Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Conditional Uncertainty Quantification of Stochastic Dynamical Structures Considering Measurement Conditions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the conditional density, mean, and variance of a stochastic structural response under a few key noisy measurements are exact quotient-form expressions, and that these key conditional quotients can be evaluated by…

desk verdict Solid within-subfield method paper — the KCQ math is Bayes's rule in quotient form and the numerics check out — but the hand-picked key-condition selection makes the 'most reference value' claim outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00310 v1 pith:MBLOKMSH submitted 2024-12-31 cs.CE

Feng Wu , Yuelin Zhao , Li Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CE
keywords conditionaluncertaintyquantificationkeyquotientstochasticstructuraldynamicsmeasurementerrorgeneralizedquasi-MonteCarloprobabilitydensityfunctionsafetyanalysis
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 addresses a practical gap in structural safety analysis: response uncertainty is usually quantified without using the measurement data that are already being collected on the structure. The authors propose that, given a probabilistic model of structural parameters, loads, and random measurement errors, the conditional probability density, mean, and variance of a dynamical response under a small set of key measurement conditions can be written exactly as quotients of weighted integrals over forward simulations. They call these expressions key conditional quotients (KCQ), and they build a numerical scheme that evaluates them with non-equal-weight generalized quasi-Monte Carlo integration, Dirac-function smoothing, and an offline-online split. The payoff, if the claim holds, is that an engineer can update response statistics from selected noisy measurements without solving an inverse problem, and the resulting conditional uncertainty is much smaller than the non-conditional one.

What carries the argument

The key conditional quotient (KCQ) is the central object: a set of quotient-form expressions, Eqs. (27)-(29), in which the conditional PDF, conditional mean, and conditional variance of the response under key measurement conditions are each the ratio of a weighted integral to a common denominator equal to the expected joint likelihood of the observed key measurements. The denominator is what makes the construction work: it normalizes the conditional quantities, and it is also the term that would degenerate numerically if all measurement times were used, motivating the selection of only $k_N$ highly correlated measurements. Around this object the paper assembles three computational devices: non-equal-weight generalized quasi-Monte Carlo integration to approximate the high-dimensional integrals, a Gaussian kernel to smooth the Dirac function inside the KCQ-PDF numerator, and an offline-online strategy in which the expensive dynamical solves are done once in the offline database while the online evaluation only reweights those stored responses against the actual measurements.

