Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Integration of Active Learning and MCMC Sampling for Efficient Bayesian Calibration of Mechanical Properties

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that in surrogate-accelerated Bayesian calibration, the accuracy of the posterior is determined by how surrogate training data are selected, not by the choice of MCMC sampler, and that the forward model itself is the…

desk verdict A careful empirical study that makes a strong case that forward-model cost dominates MCMC choice in surrogate-based calibration, but the active-learning mechanism has a known silent failure mode that the paper underplays. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13361 v2 pith:QVWK2QIW submitted 2024-11-20 physics.comp-ph stat.APstat.ML

Leon Riccius , Iuri B.C.M. Rocha , Joris Bierkens , Hanne Kekkonen , Frans P. van der Meer This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phstat.APstat.ML MSC 62F1565C05
keywords BayesiancalibrationactivelearningGaussianprocesssurrogateMarkovchainMonteCarlocomputationalmechanicsrandomfieldinferencemodellingMetropolis-adjustedLangevinalgorithm
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 argues that in surrogate-accelerated Bayesian calibration of mechanical models, the accuracy of the posterior depends on how the surrogate's training data are chosen, not on which MCMC sampler is used. It introduces a one-dimensional nonlinear bar problem with spatially varying stiffness, discretized through radial basis functions, to create a family of inverse problems of increasing stochastic dimension. The authors show that a priori training strategies — grid, Latin hypercube, and prior sampling — fail to place points in regions of high posterior density even at moderate dimension. They propose an active learning strategy that follows the MCMC chain and adds a training point whenever the Gaussian process surrogate's predictive variance exceeds a threshold. Their central claim is that the forward model, not the sampler, is the bottleneck: the training data needed to build a reliable surrogate become prohibitive before the gains of gradient-based MCMC on cheap models can be realized.

What carries the argument

The central object is a Gaussian process surrogate for the log-likelihood, trained online by an active learning rule that uses the GP's predictive variance $\mathbb{V}[L(\theta^*)]$ as a reject threshold: new posterior proposals that the GP cannot predict confidently trigger a forward-model evaluation, and the retrain threshold $\gamma_L$ decides when GP hyperparameters are re-estimated. The learning rule is driven by the path of the MCMC chain (Algorithm 1), so training points concentrate in regions of high posterior density. The comparison metric is the Wasserstein 2-distance between the approximate and reference posterior sample clouds.

What would settle it

A concrete test: on the same bar problem at dimension d=10, run the active learning rule with the GP's predictive variance threshold but with the GP length scale deliberately overestimated by a factor of two, and compare the resulting posterior to the reference; if the posterior remains accurate, the method survives overconfidence, and if it diverges, the uncertainty signal is the load-bearing component. Alternatively, count the number of training points collected under a threshold that scales with dimension and check whether the divergence rate matches the paper's observed outlier pattern.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that surrogate-based Bayesian inference is dominated by the cost of collecting training data for the surrogate, and that a simple uncertainty-threshold active learning rule based on the MCMC path is superior to all a priori trained models. In the authors' experiments, the choice between random-walk Metropolis and the gradient-based Metropolis-adjusted Langevin algorithm has little effect on the accuracy of the resulting posterior; MALA needs somewhat fewer forward evaluations but can fail badly when the GP becomes overconfident under relaxed uncertainty thresholds. Even a surrogate tailored to the posterior does not guarantee that the chain stays in regions it knows well. The paper concludes that the forward model is the bottleneck in the inference process, not the MCMC algorithm.

