Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The tail wags the distribution: Only sample the tails for efficient reliability analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tail Stratified Sampling estimates rare failure probabilities by concentrating samples in the tails, and its variance stays controlled as failure probabilities become extremely small.

desk verdict Solid stratified-sampling method with honest limits; the main fix needed is a wrong-looking formula in Eq. (50) and a missing unbiasedness argument for the adaptive strata. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18510 v1 pith:SNG6U7U5 submitted 2025-05-24 stat.ME

Promit Chakroborty , Michael D. Shields This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62N0565C0562D05
keywords tailstratifiedsamplingrareeventestimationfailureprobabilityMonteCarlovariancereductionsubsetsimulationreliabilityanalysishigh-dimensionaltails
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

Tail Stratified Sampling (TSS) is a Monte Carlo estimator for very small failure probabilities that spends nearly all of its samples in the tails of the input distribution, where failures actually happen. The paper's core claim is that stratifying the sample space by nested density thresholds turns rare-event estimation into a sum of conditional probabilities with known geometric weights, so the bias can be made exponentially small and the variance does not grow as the failure probability $P_F$ shrinks. In seven two-dimensional benchmarks with failure probabilities from $10^{-2}$ to $10^{-9}$, TSS reports coefficients of variation one to two orders of magnitude lower than subset simulation at the same budget, and it succeeds in cases where subset simulation fails to converge. The paper also shows that this performance depends on identifying a high-probability safe region $A_0$ whose complement contains all failures; in high dimensions the standard design-point construction of $A_0$ has vanishing probability and TSS loses its advantage unless a problem-specific tail is defined.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the density-threshold tail decomposition. A set $S_{u,v}$ contains points whose joint density is above a threshold $u$, with an auxiliary parameter $v\in[0,1]$ resolving plateaus where the density is constant; the tail is the complement $T_{u,v}=S_{u,v}^c$. A nested sequence $S_{u_1,v_1}\subset S_{u_2,v_2}\subset\cdots$ is chosen so that each tail retains a fixed fraction $p_0$ of the previous tail's probability, giving strata $A_i=S_{u_i,v_i}\setminus S_{u_{i-1},v_{i-1}}$ with exactly known geometric probabilities $P(A_i)=p_0^{i-1}(1-p_0)P(A^*)$. Because the strata are defined by the scalar density value, the scheme is effectively one-dimensional and has no explicit dependence on the input dimension; the dimension enters only through the difficulty of finding a suitable null stratum $A_0$.

What would settle it

Compute the conditional probabilities $P(F_i)$ in the 1000-dimensional cantilever or SDOF example using the design-point null stratum. If those conditional probabilities are all within a small factor of $P_F$, the paper's own condition for provably small variance is violated, and TSS should show roughly the same coefficient of variation as subset simulation rather than an order-of-magnitude improvement. A sharper test would construct a high-dimensional Gaussian failure surface spread across many coordinates, such as many small exceedances rather than one extreme direction, and check whether any density-threshold tail contains a large fraction of the failure mass; if not, no choice of $p_0$ and $m$ can make TSS's variance small.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim of the paper is that a failure probability $P_F$ can be estimated accurately by the Tail Stratified Sampling estimator $$\hat $P_F^{{TSS}}$ = (1-p_0)P(A^*) \sum_{i=1}^{m} $p_0^{{i-1}}$ \frac{1}{N_i}\sum_{k=1}^{N_i} I_{\{g(x)\le 0\}}(x_k\mid A_i),$$ where $A_1,\dots,A_m$ are nested tail strata with probabilities $P(A_i)=p_0^{i-1}(1-p_0)P(A^*)$. The paper proves that the bias of this truncated estimator is at most $p_0^m P(A^*)$ and that its variance is $$\mathrm{Var}[\hat $P_F^{{TSS}}$] = [(1-p_0)P(A^*)]^2 \sum_{i=1}^{m} \frac{$p_0^{{2(i-1)}}$ P(F_i)(1-P(F_i))}{N_i},$$ so the stratum weights vanish exponentially and the estimate is dominated by the high-probability strata where failures almost never occur. Provided failures are confined to a known safe-region complement $A^*$ and the conditional failure probabilities $P(F_i)$ are large compared with $P_F$, the variance does not depend on the magnitude of $P_F$; the method, as the paper puts it, can therefore work better for smaller failure probabilities that occur deeper in identifiable tails.