What would settle it

Take a test case where two measurements each correlate weakly with the response but together strongly constrain it; run the KCQ estimator with $k_N=1$ and with $k_N=2$, and compare both against the full-data conditional distribution from a direct million-sample Monte Carlo. If the $k_N=1$ interval stays wide while the full-data conditional interval is narrow, the correlation-based key-condition selection has demonstrably thrown away complementary information, and the claim that the selected conditions are the most valuable ones fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the conditional PDF, conditional mean, and conditional variance of a stochastic structural response at a given location and time, conditioned on a vector of key measurement data, are given exactly by the quotient formulas in Eqs. (27)-(29). The numerator and denominator are integrals over the random parameters and loads: the denominator is the expected likelihood of the observed key measurements, computed through the Gaussian measurement-error density, and the numerator is the same likelihood weighted by the response or its squared deviation. These formulas come from writing the joint density via the principle of probability conservation, then applying conditional probability theory, and the key measurement vector is selected from all available measurements by ranking marginal correlations with the response, Eq. (19). The paper further claims that the numerical schemes in Eqs. (34), (35), and (42) evaluate these quotients accurately using only a few hundred non-equal-weight samples, as demonstrated against million-sample Monte Carlo references on a spring-mass-damper system, a geometrically nonlinear beam, and a concrete bridge model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that ranking the available measurements by their marginal correlation with the response identifies the conditions that carry the most conditional information, and that the user-chosen number $k_N$ of such conditions is adequate; the paper gives no proof or sensitivity analysis for either choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If KCQ is correct, conditional response statistics can be obtained without solving an inverse or Bayesian updating problem: the same set of stored forward simulations is reweighted against whatever measurement data arrive online.
  • Because only $k_N$ key measurements are used, the numerical failure caused by the joint measurement-error likelihood tending to zero with the number of conditions is avoided, keeping the quotients stable.
  • The offline-online split means that after the response database is built, evaluating the conditional PDF, mean, and variance for new measurement data is nearly instantaneous, so repeated updates become practical for monitoring applications.
  • The examples indicate that conditioning on measurements with random errors can substantially narrow the three-standard-deviation interval of the response compared with conventional non-conditional uncertainty quantification, giving structural safety and reliability analysis a sharper statistical basis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the correlation-ranking criterion for key conditions is a heuristic; the same KCQ machinery would work with any other selection rule, and one could test whether mutual information or variance-based sensitivity measures selects conditions that shrink the response interval even more.
  • Editorial inference: the hand-picked $k_N$ could be chosen adaptively upward until the KCQ results stop changing; the paper's examples do not report such a sensitivity study, so a follow-up could settle how far a single extra key condition can tighten the conditional distribution.
  • Editorial inference: although the paper assumes Gaussian measurement error and known joint distributions of parameters and loads, the quotient derivation itself does not depend on those assumptions except for the likelihood factor and the smoothing parameter, so the method should extend to non-Gaussian errors and data-driven densities.
  • Editorial inference: because KCQ computes a conditional distribution rather than a point estimate, it could feed directly into time-variant reliability and risk assessments that need the probability of exceeding thresholds given current monitoring data, a connection the paper mentions only briefly.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a method for conditional uncertainty quantification of stochastic dynamical structural responses given measurement data with random errors. The authors derive quotient-form expressions for the conditional PDF, conditional mean, and conditional variance of a response conditioned on a subset of 'key' measurement conditions, using the principle of probability conservation and conditional probability theory (Eqs. (27)-(29)). Key conditions are selected as the k_N measurements with the largest marginal correlation with the target response (Eq. (19)). The integrals are approximated by non-equally weighted generalized quasi-Monte Carlo (GQMC), with a Gaussian-smoothed Dirac function for the PDF, and an offline-online computational strategy is proposed. Three examples—an SDOF oscillator, a geometrically nonlinear cantilever beam, and a concrete bridge—compare the proposed KCQ-WZ and KCQ-CL schemes against Monte Carlo reference solutions and show conditional uncertainty bands substantially narrower than those of non-conditional Monte Carlo.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the method offers a practical forward-only route to posterior response statistics under measurement conditions, avoiding the need to solve an inverse problem. The quotient identities in Eqs. (27)-(29) are exact rearrangements of the conditional density and are internally consistent; the numerical examples are verified against large Monte Carlo references, with reported speedups of two to three orders of magnitude, and the offline-online decomposition is a sensible engineering contribution. However, the paper's distinctive claim that the selected conditions are 'key' rests on a heuristic screening criterion whose optimality is not established, and the reported uncertainty reductions depend on hand-chosen subset sizes. These points limit the strength of the contribution as it stands but are addressable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (19)] The criterion of selecting measurements with the largest marginal correlation is not shown to identify the most informative conditions for conditional uncertainty quantification. Marginal correlation is a univariate screening statistic: it can miss measurements that are weakly correlated marginally but jointly provide complementary information, and it can select redundant measurements. The claim in Sections 5.1-5.3 that the resulting conditions 'significantly reduce' uncertainty is therefore a statement about an arbitrarily chosen subset, not about the most informative set. The authors should either prove or numerically demonstrate, for example by comparing candidate subsets through expected variance reduction or Kullback-Leibler divergence, that Eq. (19) is near-optimal, or they should soften the 'key' claim.
