that may face scalability challenges for high-dimensional, time-dependent reliability problems, CoNBONet offers fast and energy-efficient inference enabled by a neuroscience-inspired network architecture, calibrated uncertainty quantification with theoretical guarantees via split conformal prediction, and strong generalization capability through an operator-learning paradigm that maps input functions to system response trajectories. Validation of the proposed CoNBONet for various nonlinear dynamical systems demonstrates that CoNBONet preserves predictive fidelity, and achieves reliable coverage of failure probabilities, making it a powerful tool for robust and scalable reliability analysis in engineering design.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Schematic for information flow in CoNBONet.
Figure 2: Ratio of energy consumed by densely connected ANN layer vs densely connected VSN layer, when run for a single Spike Time Step (STS). It is assumed that all output nodes will produce spikes.
Figure 3: Ratio of energy consumed by densely connected ANN layer vs densely connected VSN layer, when run for two STSs.
Figure 4: Mean prediction from the CoNBONet compared against the ground truth with calibrated confidence intervals shown as the blue patch, for example E-I.
Layer
A1
A2
1 st DOF
14.70
18.20
Table 1: Spiking activity (%) for the two layers (A1 and A2) of branch network when using CoNBONet for example E-I.
Model
Coverage (%)
Number of time steps with coverage
Avg.
Min.
Max.
<95%
≥95%
BONet
93.98
81.46
100.00
53
47
CoBONet
99.73
98.68
100.00
0
100
NBONet
97.56
89.00
99.98
2
98
CoNBONet
97.76
96.92
99.86
0
100
Table 2: Coverage provided by the confidence intervals generated using various network in example E-I.
Figure 5: Probability of failure at different time steps in example E-I.
Mass (kg)
Stiffness (N/m)
Damping (Ns/m)
m1=10
k1=10000
c1=100
m2=10
k2=10000
c2=100
m3=9
k3=9000
c3=90
m4=9
k4=9000
c4=90
m5=7.5
k5=7500
c5=75
Table 3: System parameters for Case-II: five-DOF (5-DOF) Duffing oscillator.
Figure 6: Mean prediction from the CoNBONet compared against the ground truth with calibrated confidence intervals shown as the blue patch, for example E-II.
Network
1 st DOF
2 nd DOF
3 rd DOF
4 th DOF
5 th DOF
BONet
0.0018
0.0019
0.0027
0.0009
0.0018
CoNBONet
0.0048
0.0060
0.0022
0.0044
0.0051
Table 4: NMSE for each degree of freedom obtained when comparing network predictions against the ground truth in E-II.
Layer
1 st DOF
2 nd DOF
3 rd DOF
4 th DOF
5 th DOF
A1
11.5
12.5
14.0
15.0
16.1
A2
17.5
14.0
16.2
22.5
16.4
Table 5: Spiking activity (%) for the two layers (A1 and A2) of the branch network in CoNBONet (Example E-II).
Coverage (%)
Number of time steps with coverage
DOF
Model
AvgCov
MinCov
MaxCov
<95% / ≥95 (%)
1 st
BONet
95.30
83.72
99.94
29 / 71
CoBONet
99.23
98.18
99.96
0 / 100
NBONet
98.37
97.54
100.00
0 / 100
CoNBONet
98.52
97.24
99.98
0 / 100
2 nd
BONet
92.97
75.78
100.00
59 / 41
Table 6: Coverage provided by the confidence intervals generated using various network in example E-II.
Figure 7: PoF obtained using FTTF analysis at various DOFs in E-II. The PoF is computed corresponding to different threshold vales at each DOF.
DOF 0
DOF 1
DOF 2
DOF 3
DOF 4
Threshold
0.25
0.48
0.67
0.82
0.91
True PoF
0.633
0.617
0.607
0.599
0.596
BoundsMean PoF
[0.584,0.736]0.628
[0.581,0.694]0.614
[0.569,0.685]0.603
[0.563,0.718]0.596
[0.557,0.694]0.593
Table 7: PoF obtained using FTTF analysis at various DOFs in E-II. The PoF is computed at each DOF, correspondin to a single set of threshold values.
Figure 8: Mean prediction from the CoNBONet compared against the ground truth with calibrated confidence intervals shown as the blue patch, for example E-III.
Network
5 th DOF
15 th DOF
35 th DOF
65 th DOF
75 th DOF
BONet
0.0083
0.0027
0.0021
0.0011
0.0004
CoNBONet
0.0088
0.0072
0.0125
0.1101
0.0132
Table 8: NMSE for each degree of freedom obtained when comparing network predictions against the ground truth in E-III.
