Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Inverse Parametric Uncertain Identification using Polynomial Chaos and high-order Moment Matching benchmarked on a Wet Friction Clutch

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A generalized polynomial chaos moment-matching method identifies parametric uncertainty in a wet clutch model with one order of magnitude fewer simulations than Monte Carlo.

desk verdict The core gPC high-order moment algorithm is clean and useful, but the wet clutch demonstration is too thin to support the headline gains until the surrogate accuracy is checked across the searched parameter space. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04597 v1 pith:4MNKNJ4B submitted 2019-08-13 stat.AP

Wannes De Groote , Tom Lefebvre , Georges Tod , Nele De Geeter , Bruno Depraetere , Suzanne Van Poppel , Guillaume Crevecoeur This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.AP
keywords uncertaintyidentificationpolynomialchaosmethodofmomentsmaximumentropylikelihoodestimationwetclutchshiftingtimehigh-order
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish a cheap way to learn the probability distribution of uncertain parameters in a nonlinear simulation model from a set of measured experiments. The authors replace brute-force Monte Carlo propagation with a generalized polynomial chaos (gPC) expansion, compute not just the mean and variance but the first four moments of the simulated output, and fit a maximum-entropy density to those moments. On 108 wet-clutch shifting-time experiments, they report that this needs about one order of magnitude fewer model simulations than Monte Carlo for the same log-likelihood accuracy. They also report that the four-moment maximum-entropy output density gives a true log-likelihood about 4% higher and an output-PDF error (Earth mover's distance) up to 47% lower than a Gaussian output fit. If right, the method turns inverse uncertainty identification into a deterministic offline calculation plus a modest number of model evaluations.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the generalized polynomial chaos expansion $y^{(d)}(\theta)=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}} c_i \psi_i(\theta)$, with basis $\psi_i$ orthogonal with respect to the input density and with coefficients computed by Gaussian quadrature. The paper's novel piece is a multinomial-theorem formula (equations 9-10) that rewrites the $m$-th output moment as a sum over multi-indices whose high-order inner products factor into products of univariate inner products, so moments up to order 4 or 5 are available from the same coefficients without multivariate quadrature. These moments are then fed to a maximum-entropy density $f_Y(y|\lambda)=\exp\left(-\sum_{m=0}^M \lambda_m y^m\right)$ whose parameters solve a dual unconstrained optimization; four moments let the fitted density represent asymmetric or bimodal output shapes that a Gaussian cannot.

What would settle it

For a set of experiments with visibly skewed output distributions, evaluate the first four gPC moments and the maximum-entropy PDF at several $\alpha$ values spread over the genetic algorithm's search range, and compare them with a 200,000-sample Monte Carlo reference; if the Earth mover's distance of the gPC-based maximum-entropy fit exceeds that of the Gaussian fit at those points, the claimed 47% improvement and the 4% log-likelihood gain would not generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that maximum likelihood identification of an input probability model can be made numerically tractable by expanding the stochastic model output in an orthogonal polynomial basis chosen for the input distribution, extracting high-order output moments directly from the gPC coefficients via a multinomial-theorem formula instead of by sampling, and reconstructing the conditional output density with a maximum-entropy distribution matched to those moments. For the wet clutch, a degree-4 Hermite-chaos expansion with 5-point Gaussian quadrature uses 25 model evaluations per experiment and reaches the same log-likelihood estimation accuracy as Monte Carlo with hundreds of thousands of samples. The identified input model with a four-moment maximum-entropy output distribution attains a true log-likelihood of 183.7 versus 176.7 for the Gaussian-output model, and reduces the average Earth mover's distance to the reference output distribution by 42-47%.