Load-bearing premise

The efficiency guarantee collapses unless one can identify a high-probability safe region $A_0$ where failure is impossible, so that every tail stratum has a conditional failure probability much larger than the overall failure probability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Choosing $p_0=0.1$ and $m=4$ gives a bias below $10^{-4} P(A^*)$, and the paper uses this as a default in all examples.
  • For the seven two-dimensional benchmark problems, TSS achieves coefficients of variation one to two orders of magnitude lower than subset simulation with the same total sample budget.
  • TSS uses only the failure indicator $I_{\{g(x)\le 0\}}$, so it can estimate failure probabilities when the performance function is stochastic or unavailable; the paper demonstrates this on a cable with an unknown number of strands.
  • In high dimensions the design-point definition of $A_0$ yields a vanishingly small safe-region probability, and TSS then loses its efficiency; replacing it with a physically motivated safe region restores an order-of-magnitude coefficient-of-variation advantage on the 1001-dimensional cable problem.
  • The estimator's variance does not depend explicitly on $P_F$, so within its regime of validity TSS improves rather than degrades as the target probability becomes smaller.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Read as a recipe, TSS says that for extremely rare events the best use of a fixed budget is to certify a large safe core and spend nearly every evaluation inside the certified tail, which inverts the usual importance-sampling logic of placing weight near a design point.
  • The paper's high-dimensional examples leave the construction of $A_0$ as an open step; a natural next test is whether data-driven dimension reduction can identify a high-probability safe region automatically in problems where the design point fails.
  • Because TSS consumes only the failure indicator, the same decomposition should transfer to rare-event estimation for stochastic simulators, queues, and other black-box systems, not just deterministic structural performance functions.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Tail Stratified Sampling (TSS), a stratified Monte Carlo estimator for rare-event failure probabilities. The sample space is partitioned into nested regions defined by level sets of the input density, with an auxiliary ordering for plateau regions; a user-specified safe set A0 may be removed, and the remaining probability mass is subdivided so that the stratum probabilities follow P(Ai)=p0^{i-1}(1-p0)P(A*). The resulting estimator is a weighted sum of stratum failure indicators, with bias bounded by p0^m P(A*) and variance given in closed form. The paper derives special constructions for Gaussian and uniform inputs, discusses proportional, equal, and Neyman sample allocations, and compares TSS with subset simulation on seven 2-D benchmark problems, a 7-D buckling problem, and 1000-D beam, oscillator, and cable examples. The authors are explicit that efficiency depends on identifying a high-probability null stratum A0 with no failures, and they report both successful and unsuccessful high-dimensional applications.