Load-bearing premise

The whole active learning method rests on the Gaussian process's predictive variance being a truthful measure of its own error; when the GP becomes overconfident, as the authors observe in MALA runs with a relaxed threshold, no safeguard stops the chain from trusting a biased surrogate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A priori surrogate training (grid, LHS, or prior sampling) should be avoided for Bayesian calibration in dimensions as low as 4 to 5; active learning with the MCMC path is more accurate at equal training budget.
  • The choice of MCMC sampler is secondary: MALA saves some forward evaluations but does not improve posterior accuracy, and random-walk Metropolis is more robust when the uncertainty threshold is relaxed.
  • Research effort should shift from advanced samplers to surrogate construction, multi-fidelity schemes, and dimension reduction, because training-data cost dominates the overall inference expense.
  • Even a well-tuned surrogate can let the chain wander into unexplored regions, so the surrogate's uncertainty estimate should be monitored throughout sampling rather than only during training.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The result suggests that any surrogate-accelerated Bayesian workflow should report training-data cost explicitly as a function of dimension and prior-posterior shift, not just sampler efficiency.
  • A testable extension would be to replace the variance threshold with a calibrated or conservative uncertainty estimate; the paper's observed MALA failures show the threshold as stated is fragile.
  • The scalable bar problem could serve as a benchmark for multi-fidelity or dimension-reduced approaches, since it controls the cost of the forward model while isolating the effect of the surrogate and sampler choices.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies surrogate-accelerated Bayesian calibration on a scalable one-dimensional bar problem with a non-linear constitutive model and a random-field parameterization of the initial stiffness. It compares GP-based active learning driven by MCMC trajectories (Algorithm 1) with three offline training strategies (grid, LHS, prior) and compares RWM and MALA both for constructing the surrogate and for sampling from a fixed surrogate. Accuracy is measured by Wasserstein-2 distance against a brute-force reference posterior. The main claims are that offline surrogates are inaccurate except in low dimensions, that the proposed active learning strategy is superior, that the MCMC choice has little effect on training-data quantity and no significant effect on accuracy, and that therefore the forward model, not the sampler, is the bottleneck.

Significance. The paper provides a clean experimental design: a reference posterior computed by long forward-model MCMC runs, repeated random seeds (10 to 50 per configuration), Wasserstein comparisons, and released code. The finding that a priori surrogate training becomes unreliable as dimension grows and that active learning along the MCMC path concentrates data more efficiently is practically useful and likely to influence how practitioners combine surrogates with MCMC. The paper also deserves credit for reporting the overconfident-GP failure mode in Section 5.4.1 rather than hiding it. However, the significance is tempered by the fact that the central superiority claim rests on an uncalibrated acquisition criterion, and by several abstract claims that go beyond the presented evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.4.1, Algorithm 1, Eq. (38)] The active-learning acquisition rule uses the GP predictive variance V[L(θ*)] in Eq. (38) as the sole trigger for adding training data. The paper itself reports in Section 5.4.1 that, under relaxed thresholds (γv = 5.0, 20.0), initial MALA samples far from the posterior high-density region can produce an overestimated GP length scale, an overconfident surrogate, and a cessation of data collection. This is a failure of the acquisition mechanism itself, not merely a property of the sampler: once V < γv in a wrongly confident region, no forward evaluations are triggered. Algorithm 1 contains no check that the predictive variance is calibrated (e.g., a coverage test of true log-likelihood values against GP credible intervals) and no fallback; the retrain criterion γL re-estimates hyperparameters on the same biased dataset and can reinforce the overconfidence. Because the paper's central recommendation—prioritize surrogate construction over sampler choice—depends on the active-learning strategy being reliable, this silent failure mode needs a diagnostic and a safeguard, and the conditions for the superiority claim need to be stated.
  2. [Abstract, Section 5.3, Fig. 9] The abstract states that a priori training "introduces large errors in the posterior estimation even in low to moderate dimensions," but Fig. 9 shows nearly equal Wasserstein distances across all strategies for d=2 and d=3, with clear superiority of active learning emerging only at d=4 and d=5. The phrase "even in low to moderate dimensions" overstates the evidence and should be revised to reflect this dimension-dependent crossover.
  3. [Abstract, Section 5.4.3, Fig. 14] The claim that the MCMC algorithm has "no significant influence" on accuracy is asserted without a statistical test. Fig. 14 shows overlapping box distributions for d≤8 but an increasing number of high-W2 outliers from d=10 onward, with the cross-marked runs indicating chains that left the high-density region. A formal comparison over the 50 seeds (e.g., paired tests or outlier-rate reporting) is needed before claiming no significant influence.
  4. [Section 6, Fig. 12] The "70 days" infeasibility calculation extrapolates training-data counts from Fig. 12 up to d=15 and assumes a 10-minute forward evaluation. The manuscript does not report the fitted scaling relation or its uncertainty, and the d=15 panel in Fig. 14 uses a pre-trained surrogate rather than active learning, so the extrapolation is not directly supported by the experiments. The conclusion should be presented as a conditional estimate with the scaling law stated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption contains typos: "strateries" should be "strategies" and "scatterd" should be "scattered."
  2. [Section 5.4.1 and Fig. 13] The text uses "RMW" instead of "RWM" in several places; please standardize the abbreviation.
  3. [Algorithm 1, Eqs. (36)-(37)] The retrain criterion |Lnew/Lold| > γL is confusing because L is defined in Eq. (37) as the logarithm of the marginal likelihood; a ratio of logarithms is not a standard relative-change measure. Please define the criterion explicitly, for example as a relative change of the log marginal likelihood or as a difference, and state which threshold values correspond to which definition.
  4. [Eq. (39) vs. Eq. (30)] The MALA surrogate proposal in Eq. (39) uses M^{-1} in the drift term, while the exact MALA proposal in Eq. (30) uses M. Please reconcile the preconditioner convention, since this affects reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's accuracy claims are benchmarked against an independently computed brute-force MCMC reference posterior, and the only self-citation is inspirational and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical and self-contained. The reference posterior is obtained with long brute-force RWM runs using the true FEM forward model (Section 5.1, Fig. 6), and every accuracy comparison (Figs. 9, 10, 12, 14) measures the Wasserstein distance between surrogate-accelerated posteriors and this external benchmark. The active-learning acquisition rule (Algorithm 1, line 6, Eq. 38) is an ansatz whose consequences are tested, not a result derived from itself; GP hyperparameters are fitted to likelihood training data by empirical Bayes, and the reject threshold gamma_v is selected on the d=5 problem and then used across dimensions, which is hyperparameter tuning rather than a fitted parameter being presented as a prediction. The single self-citation to Rocha et al. [42] is used for inspiration and does not carry any load-bearing argument; the algorithm, experiments, and code are provided in the present paper. The overconfident-surrogate failure reported in Section 5.4.1 is a genuine robustness limitation of the GP-variance acquisition mechanism, but it is not circular because the reported outcomes are still compared against the independent reference posterior.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core method uses standard Bayesian and GP machinery. The load-bearing tuning constants are the active learning thresholds and GP hyperparameters, all fit to data or chosen by grid search. The case study itself relies on several ad hoc modeling choices, such as the RBF length scale l = 1.5/d and the observation count Ni = [3d/4], which keep problems comparable but limit generalization.