Load-bearing premise

The polynomial-chaos surrogate (degree 4, 5-point quadrature, 25 simulations) is accurate enough to represent the output distribution for every one of the 108 experiments and every candidate parameter vector the optimizer tries, but the paper validates it only for experiment 16 at one parameter value, $\alpha=(1,1,0.07,0.02)$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inverse uncertainty identification for models with few stochastic parameters can be run with tens of forward simulations per experiment instead of thousands or hundreds of thousands.
  • Maximum-likelihood scores computed from the moment-matched densities are close enough to Monte Carlo references that the optimizer can be driven by gPC moments, with the four-moment maximum-entropy fit reducing the score mismatch by about 55% relative to the Gaussian fit.
  • The identified input uncertainty for the wet clutch has the same mean under both output models, but the maximum-entropy output model attributes larger variance to the two stochastic parameters, capturing experiments with asymmetric output distributions that Gaussian fits over-penalize.
  • Because the high-order moment computation is a precomputable offline step, the per-experiment cost of evaluating the likelihood is dominated by the 25 model runs needed for the gPC coefficients.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural transfer test is to apply the same pipeline to other nonlinear mechanical models with two or three stochastic parameters, using sparse-grid quadrature to see whether the efficiency gain survives scaling up the parameter dimension.
  • The paper validates the surrogate at one parameter setting only, so a decisive extension would compare gPC moment estimates with a large Monte Carlo reference across the whole region of $\alpha$ explored by the genetic algorithm.
  • The reported 4% log-likelihood gain and up-to-47% EMD reduction are dataset-specific; on outputs closer to Gaussian, the method should converge to the Gaussian fit and the advantage should shrink.
  • Because the identified input distribution is a clipped normal over two physical parameters, a user could directly employ it for robust control or fault diagnosis of the clutch, for example to compute the probability that shifting time exceeds a given limit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents an inverse method for identifying parametric uncertainty in nonlinear models. Using generalized Polynomial Chaos (gPC), it computes high-order moments of the model output with few forward evaluations; these moments are then matched to either Gaussian or maximum-entropy densities to evaluate the likelihood of experimental observations. The wet clutch application uses 108 experiments and two clipped Gaussian uncertain scaling factors, and a genetic algorithm maximizes the log-likelihood. The authors report that 25 gPC model evaluations per experiment achieve the same per-experiment log-likelihood accuracy as hundreds of Monte Carlo samples, that the identified max-entropy model increases the true log-likelihood by about 4% over the Gaussian model, and that the Earth Mover's Distance of the estimated output PDF is reduced by up to 47%.

Significance. The high-order moment formulas in Sections 2.3-2.5 are a genuine contribution: the multinomial expansion with a sparse set of nonzero inner products makes moments beyond the second order computationally tractable, and the toy example in Section 2.6 supports the claimed accuracy of the moment calculations. If the wet-clutch results were properly validated, the paper would provide a convincing demonstration that gPC-based MLE can reduce forward simulation costs in inverse uncertainty quantification. However, the current validation is too narrow for the quantitative claims: the surrogate is checked at one operating point and the Monte Carlo reference lacks error bars. The methodology is defensible, but the evidence for the 4% log-likelihood and 47% EMD improvements needs strengthening before publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.1 and 4.2] Section 4.1, Fig. 15: gPC surrogate accuracy is demonstrated for one experiment (l=16) at one alpha=(1,1,0.07,0.02), while the genetic algorithm in Section 4.2 searches over the alpha space. At the identified alpha, Section 4.2 reports that gPC overestimates the MC log-likelihood by 11.8 nats for the Gaussian fit and 5.3 nats for the max-entropy fit, and Fig. 18 shows per-experiment errors only at the final alpha. If the positive bias varies with alpha, the GA can converge to a biased optimum and the claimed 4% log-likelihood and 47% EMD gains may not survive an unbiased evaluation. Please characterize the gPC bias as a function of alpha (e.g., by comparing gPC to MC at multiple alpha values along the GA trajectory or on a grid) and validate the surrogate for all 108 experiments at those alpha values.
  2. [4 (intro) and Table 2] The Monte Carlo reference is a spline fit to histograms of 200,000 samples, but no error bars or convergence study are provided. The key comparison is a difference of 183.7-176.7 = 7.0 nats (about 4%) in true log-likelihood between alpha*_ME and alpha*_G; without uncertainty quantification on the reference, it is unclear whether this difference is statistically significant. Please provide repeated independent MC estimates, bootstrap intervals, or a sample-size convergence plot for the reference log-likelihoods and for the EMD values in Fig. 19.
  3. [3.5] The clipping bounds x- and x+ in Section 3.5 are chosen to maximize the feasible region across all 108 experiments, i.e., they are fit on the same data used for likelihood evaluation. This data-dependent choice breaks the likelihood interpretation of the MLE and can bias the identified alpha. The bounds should be estimated jointly as part of the parametric model, fixed by a separate calibration procedure, or the sensitivity of the identified alpha and of the log-likelihood gains to the bounds should be reported.
  4. [4.3 and Table 2] The one-order-of-magnitude reduction is demonstrated only for forward propagation at a fixed alpha: 25 gPC evaluations per experiment versus hundreds to thousands of MC samples. The abstract states the reduction for the inverse identification method, but the total cost includes every alpha visited by the genetic algorithm. Please either benchmark the end-to-end gPC-based MLE against an MC-based MLE at equal accuracy, or limit the claim to the forward propagation step and adjust the abstract and conclusion accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [2.4] In the dual optimization problem for the max-entropy distribution, the last sum is written as sum_{k=1}^M lambda_m mu^{(d)}_m; the indices should be consistent, e.g., sum_{m=1}^M lambda_m mu^{(d)}_m.
  2. [2.3.1 and Eq. (9)] The set I_{m,p} is defined as {i in I^{m,p} : |i| = m} without defining I^{m,p}; please define the multi-index set explicitly.
  3. [2.5, Fig. 3] For the offline timing plot, report the hardware, dimension n, degree d, maximum moment m, and quadrature order q, since these determine the reported 18 s.
  4. [Fig. 14c caption] The sentence 'The log-likelihood of the test scenarios for given input distributions is also given' is not explained in the text; either elaborate or remove it.
  5. [Throughout] The term 'true log-likelihood' for the spline-MC estimate is misleading; consider calling it the 'MC reference log-likelihood' throughout the paper.
  6. [Reproducibility] No code or data are released. For a method whose value rests on the offline multi-index tables and the max-entropy fitting, a reproducibility statement (even for the synthetic example) would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The claimed gains are benchmarked against an independent Monte Carlo reference; no step reduces to its own input.