  2. [Section 5, k_N selection] The number of key conditions k_N is fixed by hand (2 in Section 5.1, 1 in Sections 5.2 and 5.3) and no sensitivity analysis is reported. Since the computed KCQ-mean, KCQ-variance, and KCQ-PDF are conditional on precisely this subset, different defensible choices of k_N or of the subset would yield different posterior quantities. A sensitivity study over k_N, or a comparison with the full-data conditional posterior where computable, is needed to support the claim that the selected key conditions have 'the most reference value' and to quantify how much of the total conditioning information is retained.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (39)] The Dirac smoothing parameter sigma is a free parameter controlling the KCQ-PDF, but no numerical values, convergence study, or sensitivity analysis are reported for any of the examples. Since Eq. (42) is the basis for the PDF comparisons in Figs. 2-3, 9-10, and 17, the accuracy claim for the KCQ-PDF is incomplete without specifying sigma and demonstrating that the reported curves are insensitive to its choice over a reasonable range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6 (Conclusions)] The conclusion refers to 'the generalized polynomial chaos method (GQMC)', but the body of the paper consistently defines GQMC as the generalized quasi-Monte Carlo method; this terminology should be corrected.
  2. [Section 5.2, Eq. (45)-(46)] The Karhunen-Loeve expansion in Eq. (45) uses the notation E(x) = E0 + sum_i kappa_i f_i(x) epsilon_i, but the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions in Eq. (46) are not clearly normalized; a brief statement on normalization and truncation error would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Section 4.1, Eq. (30)] The GQMC approximation in Eq. (30) is stated for a generic integrand f(alpha), but the weights w_i are generated from the density rho(alpha); the paper should state more explicitly that the same sample set and weights are reused for all numerators and denominators in Eqs. (34), (35), and (42), since this reuse is essential to the method's efficiency and to the cancellation of quadrature error.
  4. [Section 5.3, Tables 3 and 4] The text acknowledges that KCQ-CL occasionally has relative errors above 5% for small KCQ-SD values, but the corresponding absolute errors are not consistently reported; adding absolute errors would make the accuracy comparison more transparent.
  5. [Appendix, Theorem 1] The proof of Theorem 1 is essentially correct, but the notation in Eq. (A7) is compressed and the left-hand side omits the differential d zeta; expanding this step would improve readability without changing the argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the KCQ formulas are posterior identities derived from the generative model, and the GQMC self-citations are numerical tools benchmarked against Monte Carlo references.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Equations (27)-(29) are obtained by substituting the pushforward/probability-conservation identity, Eqs. (13)-(15), into the definition of the conditional PDF, Eq. (10); the quotient forms are exactly p(u,z)/p(z), so the conditional mean and variance are posterior expectations rather than fitted quantities. No parameter is calibrated to the KCQ-mean, KCQ-variance, or KCQ-PDF targets: the GQMC weights w_i are generated from the input density rho_alpha, the likelihood rho_beta is assumed Gaussian with known measurement-error statistics, and the Dirac smoothing parameter follows a cited external reference. The cited GQMC constructions, including the authors' own [54], are numerical quadrature tools validated in the same paper against KCQ-MC reference solutions; they do not presuppose the conditional statistics being computed. The only substantive weakness is the key-condition selection rule, Eq. (19), and the hand-picked k_N: the claim that the largest marginal correlations identify the measurements with the 'most reference value' for conditional UQ is asserted rather than proved. That is an assumption and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction, because the quotient formulas remain valid for any fixed conditioning subset. Self-citations are present but non-load-bearing, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method assumes the probabilistic model of parameters, loads, and measurement errors is known; the numerical results depend on hand-chosen key-condition counts and a smoothing bandwidth; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Number of key measurement conditions k_N = 2 in SDOF example, 1 in beam and bridge examples
    Set by hand for each example; the conditional estimates and their uncertainty reduction depend on this choice, and no data-driven criterion or sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Dirac smoothing parameter sigma = Not stated numerically; chosen according to Ref. [62]
    Controls the width of the Gaussian approximation to the Dirac delta in KCQ-PDF (Eq. 42); different choices change the PDF estimate.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Joint PDF of structural parameters and load parameters, and PDF of measurement error, are known; parameters and measurement error are independent.
    Stated in Section 2; the entire prior and likelihood structure depends on these being given.
  • domain assumption Measurement errors form a Gaussian random process with known mean and covariance.
    Section 4.1 uses a Gaussian beta PDF (Eq. 38) for all numerical examples; non-Gaussian or dependent errors are listed as future work in the Conclusions.
  • domain assumption The principle of probability conservation extends to the joint density over response, measurement, error, and parameters.
    Appendix Theorem 1 is used to write Eq. (13); it is a standard change-of-variables and Dirac identity but is assumed to hold for the finite-element response map g.
  • domain assumption GQMC with non-equal weights accurately integrates the integrands appearing in KCQs.
    Eq. (30) is the numerical foundation; convergence is not proven for the ratio estimator, only demonstrated on the three examples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conditional Uncertainty Quantification of Stochastic Dynamical Structures Considering Measurement Conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MBLOKMSH