free parameters (4)
  • Reject threshold gamma_v = 1.0, 5.0, 20.0
    Controls how much GP predictive variance triggers a forward model evaluation; selected by grid search on the 5D problem (Section 5.2.1).
  • Retrain threshold gamma_L = 2.5
    Ratio of log marginal likelihoods that triggers GP hyperparameter re-estimation; selected by grid search on the 5D problem.
  • Initial training points N0 = 20
    Number of posterior samples used to initialize the GP; selected by grid search on the 5D problem.
  • GP hyperparameters (sigma_f^2, sigma_n^2, length scale) = Estimated per dataset via empirical Bayes with BFGS
    Estimated on training data rather than from physics; they control the surrogate's accuracy and uncertainty calibration.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Bayes' theorem and standard Gaussian process regression formulas
    Used throughout Sections 2.3 and 2.5 as standard background.
  • domain assumption RBF expansion with i.i.d. Gaussian coefficients approximates the true random field
    Section 2.2 assumes the truncated radial basis expansion converges to the desired squared-exponential covariance, which holds only in the infinite-basis limit.
  • domain assumption Observation model has no model misspecification and known noise
    Section 2.3 states the i.i.d. Gaussian noise model is justified only if the physics is known exactly; misspecification would make the posterior overconfident.
  • ad hoc to paper 1D bar constitutive model is representative of real nonlinear material behaviour
    Section 4.1 introduces sigma(epsilon) = r(E-H)(1-exp(-epsilon/r)) + H epsilon as a pragmatic mimic of plasticity; the feasibility conclusions rest on this test problem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integration of Active Learning and MCMC Sampling for Efficient Bayesian Calibration of Mechanical Properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QVWK2QIW