full rationale

The central comparison is not circular: the paper optimizes alpha using a gPC-based likelihood, then evaluates the identified alpha with an independent Monte Carlo reference of 200,000 simulation samples (Section 4.2). The reported one-order-of-magnitude reduction in required simulations (Table 2) is an interpolation against this MC benchmark, not a quantity forced by the gPC fit. The 4% log-likelihood gain and 47% EMD improvement compare Gaussian versus maximum-entropy output abstractions under the same MC-referenced evaluation, so they are not definitionally equal to the fitted moments. The only self-citation [29] provides the clutch model and is not load-bearing for the methodological claim. The paper's acknowledged limitation, that the gPC surrogate is demonstrated at one experiment and one alpha, is a robustness concern rather than circularity. No fitted parameter or cited result is renamed as a prediction, so the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method depends on a set of intentional modeling choices: the four alpha parameters are the identification targets, so their status as fitted values is the point of the paper, not a hidden flaw. The more fragile choices are the hand-set polynomial degree, quadrature order, moment cap, GA population size, and especially the data-dependent clipping support. The gPC surrogate accuracy is verified on one experiment at one alpha only. The physical assumption that all model mismatch lives in two independent normal scaling factors is explicit but not independently justified. No new physical entities are introduced; X1 and X2 are latent statistical constructs.