@misc{pith2026250100310,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conditional Uncertainty Quantification of Stochastic Dynamical Structures Considering Measurement Conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MBLOKMSH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00310}
}
read the original abstract

How to accurately quantify the uncertainty of stochastic dynamical responses affected by uncertain loads and structural parameters is an important issue in structural safety and reliability analysis. In this paper, the conditional uncertainty quantification analysis for the dynamical response of stochastic structures considering the measurement data with random error is studied in depth. A method for extracting the key measurement condition, which holds the most reference value for the uncertainty quantification of response, from the measurement data is proposed. Considering the key measurement condition and employing the principle of probability conservation and conditional probability theory, the quotient-form expressions for the conditional mean, conditional variance, and conditional probability density function of the stochastic structural dynamical response are derived and are referred to as the key conditional quotients (KCQ). A numerical method combining the non-equal weighted generalized Monte Carlo method, Dirac function smoothing technique, and online-offline coupled computational strategy is developed for calculating KCQs. Three linear/nonlinear stochastic dynamical examples are used to verify that the proposed KCQ method can efficiently and accurately quantify the uncertainty of the structural response considering measurement conditions. The examples also compare the traditional non-conditional uncertainty quantification results with the conditional uncertainty quantification results given by KCQs, indicating that considering measurement conditions can significantly reduce the uncertainty of the stochastic dynamical responses, providing a more refined statistical basis for structural safety and reliability analysis.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adaptive semi-active control of a beam structure subjected to a moving load traversing with time-varying velocity

    Wasilewski M, Pisarski D. Adaptive semi-active control of a beam structure subjected to a moving load traversing with time-varying velocity. J Sound Vib 2020;481:115404

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Nonlinear dynamics of the rotating beam with time-varying speed under aerodynamic loads

    Eftekhari M, Owhadi S. Nonlinear dynamics of the rotating beam with time-varying speed under aerodynamic loads. International Journal of Dynamics and Control 2022;10(1):49-68

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    A high-performance calculation scheme for stochastic dynamic problems

    Huang DW, Wu F, Zhang S, Chen BS, Zhang HW. A high-performance calculation scheme for stochastic dynamic problems. Mech Syst Signal Pr 2023;189:110073

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    A review of automatic time-stepping strategies on numerical time integration for structural dynamics analysis

    Rossi DF, Ferreira WG, Mansur WJ, Calenzani AFG. A review of automatic time-stepping strategies on numerical time integration for structural dynamics analysis. Eng Struct 47 2014;80:118-136

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Finite element analysis of nonlinear structures with Newmark method

    Hashamdar H, Ibrahim Z, Jameel M. Finite element analysis of nonlinear structures with Newmark method. International Journal of the Physical Sciences 2011;6(6):1395-1403

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Nonlinear state equation and adaptive symplectic algorithm for the control rod drop

    Zhao K, Xu XM, Chen CY, Wu F, Huang DW, et al. Nonlinear state equation and adaptive symplectic algorithm for the control rod drop. Ann Nucl Energy 2022;179:109402

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Symmetry -breaking dynamics of a flexible hub -beam system rotating around an eccentric axis

    Xu MB, Hu WP, Han ZQ, Bai HY, Deng ZC, et al. Symmetry -breaking dynamics of a flexible hub -beam system rotating around an eccentric axis. Mech Syst Signal Pr 2025;222:111757

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Time precise int egration method for constrained nonlinear control system

    Deng ZC, Zhong WX. Time precise int egration method for constrained nonlinear control system. Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 2002;23:18-25

    work page 2002

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    On precise integration method

    Zhong WX. On precise integration method. J Comput Appl Math 2004;163(1):59-78

    2004

  2. [10]

    An adaptively filter ed precise integration method considering perturbation for stochastic dynamics problems

    Zhu L, Ye KQ, Huang DW, Wu F, Zhong WX. An adaptively filter ed precise integration method considering perturbation for stochastic dynamics problems. Acta Mech Solida Sin 2023;36(2):317-326

    2023

  3. [11]

    A new directional stability transformation method of chaos control for first order reliability analysis

    Meng Z, Li G, Yang DX, Zhan LC. A new directional stability transformation method of chaos control for first order reliability analysis. Struct Multidiscip O 2017;55(2):601-612

    2017

  4. [12]

    New target performance approach for a super parametric convex model of non -probabilistic reliability -based design optimization

    Meng Z, Zhou HL. New target performance approach for a super parametric convex model of non -probabilistic reliability -based design optimization. Comput Method Appl M 2018;339:644-662

    2018

  5. [13]

    An augmented weighted simulation method for high - dimensional reliability analysis

    Meng Z, Pang YS, Zhou HL. An augmented weighted simulation method for high - dimensional reliability analysis. Struct Saf 2021;93:102117