@misc{pith2026241113361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integration of Active Learning and MCMC Sampling for Efficient Bayesian Calibration of Mechanical Properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QVWK2QIW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13361}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling and surrogate modelling have significantly enhanced the feasibility of Bayesian analysis across engineering fields. However, the selection and integration of surrogate models and cutting-edge MCMC algorithms, often depend on ad-hoc decisions. A systematic assessment of their combined influence on analytical accuracy and efficiency is notably lacking. The present work offers a comprehensive comparative study, employing a scalable case study in computational mechanics focused on the inference of spatially varying material parameters, that sheds light on the impact of methodological choices for surrogate modelling and sampling. We show that a priori training of the surrogate model introduces large errors in the posterior estimation even in low to moderate dimensions. We introduce a simple active learning strategy based on the path of the MCMC algorithm that is superior to all a priori trained models, and determine its training data requirements. We demonstrate that the choice of the MCMC algorithm has only a small influence on the amount of training data but no significant influence on the accuracy of the resulting surrogate model. Further, we show that the accuracy of the posterior estimation largely depends on the surrogate model, but not even a tailored surrogate guarantees convergence of the MCMC.Finally, we identify the forward model as the bottleneck in the inference process, not the MCMC algorithm. While related works focus on employing advanced MCMC algorithms, we demonstrate that the training data requirements render the surrogate modelling approach infeasible before the benefits of these gradient-based MCMC algorithms on cheap models can be reaped.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13361 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Discretisation of the random field with increasing amount of radial basis functions. The variance of the fields is shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the one-dimensional bar problem. Dirichlet boundary conditions are enforced at the left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Non-linear material model with parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Marginal of the log-normal field E(x). where µE˜(x) is the mean of the underlying normal distribution. We set the random field parameters to µE¯(x) = 8, σθ = 0.1 to mimic an elastoplastic polymer used as matrix material in fiber reinforced composites [43], and fix l = …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Random field realisations of the spatially varying initial stiffness for different numbers of RBFs and respective length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior realisations of the spatially varying initial stiffness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Accuracy of the active learning approach on the 5 dimensional problem for different values of the reject threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualisation of the training data for the 2-dimensional problem. The left subplot shows the training data for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Approximation error of the training data collection strategies for a range of latent space dimensionalities. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Approximation error of the training data collection strategies for a range of latent space dimensionalities. The violins [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the surrogate models trained with the active learning and LHS strategies for a realisation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Number of FEM model calls Ntrain (left column) and Wasserstein 2-distance W2 (right column) for the RWM algorithm and the MALA across a range of latent space dimensionalities d for different reject thresholds γv. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Level of adaptation of the MCMC algorithms RWM in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Accuracy of the approximate inference when the RWM algorithm and the MALA use the same surrogate model, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dobrilla, M

    S. Dobrilla, M. Lunardelli, M. Nikoli´ c, D. Lowke, B. Rosi´ c, Bayesian inference of mesoscale mechanical properties of mortar using experimental data from a double shear test, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 409 (2023) 115964. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0045782523000877

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Marsili, P

    F. Marsili, P. Croce, N. Friedman, P. Formichi, F. Landi, Seismic reliability assessment of a concrete water tank based on the bayesian updating of the finite element model, ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part B: Mechanical Engineering 3 (2017). URL: https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/risk/article/3/2/021004/ 369959/...

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    K. L. Mengersen, R. L. Tweedie, Rates of convergence of the hastings and metropolis algorithms, The Annals of Statistics 24 (1996) 101–121. URL: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/annals-of-statistics/volume-24/issue-1/ Rates-of-convergence-of-the-Hastings-and-Metropolis-algorithms/10.1214/aos/1033066201.full

    arXiv 1996

  4. [4]

    G. O. Roberts, J. S. Rosenthal, Optimal scaling for various metropolis-hastings algorithms, https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1015346320 16 (2001) 351–367. URL: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/ statistical-science/volume-16/issue-4/Optimal-scaling-for-various-Metropolis-Hastings-algorithms/ 10.1214/ss/1015346320.fullhttps://projecteuclid.org/journals/statisti...

    arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    G. O. Roberts, O. Stramer, Langevin diffusions and metropolis-hastings algorithms, Methodology And Computing In Applied Probability 2002 4:4 4 (2002) 337–357. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1023562417138

    doi:10.1023/a:1023562417138 2002

  6. [6]

    Duane, A

    S. Duane, A. Kennedy, B. J. Pendleton, D. Roweth, Hybrid monte carlo, Physics Letters B 195 (1987) 216–222. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/037026938791197X

    arXiv 1987

  7. [7]

    Girolami, B

    M. Girolami, B. Calderhead, Riemann manifold langevin and hamiltonian monte carlo methods, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B: Statistical Methodology 73 (2011) 123–214. URL: www.ucl.ac.uk/statistics/