free parameters (9)
  • mu1 = 0.91 (both alpha_G and alpha_ME)
    Mean of the scaling factor on pressure bias c2, estimated by genetic algorithm MLE on 108 experiments.
  • mu2 = 0.55 (both alpha_G and alpha_ME)
    Mean of the scaling factor on piston threshold zp, estimated by genetic algorithm MLE.
  • sigma1 = 0.077 (Gaussian output); 0.081 (max entropy output)
    Standard deviation of X1, estimated from the same MLE procedure.
  • sigma2 = 0.014 (Gaussian output); 0.046 (max entropy output)
    Standard deviation of X2, estimated from the same MLE procedure.
  • clipping bounds x-, x+ = not reported numerically
    Support bounds for X chosen to maximize the feasible solution space over all 108 experiments (Section 3.5), so they are data-dependent.
  • polynomial degree d = 4
    Hand-chosen truncation order of the gPC expansion.
  • quadrature order q = 5
    Hand-chosen univariate Gaussian quadrature order, giving 25 model evaluations per experiment.
  • max moment order m = 4
    Constrained by numerical limits in Section 2.5; limits the max entropy fit to four moments.
  • GA population size = 50
    Population size used in Matlab optimization, with no convergence criterion reported.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Polynomial approximation theorem and Wiener-Askey orthogonality (Section 2.3.1, Eq. 3)
    Underpins the moment formulas by assuming a smooth model can be expanded in an orthogonal polynomial basis.
  • standard math Multinomial theorem and tensorization of high-order inner products (Section 2.5, Eq. 9, Appendix C)
    Provides the efficient moment computation from polynomial coefficients.
  • standard math Maximum entropy dual problem is well-posed and solvable (Appendix A)
    Guarantees a distribution can be fitted to four moments; the paper cites Mead and Papanicolaou.
  • domain assumption Wet clutch model equations in Section 3.2 are valid enough representations of the physical system
    The model is taken from prior work without re-validation in this paper.
  • domain assumption All discrepancy between measured and simulated shifting times is attributed to X1 and X2, with no measurement noise
    The MLE treats observed y_l as exact draws from the parametric output distribution; no noise term is modeled.
  • domain assumption X1 and X2 are independent and normally distributed before clipping (Section 3.5)
    The input probability model is a product of two truncated normals, chosen for convenience rather than derived from physics.
  • ad hoc to paper Clipping bounds selected from the full dataset do not bias the MLE
    The support is chosen to make all 108 experiments feasible; this data-dependent selection is not accounted for in uncertainty estimates.
  • ad hoc to paper Degree-4 gPC with quadrature q=5 is accurate for all experiments and alpha values used in optimization
    Only validated for experiment 16 at a single alpha in Section 4.1, Fig. 15.
invented entities (1)
  • Latent scaling factors X1 and X2 for model parameters c2 and zp
    purpose: Absorb unresolved parametric uncertainty so the forward model produces a distribution of shifting times
    No direct measurement of these factors is provided; they are inferred from shifting-time experiments and a sensitivity analysis, so they are not independently observed entities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inverse Parametric Uncertain Identification using Polynomial Chaos and high-order Moment Matching benchmarked on a Wet Friction Clutch." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4MNKNJ4B

@misc{pith2026190804597,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inverse Parametric Uncertain Identification using Polynomial Chaos and high-order Moment Matching benchmarked on a Wet Friction Clutch},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4MNKNJ4B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04597}
}
read the original abstract

A numerically efficient inverse method for parametric model uncertainty identification using maximum likelihood estimation is presented. The goal is to identify a probability model for a fixed number of model parameters based on a set of experiments. To perform maximum likelihood estimation, the output probability density function is required. Forward propagation of input uncertainty is established combining Polynomial Chaos and moment matching. High-order moments of the output distribution are estimated using the generalized Polynomial Chaos framework. Next, a maximum entropy parametric distribution is matched with the estimated moments. This method is numerically very attractive due to reduced forward sampling and deterministic nature of the propagation strategy. The methodology is applied on a wet clutch system for which certain model variables are considered as stochastic. The number of required model simulations to achieve the same accuracy as the brute force methodologies is decreased by one order of magnitude. The probability model identified with the high order estimates resulted into a true log-likelihood increase of about 4% since the accuracy of the estimated output probability density function could be improved up to 47%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04597 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proposed identification method determines optimal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Illustration of the sets I5,10 (left) and I ∗ 5,10 (right) for (n, d) = (2, 3) → p = 10. Right: Illustration of the calculation mechanism of Im,p for (m, p) = (5, 4). ology on an illustrative univariate nonlinear forward model, y(x). y(x) = tan 1 4 x  + exp 1 3 x − 1  + tanh(x) For convenience we further assume that the random variable, X, is dis￾tributed according to the standard normal distribution, N (0, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Calculation time of the offline step w.r.t. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Nonlinear transformation of standard normal random variable. The lower right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Polynomial chaos coefficient estimates for varying quadrature orders are dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of PDF approximations of a Gaussian, a two component mixture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schematic cross section of the wet clutch system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Feedforward current signal. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dynamic torque equilibrium scheme. ωm delivering a torque Tm to the system. The motor is connected with a torque converter that drives the input shaft of the clutch with torque T1 at rotational velocity ω1. The system can be modeled using a nonlinear torque ratio funct…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of overpressure and resulting piston position. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of dynamic simulation and signal measurements of a clutch en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Wet clutch test bench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Experimental versus deterministic simulation results. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Top left: Simulated shifting time for l = 16. The red box indicates the clipping domain. Top right: Associated clipped joint distribution. Bottom: Representation of corresponding output distributions. The log-likelihood of the test scenarios for given input distributi…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: PDF estimates and corresponding EMD for given model parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Representation of corresponding output distributions using the optimal param [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Representation of corresponding output distributions using the optimal param [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Comparison of individual log-Likelihood estimates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: EMD of different PDF approximations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Influence of sample density on estimation accuracy of log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wilamowski, J