    2021

  6. [14]

    A hierarchy model for the uncertainty quantification of spatial variability in the constitutive parameters of concrete in structures

    Tao JJ, Chen JB. A hierarchy model for the uncertainty quantification of spatial variability in the constitutive parameters of concrete in structures. Struct Saf 2022;95:102181

    2022

  7. [15]

    Recent developments in mechanical and uncertainty modelling of concrete

    Chen JB, Ren XD, Feng DC, Kohler J, Sø rensen JD, et al. Recent developments in mechanical and uncertainty modelling of concrete. Struct Saf 2024:102526. 48

    2024

  8. [16]

    A n ew perspective on the simulation of cross -correlated random fields

    Dai HZ, Zhang RJ, Beer M. A n ew perspective on the simulation of cross -correlated random fields. Struct Saf 2022;96:102201

    2022

  9. [17]

    Uncertainty in wind climate parameters and their influence on wind turbine fatigue loads

    Toft HS, Svenningsen L, Sø rensen JD, Moser W, Thø gersen ML. Uncertainty in wind climate parameters and their influence on wind turbine fatigue loads. Renew Energ 2016;90:352-361

    2016

  10. [18]

    System-based reliability analysis of stainless steel frames subjected to gravity and wind loads

    Arrayago I, Rasmussen KJR, Zhang H. System-based reliability analysis of stainless steel frames subjected to gravity and wind loads. Struct Saf 2022;97:102211

    2022

  11. [19]

    Uncertainties in material and geometric strength and load variables

    Hess PE, Bruchman D, Assakkaf IA, Ayyub BM. Uncertainties in material and geometric strength and load variables. Nav Eng J 2002;114(2):139-166

    2002

  12. [20]

    Wave spectrum fitting with multiple parameters based on optimization algorithms and its application

    Wu F, Zhu L, Zhao YL, Ai CF, Wang X, et al. Wave spectrum fitting with multiple parameters based on optimization algorithms and its application. Ocean Eng 2024;312:119073

    2024

  13. [21]

    A non -Gaussian stochastic model from limited observations using polynomial chaos and fractional moments

    Zhang RJ, Dai HZ. A non -Gaussian stochastic model from limited observations using polynomial chaos and fractional moments. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2022;221:108323

    2022

  14. [22]

    The first -order time-variant reliability expansio n method

    Chen WW, Ni BY, Tian WY, Jiang C. The first -order time-variant reliability expansio n method. Struct Saf 2024;109:102484

    2024

  15. [23]

    The efficient calculation methods for stochastic nonlinear transient heat conduction problems

    Huang DW, Zhao YL, Ye KQ, Wu F, Zhang HW, et al. The efficient calculation methods for stochastic nonlinear transient heat conduction problems. J Comput Sci -Neth 2023;67:101939

    2023

  16. [24]

    Structural and load parameter estimation of a real-world reinforced concrete slab bridge using measurements and Bayesian statistics

    Ró zsá s Á, Slobbe A, Martini G, Jansen R. Structural and load parameter estimation of a real-world reinforced concrete slab bridge using measurements and Bayesian statistics. Struct Concrete 2022;23(6):3569-3600

    2022

  17. [25]

    Measurement uncertainty of generalized stiffness of machine tools

    Majda P, Jastrzębska J. Measurement uncertainty of generalized stiffness of machine tools. Measurement 2021;170:108692

    2021

  18. [26]

    Determination of the fine-structure constant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion

    Morel L, Yao Z, Cladé P, Guellati-Khé lifa S. Determination of the fine-structure constant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion. Nature 2020;588(7836):61-65. 49

    2020

  19. [27]

    A sensitivity analysis based trade-off between probabilistic model identification and statistical estimation

    Surget C, Dubreuil S, Morio J, Ma ttrand C, Bourinet J, et al. A sensitivity analysis based trade-off between probabilistic model identification and statistical estimation. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2025;254:110545

    2025

  20. [28]

    A modified stochastic perturbation method for stochastic h yperbolic heat conduction problems

    Wu F, Zhong WX. A modified stochastic perturbation method for stochastic h yperbolic heat conduction problems. Comput Method Appl M 2016;305:739-758

    2016

  21. [29]

    A new method for stochastic analysis of structures under limited observations

    Dai HZ, Zhang RJ, Beer M. A new method for stochastic analysis of structures under limited observations. Mechanical Systems & Signal Processing 2023;185:109730

