## 2 Materials and Methods  
### Dataset Description  
The dataset used in the present study is a sample consisting of 457 structures obtained after the 1999 Athens Earthquake via Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) [20]. The selected structures suffered damage across the spectrum, ranging from very low or minimal damage to structures that partially or completely collapsed during the earthquake. The dataset was drawn from different geographical region; thus, the local conditions varied across the sample. In [20], the authors took steps to mitigate the effect on the study of potential biases due to local effects. When sampling from a specific building block, they sampled structures across the entire damage spectrum. This mitigated the effect of the location of the structure on its seismic damage, as structures in the same building block had the same local conditions. The degree of damage was labeled using four categories:  
* Black: Structures that suffered total or partial collapse during the earthquake, potentially leading to loss of human life. * Red: Structures with significant damage to their structural members. * Yellow: Structures with moderate damage to the structural members, potentially including extended damage to nonstructural elements. * Green: Structures that suffered very little or no damage. An example of the application of the RVS procedure can be seen in Figure 1, courtesy of [20]. The distribution of structures across the above damage categories is shown in Figure 2.  
Figure 1: Application of Rapid Visual Screening in a specific area. Samples of structures across the damage spectrum were drawn to mitigate local effects. Image courtesy of [20]. For each structure, a set of attributes were documented, specifically:  
1. Free ground level (Pilotiis), soft storeys and/or short columns: In general, this attribute pertains to structures wherein a storey has significantly less structural rigidity than the rest. For example, this can manifest on the ground floor (pilotiis) when it has greater height than the typical structure storey, or when the wall fillings do not cover the whole height of a storey, effectively reducing the active height of the adjacent columns. 2. Wall fillings regularity: This indicates whether the infill walls are of sufficient thickness and with few openings. The presence of such wall fillings is beneficial to the structure's overall seismic response, as during an earthquake they act as diagonal struts that support the surrounding frames. 3. Absence of design seismic codes: In Greece, this pertains to pre-1960 structures which were not designed following a dedicated seismic code. 4. Poor condition: Very high or non-uniform ground sinking, concrete with aggregate segregation or erosion, or corrosion in the reinforcement bars are examples of maintenance-related factors that can reduce the seismic capacity of a building. 5. Previous damage: This pertains to structures which had suffered previous earthquake damages that was not adequately repaired. Although this is distinct feature from \"poor condition\", it causes a similar reduction in the nominal seismic capacity of the building. 6. Significant height: This describes structures with five or more storeys. 7. Irregularity in height: This describes structures with a discontinuity in the vertical path of the loads. 8. Irregularity in plan: This pertains to structures with floor plans that significantly deviate from a rectangular shape, e.g., floor plans with highly acute angles in their outer walls or with E, Z, or H-shapes. Irregularity in height, plan, or both can cause excess seismic overload on the building. 9. Torsion: This affects structures with high horizontal eccentricity, which are subjected to torsion during the earthquake. 10. Pounding: If adjacent buildings do not have a sufficient gap between them, and especially if they have different heights, then the floor slabs of one building can ram into the columns of the other. 11.