    B. Wilamowski, J. Irwin, Control and Mechatronics, CRC Press, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Widanage, J

    W. Widanage, J. Stoev, A. Van Mulders, J. Schoukens, G. Pinte, Non- linear system-identification of the filling phase of a wet-clutch system, Control Engineering Practice 19 (2011) 1506–1516

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Foulard, S

    S. Foulard, S. Rinderknecht, M. Ichchou, J. Perret-Liaudet, Automotive drivetrain model for transmission damage prediction, Mechatronics 30 (2015) 27–54

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Della Gatta, L

    A. Della Gatta, L. Iannelli, M. Pisaturo, A. Senatore, F. Vasca, A survey on modeling and engagement control for automotive dry clutch, Mechatronics 55 (2018) 63–75

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    A. P. Ompusunggu, P. Sas, H. Van Brussel, Modeling and simulation of the engagement dynamics of a wet friction clutch system subjected to degradation: An application to condition monitoring and prognostics, Mechatronics 23 (2013) 700–712

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Depraetere, G

    B. Depraetere, G. Pinte, W. Symens, J. Swevers, A two-level iterative learning control scheme for the engagement of wet clutches, Mechatron- ics 21 (2011) 501–508

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Dutta, Y

    A. Dutta, Y. Zhong, B. Depraetere, K. Van Vaerenbergh, C. Ionescu, B. Wyns, G. Pinte, A. Nowe, J. Swevers, R. De Keyser, Model-based 34 and model-free learning strategies for wet clutch control, Mechatronics 24 (2014) 1008–1020

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Watson, C

    M. Watson, C. Byington, D. Edwards, S. Amin, Dynamic modeling and wear-based remaining useful life prediction of high power clutch systems, Tribology Transactions 48 (2005) 208–217

    work page 2005

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Touati, R

    Y. Touati, R. Merzouki, B. O. Bouamama, Robust diagnosis to mea- surement uncertainties using bond graph approach: Application to in- telligent autonomous vehicle, Mechatronics 22 (2012) 1148–1160

    2012

  2. [10]

    Marconi, R

    L. Marconi, R. Naldi, Aggressive control of helicopters in presence of parametric and dynamical uncertainties, Mechatronics 18 (2008) 381– 389

    2008

  3. [11]

    Abdeetedal, H

    M. Abdeetedal, H. Rezaee, H. A. Talebi, F. Abdollahi, Optimal adaptive jacobian internal forces controller for multiple whole-limb manipulators in the presence of kinematic uncertainties, Mechatronics 53 (2018) 1–7

    2018

  4. [12]

    Hajiloo, N

    A. Hajiloo, N. Nariman-Zadeh, A. Moeini, Pareto optimal robust design of fractional-order pid controllers for systems with probabilistic uncer- tainties, Mechatronics 22 (2012) 788–801

    2012

  5. [13]

    Stein, Large sample properties of simulations using latin hypercube sampling, Technometrics 29 (1987) 143–151

    M. Stein, Large sample properties of simulations using latin hypercube sampling, Technometrics 29 (1987) 143–151

    1987

  6. [14]