    2023

  22. [30]

    Stochastic analysis of structures under limited observations using kernel density estimation and arbitrary polynomial chaos expansion

    Zhang RJ, Dai HZ. Stochastic analysis of structures under limited observations using kernel density estimation and arbitrary polynomial chaos expansion. Comput Method Appl M 2023;403:115689

    2023

  23. [31]

    A nonlinear interval finite element method for elastic–plastic problems with spatially uncertain parameters

    Wu PG, Ni BY, Jiang C. A nonlinear interval finite element method for elastic–plastic problems with spatially uncertain parameters. Comput Struct 2024;303:107476

    2024

  24. [32]

    Transient response bounds analysis of heat transfer problems based on interval process model

    Tian WY, Ni BY, Jiang C, Wu ZT. Transient response bounds analysis of heat transfer problems based on interval process model. Int J Heat Mass Tran 2020;148:119027

    2020

  25. [33]

    UA-CRD, a computational framework for uncertainty analysis of control rod drop with time -variant epistemic uncertain parameters

    Yang YX, Zhao K, Zhao YL, Wu F, Chen CY, et al. UA-CRD, a computational framework for uncertainty analysis of control rod drop with time -variant epistemic uncertain parameters. Ann Nucl Energy 2024;195:110171

    2024

  26. [34]

    Modeling, analysis, and optimization under uncertainties: a review

    Acar E, Bayrak G, Jung Y, Lee I, Ramu P, et al. Modeling, analysis, and optimization under uncertainties: a review. Struct Multidiscip O 2021;64(5):2909-2945

    2021

  27. [35]

    Uncertainties in structural dynamics: overview and comparative analysis of methods

    Daouk S, Louf F, Dorival O, Champaney L, Audebert S. Uncertainties in structural dynamics: overview and comparative analysis of methods. Mech Ind 2015;16(4):404

    2015

  28. [36]

    Convex models of uncertainty in applied mechanics

    Ben-Haim Y, Elishakoff I. Convex models of uncertainty in applied mechanics. Elsevier. 2013

    2013

  29. [37]

    The Monte Carlo Method

    Sobol IM. The Monte Carlo Method. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1974

    1974

  30. [38]

    The stochastic perturbation method for computational mechanics

    Kaminski M. The stochastic perturbation method for computational mechanics. John 50 Wiley & Sons. 2013

    2013

  31. [39]

    An adaptive divided-difference perturbation method for solving stochastic problems

    Wu F, Huang DW, Xu XM, Zhao K, Zhou N. An adaptive divided-difference perturbation method for solving stochastic problems. Struct Saf 2023;103:102346

    2023

  32. [40]

    Probability density evolution method for dynamic response analysis of structures with uncertain parameters

    Li J, Chen JB. Probability density evolution method for dynamic response analysis of structures with uncertain parameters. Comput Mech 2004;34(5):400-409

    2004

  33. [41]

    Probability density evolution method: background, significance and r ecent developments

    Li J. Probability density evolution method: background, significance and r ecent developments. Probabilist Eng Mech 2016;44:111-117

    2016

  34. [42]

    Parallel assessment of the tropical cyclone wind hazard at multiple locations using the probability density evolution method integrated with the change of probability measure

    Hong X, Wan ZQ, Chen JB. Parallel assessment of the tropical cyclone wind hazard at multiple locations using the probability density evolution method integrated with the change of probability measure. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2023;237:109351

    2023

  35. [43]

    A deep learning approach for the solution of probability density evolution of stochastic systems

    Pourtakdoust SH, Khodabakhsh AH. A deep learning approach for the solution of probability density evolution of stochastic systems. Struct Saf 2022;99:102256

    2022

  36. [44]

    Uncertainty analysis of the control rod drop based on the adaptive collocation stochastic perturbation method

    Wu F, Zhao K, Zhao LL, Chen CY, Zhong WX. Uncertainty analysis of the control rod drop based on the adaptive collocation stochastic perturbation method. Ann Nucl Energy 2023;190(15):109873

    2023

  37. [45]

    Global sensitivity analysis for medium -dimensional structural engineering problems using stochastic collocation

    Hü bler C. Global sensitivity analysis for medium -dimensional structural engineering problems using stochastic collocation. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2020;195:106749

    2020

  38. [46]

    An active sparse polynomial chaos expansion approach based on sequential relevance vector machine