Significance. If the estimator and its variance expressions are correct, TSS is a clean, interpretable variance-reduction scheme with several genuine strengths: the estimator follows directly from the law of total probability, the bias and variance formulas are explicit and falsifiable, the method uses only failure indicators and therefore applies to stochastic performance functions, and the 2-D benchmarks show large CoV reductions relative to subset simulation, including cases where SuS does not converge. The paper is also unusually candid about the central limitation, namely that efficiency requires a null stratum A0 of substantial probability in which no failures occur; no general construction of such a stratum is provided for high dimensions. The significance of the contribution is therefore real but narrower than the title and abstract suggest: the demonstrated order-of-magnitude gains are established for low-dimensional problems and for high-dimensional problems in which the user can supply problem-specific tail knowledge.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.5.1, Eq. (50)] Equation (50) defines the stratum radii r_i by adding a probability term to a density value: r_i = phi_d^{-1}( phi_d(r0) + (1-p0^i)(1 - F_chi(...)) ). A density value and a probability cannot be added, so the argument is dimensionally inconsistent. The formula also violates nesting: for d=2, p0=0.1, and r0=3, the i=1 radius is approximately 2.28, which is smaller than r0, making A1 = {r0 <= r <= r1} empty and invalidating the subsequent strata. The correct condition should be F_chi(r_i) = 1 - p0^i (1 - F_chi(r0)), i.e., r_i = F_chi^{-1}(1 - p0^i(1 - F_chi(r0))). Because Eq. (50) is the concrete Gaussian specialization underlying the benchmark examples, it must be corrected and the affected experiments re-verified, or the text must state explicitly that the examples do not use Eq. (50).
  2. [§5.1–5.3 and §2.3] The abstract and contribution list present TSS as a generally efficient method and emphasize the absence of explicit dimension dependence. The load-bearing condition for that benefit is the existence of a null stratum A0 with substantial probability and no failures (Section 2.3). The only general construction offered, the design-point hypersphere of Section 3.1, is shown in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 to yield higher CoV than subset simulation in 1000-D examples. The one successful 1000-D example in Section 5.3 uses a hand-crafted, problem-specific A0 based on physical insight rather than a general algorithm. The claimed high-dimensional efficiency should therefore be presented as conditional on problem-specific tail identification; the abstract and conclusions should not imply a demonstrated general high-dimensional advantage unless a general construction of A0 is supplied.
  3. [§3.3, Algorithm 2] The bias and variance guarantees in Section 2.3 are derived for a fixed partition with known probabilities P(Ai). In Algorithm 2, the strata are constructed from the same N samples that are subsequently used to estimate P(Fi). Because the order statistics of fX(X) are generally dependent on the performance function g(X), it is not immediate that Eq. (23) and Eq. (26) remain valid for this adaptive empirical variant. The authors should provide an asymptotic justification or a numerical verification of the variance estimator's coverage; otherwise the claimed precise error quantification is not established for the general arbitrary-distribution implementation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 9] Line 9 contains an unresolved placeholder annotation '▷ ??'; this should be completed.
  2. [§2.5.2, first paragraph] 'Anther case of practical importance' should read 'Another case'.
  3. [References] References [17] and [27] are the same article and should be merged; Section 7 contains the typo 'probem' for 'problem'.
  4. [Eq. (31)] The notation '= 0 [ ∵ P(F0):=0]' should be typeset as a proper sentence explaining that the term vanishes because P(F0)=0.
  5. [Figure 1 caption] The caption contains stray glyph strings such as '1 22 2' and '12 23 34 45 5' that should be removed or replaced with the intended labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TSS estimator follows directly from the law of total probability and standard stratified-sampling algebra, with efficiency conditions stated as explicit assumptions rather than fitted outputs.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Equations (12)-(26) are obtained by applying the law of total probability to a partition with known a priori stratum probabilities P(Ai), then estimating each conditional failure probability P(Fi) from independent stratum samples. No parameter is fitted to the target failure probability PF, and the estimator is not calibrated against any benchmark output. The bias bound in Eq. (23) follows from truncating a geometric tail sequence, and the variance expression in Eq. (26) is the standard stratified-sampling variance formula with exponentially decaying weights. The paper explicitly states the efficiency condition rather than silently assuming it: Section 2.3 says that if P(Fi) is comparable to PF, then the appropriate tail A* has not been identified and the variance will not be provably small. The high-dimensional difficulty of constructing a good null stratum is demonstrated in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 and acknowledged as a limitation in Sections 6.2 and 7; the successful high-dimensional example in Section 5.3 uses a problem-specific A0, which the paper transparently describes as requiring physical insight. Self-citations to prior work by the authors (references 14, 24, 25, 38) appear only in contextual discussions of subset simulation, Latin hypercube sampling, past stratified attempts, and MCMC samplers; none of these citations carries the load-bearing argument. There is no step in which a prediction reduces by construction to an input, a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, or a uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' own prior work.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The formal tail sets S_uv are a mathematical construction, not an independent physical entity. The main free parameters are the user-chosen p0 and m; the key domain assumption is the existence of a good null stratum A0, which the paper itself identifies as critical to performance.

free parameters (2)
  • p0 = 0.1 (recommended)
    User-selected parameter controlling the geometric progression of stratum probabilities; the paper recommends p0=0.1 based on empirical bias convergence in Section 4.1, not from a fit to a target result.
  • m = 4 (recommended)
    User-selected truncation level; the bias bound pm0 P(A*) (Eq. 23) drives the choice, and m=4 is recommended based on bias plots in Section 4.1.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption There exists an identifiable null stratum A0 contained in the safe set (g(x)>0) such that P(A*) is not too small and P(F|A*) is much larger than PF.
    This is the central efficiency condition; without it TSS reduces to (or is worse than) standard Monte Carlo. Acknowledged in Sections 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, and 6.1.
  • domain assumption The strata A_i have known probabilities computable a priori from Eqs. (20)-(21).
    For arbitrary distributions, constructing S_uv with exact probabilities requires solving a constrained optimization problem (Section 3.3); the theory assumes these are known.
  • ad hoc to paper The user-specified measure of spread M and central point x_c define the tail in plateau regions.
    Appendix A states these are not prescribed; the formal tail definition depends on choices that are left to the user.
  • domain assumption Independent standard normal inputs can be sampled conditionally within spherical shells using inverse transform on the radial chi distribution.
    Section 2.5.1 and 3.2; this holds but relies on the Nataf transform for non-normal inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The tail wags the distribution: Only sample the tails for efficient reliability analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SNG6U7U5

@misc{pith2026250518510,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The tail wags the distribution: Only sample the tails for efficient reliability analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SNG6U7U5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18510}
}
read the original abstract