    Caflisch, Monte carlo and quasi-monte carlo methods, Acta numerica 7 (1998) 1–49

    R. Caflisch, Monte carlo and quasi-monte carlo methods, Acta numerica 7 (1998) 1–49

    1998

  7. [15]

    D. Xiu, G. Karniadakis, The wiener–askey polynomial chaos for stochas- tic differential equations, SIAM journal on scientific computing 24 (2002) 619–644

    2002

  8. [16]

    D. Xiu, G. Karniadakis, Modeling uncertainty in flow simulations via generalized polynomial chaos, Journal of computational physics 187 (2003) 137–167

    2003

  9. [17]

    D. Xiu, J. Hesthaven, High-order collocation methods for differential equations with random inputs, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 27 (2005) 1118–1139. 35

    2005

  10. [18]

    Xiu, Efficient collocational approach for parametric uncertainty anal- ysis, Commun

    D. Xiu, Efficient collocational approach for parametric uncertainty anal- ysis, Commun. Comput. Phys 2 (2007) 293–309

    2007

  11. [19]

    Blatman, B

    G. Blatman, B. Sudret, Adaptive sparse polynomial chaos expansion based on least angle regression, Journal of Computational Physics 230 (2011) 2345–2367

    2011

  12. [20]

    Bowman, L

    K. Bowman, L. Shenton, Estimation: Method of moments, Encyclope- dia of statistical sciences 3 (2004)

    2004

  13. [21]

    Munkhammar, L

    J. Munkhammar, L. Mattsson, J. Ryd´ en, Polynomial probability dis- tribution estimation using the method of moments, PloS one 12 (2017) e0174573

    2017

  14. [22]

    P. J. Bickel, K. A. Doksum, Mathematical statistics: basic ideas and selected topics, volume I, volume 117, CRC Press, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    K. Berx, E. Hostens, W. Driesen, G. Pinte, Identification and prop- agation of parametric uncertainty of a hydrostatic drive train model, International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    C. Chan, G. Liu, Hysteresis identification and compensation using a genetic algorithm with adaptive search space, Mechatronics 17 (2007) 391–402

    2007

  17. [25]

    Ghanem, P

    R. Ghanem, P. Spanos, Stochastic finite element method: Response statistics, in: Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach, Springer, 1991, pp. 101–119

    1991

  18. [26]

    S. Lee, W. Chen, A comparative study of uncertainty propagation meth- ods for black-box-type problems, Structural and Multidisciplinary Op- timization 37 (2009) 239

    2009

  19. [27]

    Rajabi, B

    M. Rajabi, B. Ataie-Ashtiani, C. Simmons, Polynomial chaos expan- sions for uncertainty propagation and moment independent sensitivity analysis of seawater intrusion simulations, Journal of Hydrology 520 (2015) 101–122

    2015

  20. [28]

    Najm, Uncertainty quantification and polynomial chaos techniques in computational fluid dynamics, Annual review of fluid mechanics 41 (2009) 35–52

    H. Najm, Uncertainty quantification and polynomial chaos techniques in computational fluid dynamics, Annual review of fluid mechanics 41 (2009) 35–52. 36

    2009

  21. [29]

    G. Tod, W. De Groote, T. Lefebvre, N. De Geeter, B. Depraetere, G. Crevecoeur, S. Van Poppel, Parametric uncertainty quantification using polynomial chaos expansion applied to a wet clutch model, Pro- ceedings of the 7th International Conference of System Modeling and Optimizat...

    2019

  22. [30]

    Iqbal, F

    S. Iqbal, F. Al-Bender, A. P. Ompusunggu, B. Pluymers, W. Desmet, Modeling and analysis of wet friction clutch engagement dynamics, Me- chanical Systems and Signal Processing 60 (2015) 420–436

    2015

  23. [31]

    L. Mead, N. Papanicolaou, Maximum entropy in the problem of mo- ments, Journal of Mathematical Physics 25 (1984) 2404–2417

    1984

  24. [32]

    Rubner, C

    Y. Rubner, C. Tomasi, L. Guibas, The earth mover’s distance as a metric for image retrieval, International journal of computer vision 40 (2000) 99–121. 37

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.