    Li YT, Luo YJ, Zhong Z. An active sparse polynomial chaos expansion approach based on sequential relevance vector machine. Comput Method Appl M 2024;418:116554

    2024

  39. [47]

    Surrogate -based integrated design of component layout and structural topology for multi-component structures

    Bao JW, Liu P, Zhong JH, Xu YN, Luo YJ. Surrogate -based integrated design of component layout and structural topology for multi-component structures. Struct Multidiscip O 2023;66(1)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Quasi-monte carlo methods

    Niederreiter H, Winterhof A. Quasi-monte carlo methods. Springer, 1992, 185-306

    1992

  41. [49]

    Evolutionary optimization of low- discrepancy sequences

    De Rainville FM, Gagné C, Teytaud O, Laurendeau D. Evolutionary optimization of low- discrepancy sequences. Acm T Model Comput S 2012;22(2):1-25. 51

    2012

  42. [50]

    A multi -body dynamical evolution model for generating the point set with best uniformity

    Wu F, Zhao YL, Zhao K, Zhong WX. A multi -body dynamical evolution model for generating the point set with best uniformity. Swarm Evol Comput 2022;73:101121

    2022

  43. [51]

    A GF -discrepancy for point selection in stochastic seismic response analysis of structures with uncertain parameters

    Chen JB, Yang JY, Li J. A GF -discrepancy for point selection in stochastic seismic response analysis of structures with uncertain parameters. Struct Saf 2016;59:20-31

    2016

  44. [52]

    Improving point selection in cubature by a new discrepancy

    Chen JB, Zhang SH. Improving point selection in cubature by a new discrepancy. Siam J Sci Comput 2013;35(5):A2121-A2149

    2013

  45. [53]

    Application of high -credible statistical results calculation scheme based on least squares Quasi -Monte Carlo method in multi modal stochastic problems

    Huang DW, Wu F, Zhao YL, Yan J, Zhang HW. Application of high -credible statistical results calculation scheme based on least squares Quasi -Monte Carlo method in multi modal stochastic problems. Comput Method Appl M 2024;418:116576

    2024

  46. [54]

    A new discrepancy for sample generation in stochastic response analyses of aerospace problems with uncertain parameter (In Press)

    Wu F, Zhao YL, Yang YX, Zhang XP, Zhou N. A new discrepancy for sample generation in stochastic response analyses of aerospace problems with uncertain parameter (In Press). 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Methods of structural safety

    Madsen HO, Krenk S, Lind NC. Methods of structural safety. Courier Corporation. 2006

    2006

  48. [56]

    Finite element method

    Dhatt G, Lefranç ois E, Touzot G. Finite element method. John Wiley & Sons. 2012

    2012

  49. [57]

    Stochastic dynamic analysis of rolling ship in random wave condition by using finite element method

    Chen J, Yang JM, Shen KF, Zheng ZQ, Chang ZY. Stochastic dynamic analysis of rolling ship in random wave condition by using finite element method. Ocean Eng 2022;250:110973

    2022

  50. [58]

    Performance and dynamics of a novel bistable vibration energy harvester with appended nonlinear elastic boundary

    Li XF, Yurchenko D, Li RF, Feng XX, Yan B, et al. Performance and dynamics of a novel bistable vibration energy harvester with appended nonlinear elastic boundary. Mech Syst Signal Pr 2023;185:109787

    2023

  51. [59]

    Probability theory

    Ré nyi A. Probability theory. Courier Corporation. 2007

    2007

  52. [60]

    Modelling and control of dynamic systems using Gaussian process models

    Kocijan J. Modelling and control of dynamic systems using Gaussian process models. Springer. 2016

    2016

  53. [61]

    Remarks on the numerical approximation of Dirac delta functions

    Di Cola VS, Cuomo S, Severino G. Remarks on the numerical approximation of Dirac delta functions. Results Appl Math 2021;12:100200

    2021

  54. [62]

    Gaussian kernel smoothing

    Chung MK. Gaussian kernel smoothing. Arxiv Preprint Arxiv:2007.09539 2020

    2007 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Elasticity: theory and applications

    Saada AS. Elasticity: theory and applications. Elsevier. 2013. 52

    2013

  56. [64]

    Detection, estimation, and modulation theory, part I: detection, estimation, and linear modulation theory

    Van Trees HL. Detection, estimation, and modulation theory, part I: detection, estimation, and linear modulation theory. John Wiley & Sons. 2004

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.