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Bierkens, P

    J. Bierkens, P. Fearnhead, G. Roberts, The zig-zag process and super-efficient sampling for bayesian analysis of big data, The Annals of Statistics 47 (2019) 1288–1320. URL: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/annals-of-statistics/ volume-47/issue-3/The-Zig-Zag-process-and-super-efficient-sampling-for-Bayesian/10.1214/18-AOS1715.full

    work page doi:10.1214/18-aos1715.full 2019

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Chong, K

    A. Chong, K. P. Lam, A comparison of mcmc algorithms for the bayesian calibration of building energy models for building simulation 2017 conference, in: Building Simulation Conference Proceedings, volume 2, 2017, pp. 582–591. URL: https://doi.org/10.26868/25222708.2017.336

    2017

  2. [10]

    Goodman, J

    J. Goodman, J. Weare, Ensemble samplers with affine invariance, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science 5 (2010) 65–80

    2010

  3. [11]

    Gelman, W

    A. Gelman, W. R. Gilks, G. O. Roberts, Weak convergence and optimal scaling of ran- dom walk metropolis algorithms, The Annals of Applied Probability 7 (1997) 110–120. URL: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/annals-of-applied-probability/volume-7/issue-1/ Weak-convergence-and-...

    1997

  4. [12]

    G. O. Roberts, J. S. Rosenthal, Optimal scaling of discrete approximations to langevin diffusions, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 60 (1998) 255–268. URL: https://academic.oup.com/jrsssb/article/ 60/1/255/7083121

    1998

  5. [13]

    Ching, Y.-C

    J. Ching, Y.-C. Chen, Transitional markov chain monte carlo method for bayesian model updating, model class selection, and model averaging, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 133 (2007) 816–832

    2007

  6. [14]

    A. Lye, A. Cicirello, E. Patelli, An efficient and robust sampler for bayesian inference: Transitional ensemble markov chain monte carlo, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 167 (2022) 108471. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp. 2021.108471

    2022

  7. [15]

    Straub, I

    D. Straub, I. Papaioannou, Bayesian updating with structural reliability methods, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 141 (2015) 04014134. URL: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000839

    2015

  8. [16]

    Y. Hu, M. Abuseada, A. Alghfeli, S. Holdheim, T. S. Fisher, Surrogate-accelerated bayesian framework for high-temperature thermal diffusivity characterization, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 418 (2024) 116459. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2023.116459

    2024

  9. [17]

    A. J. Thomas, E. Barocio, I. Bilionis, R. B. Pipes, Bayesian inference of fiber orientation and polymer properties in short fiber- reinforced polymer composites (2022). URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.12881v1http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.12881

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    L. Wu, K. Zulueta, Z. Major, A. Arriaga, L. Noels, Bayesian inference of non-linear multiscale model parameters accelerated by a deep neural network, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 360 (2020). URL: www.sciencedirect.comwww.elsevier.com/locate/cma, n

    2020

  11. [19]

    Deveney, E

    T. Deveney, E. H. Mueller, T. Shardlow, Deep surrogate accelerated delayed-acceptance hamiltonian monte carlo for bayesian inference of spatio-temporal heat fluxes in rotating disc systems, SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 11 (2023) 970–995. URL: https://epubs.si...

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Z. Chen, P. Jin, R. Li, Y. Qi, G. Cai, Parameter identification of elastoplastic model for cucrzr alloy by the neural network-aided bayesian inference, Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures 46 (2023) 2319–2337. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.111...

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    C. C. Drovandi, M. T. Moores, R. J. Boys, Accelerating pseudo-marginal mcmc using gaussian processes, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 118 (2018) 1–17

    2018

  14. [22]

    del Val, O

    A. del Val, O. P. L. Ma ˆ ıtre, T. E. Magin, O. Chazot, P. M. Congedo, A surrogate-based optimal likelihood function for the bayesian calibration of catalytic recombination in atmospheric entry protection materials, Applied Mathematical Modelling 101 (2022) 791–810

    2022

  15. [23]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Man, G. Lin, L. Wu, L. Zeng, Inverse modeling of hydrologic systems with adap- 27 tive multifidelity markov chain monte carlo simulations, Water Resources Research 54 (2018) 4867–

    2018

  16. [24]

    Dasgupta, D

    A. Dasgupta, D. V. Patel, D. Ray, E. A. Johnson, A. A. Oberai, A dimension-reduced variational approach for solving physics- based inverse problems using generative adversarial network priors and normalizing flows, Computer Methods in Applied Me- chanics and Engineering 420 (2...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Kandasamy, J