Layer
5 th DOF
15 th DOF
35 th DOF
65 th DOF
75 th DOF
A1
12.4
23.0
09.5
08.2
11.4
A2
31.3
15.0
24.3
09.4
08.0
Table 9: Spiking activity (%) for the two layers (A1 and A2) of the branch network in CoNBONet (Example E-III).
DOF
Model
AvgCov
MinCov
MaxCov
<95 / ≥95 (%)
5 th
BONet
85.91
76.36
100.00
86 / 14.00
CoBONet
98.66
97.54
100.00
0 / 100.00
NBONet
82.72
54.00
99.80
88 / 12.00
CoNBONet
99.02
97.62
99.72
0 / 100.00
15 th
BONet
89.97
81.18
99.96
73 / 27.00
CoBONet
98.95
98.12
99.96
0 / 100.00
Table 10: Coverage provided by the confidence intervals generated using various network in example E-III.
Figure 9: PoF obtained using FTTF analysis at 76 th DOF in E-III. The PoF is computed corresponding to different threshold vales.
Neural operators such as the Fourier Neural Operator (FNO) have emerged as powerful surrogates for solving partial differential equations (PDEs), achieving speedups of several orders of magnitude over traditional numerical solvers. However, deploying these models in safety-critical engineering applications -- such as thermal management of electronic components and battery systems -- requires not only accurate point predictions but also rigorous uncertainty guarantees. Existing uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods for neural operators, including Monte Carlo Dropout and Deep Ensembles, provide only relative uncertainty estimates without formal coverage guarantees. In this work, we propose the first application of split conformal prediction to neural operator-based physics simulation, providing distribution-free prediction intervals with finite-sample coverage guarantees. We further introduce a normalized conformal prediction scheme that leverages MC Dropout uncertainty to produce adaptive-width intervals, yielding tighter intervals in regions of low uncertainty and wider intervals where the model is less certain. Full-scale experiments (33.7M parameters, 800 training samples, 5 ensemble members, NVIDIA V100) on steady-state heat conduction benchmarks demonstrate that our method achieves 89.1% empirical coverage at the target level of alpha=0.1, while producing spatially adaptive prediction intervals that reflect the underlying physical uncertainty structure. We also provide an uncertainty decomposition framework that separates epistemic uncertainty (68% of total) from aleatoric uncertainty (32% of total), offering actionable guidance for data collection and model improvement. Our method is implemented in an open-source platform with REST API endpoints and interactive 3D visualization.
Neural operators (NOs) provide fast, resolution-invariant surrogates for mapping input fields to PDE solution fields, but their predictions can exhibit significant epistemic uncertainty due to finite data, imperfect optimization, and distribution shift. For practical deployment in scientific computing, uncertainty quantification (UQ) must be both computationally efficient and spatially faithful, i.e., uncertainty bands should align with the localized residual structures that matter for downstream risk management. We propose a structure-aware epistemic UQ scheme that exploits the modular anatomy common to modern NOs (lifting-propagation-recovering). Instead of applying unstructured weight perturbations (e.g., naive dropout) across the entire network, we restrict Monte Carlo sampling to a module-aligned subspace by injecting stochasticity only into the lifting module, and treat the learned solver dynamics (propagation and recovery) as deterministic. We instantiate this principle with two lightweight lifting-level perturbations, including channel-wise multiplicative feature dropout and a Gaussian feature perturbation with matched variance, followed by standard calibration to construct uncertainty bands. Experiments on challenging PDE benchmarks (including discontinuous-coefficient Darcy flow and geometry-shifted 3D car CFD surrogates) demonstrate that the proposed structure-aware design yields more reliable coverage, tighter bands, and improved residual-uncertainty alignment compared with common baselines, while remaining practical in runtime.
Haoze Song, Zhihao Li, Mengyi Deng +4
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), Guangzhou, China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, China
Bayesian neural network predictions are commonly approximated using a fixed number of Monte Carlo samples per input, without controlling the resulting error that comes from this finite sample. We propose the use of confidence sequences to dynamically determine how many samples are needed while maintaining statistical guarantees. We consider several ways in which predictive probabilities are used, including identifying the most likely class, approximating the full predictive distribution, and resolving probability-threshold decisions. Sampling stops once the corresponding decision can be made with the desired guarantee. Experiments show that the method allocates the computational budget efficiently, assigning more samples to ambiguous inputs than to easy inputs while preserving reliable decisions and reducing overall latency relative to a fixed Monte Carlo budget.