    K. Kandasamy, J. Schneider, B. P´ oczos, Bayesian active learning for posterior estimation, in: IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 2015-Janua, 2015, pp. 3605–3611

    2015

  18. [26]

    Dinkel, C

    M. Dinkel, C. M. Geitner, G. R. Rei, J. Nitzler, W. A. Wall, Solving bayesian inverse problems with expensive likelihoods using constrained gaussian processes and active learning, Inverse Problems 40 (2024) 095008. URL: https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6420/ad5eb4

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    D. Hou, I. Hassan, L. Wang, Review on building energy model calibration by bayesian inference, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 143 (2021) 110930. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364032121002239

    2021

  20. [28]

    Rappel, L

    H. Rappel, L. A. Beex, L. Noels, S. P. Bordas, Identifying elastoplastic parameters with bayes’ theorem considering output error, input error and model uncertainty, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 55 (2019) 28–41

    2019

  21. [29]

    Rappel, L

    H. Rappel, L. A. Beex, J. S. Hale, L. Noels, S. P. Bordas, A tutorial on bayesian inference to identify material parameters in solid mechanics, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 27 (2020) 361–385

    2020

  22. [30]

    Sudret, A

    B. Sudret, A. D. Kiureghian, Stochastic finite element methods and reliability: a state-of-the-art report, 2000. URL: https://books.google.nl/books?id=PNNztgAACAAJ

    2000

  23. [31]

    Y. M. Marzouk, H. N. Najm, Dimensionality reduction and polynomial chaos acceleration of bayesian inference in inverse problems, Journal of Computational Physics 228 (2009) 1862–1902. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S0021999108006062

    2009

  24. [32]

    A. Nouy, O. P. L. Ma ˆ ıtre, Generalized spectral decomposition for stochastic nonlinear problems, Journal of Computational Physics 228 (2009) 202–235. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0021999108004737

    2009

  25. [33]

    Vigliotti, G

    A. Vigliotti, G. Cs´ anyi, V. S. Deshpande, Bayesian inference of the spatial distributions of material properties, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 118 (2018) 74–97

    2018

  26. [34]

    C. Li, A. D. Kiureghian, Optimal discretization of random fields, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 119 (1993) 1136–

    1993

  27. [35]

    R. G. Ghanem, P. D. Spanos, Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach, Springer New York, 1991. URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4612-3094-6

    1991 doi

  28. [36]

    C. E. Rasmussen, C. K. I. Williams, Gaussian processes for machine learning., MIT Press, 2006. URL:www.GaussianProcess. org/gpml

    2006

  29. [37]

    D. J. C. Mackay, Introduction to Gaussian Processes, Barber and Williams, 1998. URL: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/ ~radford/

    1998

  30. [38]

    A. M. Stuart, Inverse problems: A bayesian perspective, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962492910000061

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    Simoen, C

    E. Simoen, C. Papadimitriou, G. Lombaert, On prediction error correlation in bayesian model updating, Journal of Sound and Vibration 332 (2013) 4136–4152. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022460X13002514

    2013

  32. [40]

    G. O. Roberts, J. S. Rosenthal, Coupling and ergodicity of adaptive markov chain monte carlo algorithms, Journal of Applied Probability 44 (2007) 458–475. URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0021900200117954/type/ journal_article

    2007

  33. [41]

    Fletcher, Practical methods of optimization, Practical Methods of Optimization (2000)

    R. Fletcher, Practical methods of optimization, Practical Methods of Optimization (2000). URL: https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118723203

    2000 doi

  34. [42]

    I. B. Rocha, P. Kerfriden, F. P. van der Meer, On-the-fly construction of surrogate constitutive models for concurrent multiscale mechanical analysis through probabilistic machine learning, Journal of Computational Physics: X 9 (2021) 100083

    2021

  35. [43]

    A. R. Melro, P. P. Camanho, F. M. A. Pires, S. T. Pinho, Micromechanical analysis of polymer composites reinforced by unidirectional fibres: Part i-constitutive modelling, International Journal of Solids and Structures 50 (2013) 1897–1905

    2013

  36. [44]

    M. D. McKay, R. J. Beckman, W. J. Conover, A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code, Technometrics 21 (1979) 239. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1268522? origin=crossref. 28

    1979

  37. [1154]

    URL: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%281993%29119%3A6%281136%29https:// ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%281993%29119%3A6%281136%29

  38. [4886]

    URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018WR022658https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/abs/10.1029/2018WR022658https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018WR022658

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.