To ensure that real-world infrastructure is safe and durable, systems are designed to not fail for any but the most rarely occurring parameter values. By only happening deep in the tails of the parameter distribution, failure probabilities are kept small. At the same time, it is essential to understand the risk associated with the failure of a system, no matter how unlikely. However, estimating such small failure probabilities is challenging; numerous system performance evaluations are necessary to produce even a single system state corresponding to failure, and each such evaluation is usually significantly computationally expensive. To alleviate this difficulty, we propose the Tail Stratified Sampling (TSS) estimator - an intuitive stratified sampling estimator for the failure probability that successively refines the tails of the system parameter distribution, enabling direct sampling of the tails, where failure is expected to occur. The most general construction of TSS is presented, highlighting its versatility and robustness for a variety of applications. The intuitions behind the formulation are explained, followed by a discussion of the theoretical and practical benefits of the method. Various details of the implementation are presented. The performance of the algorithm is then showcased through a host of analytical examples with varying failure domain geometries and failure probabilities as well as multiple numerical case studies of moderate and high dimensionality. To conclude, a qualitative comparison of TSS against the existing foundational variance-reduction methods for reliability analysis is presented, along with suggestions for future developments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18510 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of Suv for different values of u and v for (a) a continuously changing density function (i.e., it has no plateaus), and (b) a density function which has regions of uniformity (i.e., it has plateaus, or regions in the domain for which fX(x) is constant). Changing values of u can naturally deal with multiple modes of the distribution; Su20 in case (a) is composed of disjoint sets corresponding to the two… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of tail stratification for (a) independent standard Gaussian inputs (b) independent uniform inputs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 2D Analytical Problems: Performance function heatmaps for the (a) Wavy Circle, (b) Wavy Line, (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 2D Analytical Problems: Normalized error of the TSS predicted failure probability (i.e., [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 2D Analytical Problems: Convergence of the CoV for TSS (blue lines) and SuS (red lines) for increasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: System of rigid vertical bars prone to stable buckling behavior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stable Buckling Problem: Performance comparison between SuS and TSS. (a) Mean predicted failure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cantilever beam subjected to a stochastically distributed load [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cantilever beam problem: Performance comparison between SuS and TSS. (a) Mean predicted failure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: SDOF Oscillator: Performance comparison between SuS and TSS. (a, c, e) Mean predicted failure probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Stranded Wire Cable: Performance comparison between SuS and TSS. (a) Mean predicted failure probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Stochastic Stranded Wire Cable: Performance comparison between TSS-DP and TSS-ML. SuS cannot be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SuSIE: Subset Simulation with Intrepid Exploration

    stat.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Replacing subset simulation's Markov sampler with a cyclic component-wise Intrepid MCMC yields accurate, low-variance failure probability estimates for disconnected failure regions and discontinuous performance functi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    An exact and invarient first order reliability format

    Abraham M Hasofer. An exact and invarient first order reliability format. J. Eng. Mech. Div., Proc. ASCE , 100(1):111–121, 1974

    work page 1974

  2. [2]

    Efficient global reliability analysis for nonlinear implicit performance functions

    Barron J Bichon, Michael S Eldred, Laura Painton Swiler, Sandaran Mahadevan, and John M McFarland. Efficient global reliability analysis for nonlinear implicit performance functions. AIAA journal, 46(10):2459–2468, 2008. 28 A PREPRINT - AUGUST 19, 2025

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Ak-mcs: an active learning reliability method combining kriging and monte carlo simulation

    Benjamin Echard, Nicolas Gayton, and Maurice Lemaire. Ak-mcs: an active learning reliability method combining kriging and monte carlo simulation. Structural safety, 33(2):145–154, 2011

    2011

  4. [4]

    Meta-models for structural reliability and uncertainty quantification

    Bruno Sudret. Meta-models for structural reliability and uncertainty quantification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.2062, 2012

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    An active-learning algorithm that combines sparse polynomial chaos expansions and bootstrap for structural reliability analysis

    Stefano Marelli and Bruno Sudret. An active-learning algorithm that combines sparse polynomial chaos expansions and bootstrap for structural reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 75:67–74, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Neural-network-based reliability analysis: a comparative study

    Jorge E Hurtado and Diego A Alvarez. Neural-network-based reliability analysis: a comparative study. Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, 191(1-2):113–132, 2001

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Accelerated subset simulation with neural networks for reliability analysis.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 223:70–80, 2012

    Vissarion Papadopoulos, Dimitris G Giovanis, Nikos D Lagaros, and Manolis Papadrakakis. Accelerated subset simulation with neural networks for reliability analysis.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 223:70–80, 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation

    Siu-Kui Au and James L Beck. Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation. Probabilistic engineering mechanics, 16(4):263–277, 2001

    2001

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    A new adaptive importance sampling scheme for reliability calculations.Structural safety, 21(2):135–158, 1999

    Siu-Kui Au and James L Beck. A new adaptive importance sampling scheme for reliability calculations.Structural safety, 21(2):135–158, 1999

    1999

  2. [10]

    Probability integration by directional simulation

    Peter Bjerager. Probability integration by directional simulation. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 114(8):1285– 1302, 1988

    1988

  3. [11]

    On latin hypercube sampling for structural reliability analysis

    Anders Olsson, Göran Sandberg, and Ola Dahlblom. On latin hypercube sampling for structural reliability analysis. Structural safety, 25(1):47–68, 2003

    2003

  4. [12]

    Mcmc algorithms for subset simulation

    Iason Papaioannou, Wolfgang Betz, Kilian Zwirglmaier, and Daniel Straub. Mcmc algorithms for subset simulation. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 41:89–103, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    Hamiltonian monte carlo methods for subset simulation in reliability analysis

    Ziqi Wang, Marco Broccardo, and Junho Song. Hamiltonian monte carlo methods for subset simulation in reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 76:51–67, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Subset simulation for problems with strongly non- gaussian, highly anisotropic, and degenerate distributions

    Michael D Shields, Dimitris G Giovanis, and VS Sundar. Subset simulation for problems with strongly non- gaussian, highly anisotropic, and degenerate distributions. Computers & Structures, 245:106431, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    The geometry of limit state function graphs and subset simulation: Counterexamples

    Karl Breitung. The geometry of limit state function graphs and subset simulation: Counterexamples. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 182:98–106, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Reliability analysis of discrete-state performance functions via adaptive sequential sam- pling with detection of failure surfaces

    Miroslav V oˇrechovsk`y. Reliability analysis of discrete-state performance functions via adaptive sequential sam- pling with detection of failure surfaces. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 401:115606, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Sequential importance sampling for structural reliability analysis

    Iason Papaioannou, Costas Papadimitriou, and Daniel Straub. Sequential importance sampling for structural reliability analysis. Structural safety, 62:66–75, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Geometric insight into the challenges of solving high-dimensional reliability problems

    Lambros S Katafygiotis and Konstantin M Zuev. Geometric insight into the challenges of solving high-dimensional reliability problems. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 23(2-3):208–218, 2008

    2008

  11. [19]

    Important sampling in high dimensions

    Siu-Kui Au and James L Beck. Important sampling in high dimensions. Structural safety, 25(2):139–163, 2003

    2003

  12. [20]

    Cross-entropy-based adaptive importance sampling using von mises-fisher mixture for high dimensional reliability analysis

    Ziqi Wang and Junho Song. Cross-entropy-based adaptive importance sampling using von mises-fisher mixture for high dimensional reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 59:42–52, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    The art of simulation

    Keith Douglas Tocher. The art of simulation. English Universities Press, 1967

    1967

  14. [22]

    A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code

    Michael D McKay, Richard J Beckman, and William J Conover. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics, 42(1):55–61, 2000

    2000

  15. [23]

    Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems

    Jon C Helton and Freddie Joe Davis. Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 81(1):23–69, 2003

    2003

  16. [24]

    The generalization of latin hypercube sampling

    Michael D Shields and Jiaxin Zhang. The generalization of latin hypercube sampling. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 148:96–108, 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    Targeted random sampling: a new approach for efficient reliability estimation for complex systems

    Michael D Shields and VS Sundar. Targeted random sampling: a new approach for efficient reliability estimation for complex systems. International Journal of Reliability and safety, 9(2-3):174–190, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Srinivasan Arunachalam and Seymour M. J. Spence. Generalized stratified sampling for efficient reliability assessment of structures against natural hazards. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 149(7):04023042, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Cross-entropy-based adaptive importance sampling using von mises-fisher mixture for high dimensional reliability analysis

    Ziqi Wang and Junho Song. Cross-entropy-based adaptive importance sampling using von mises-fisher mixture for high dimensional reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 59:42–52, 2016. 29 A PREPRINT - AUGUST 19, 2025

    2016

  20. [28]

    Adaptive radial importance sampling under directional stratification

    Chenxiao Song and Reiichiro Kawai. Adaptive radial importance sampling under directional stratification. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 72:103443, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    An adaptive directional importance sampling method for structural reliability

    Frank Grooteman. An adaptive directional importance sampling method for structural reliability. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 26(2):134–141, 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    An innovating analysis of the nataf transformation from the copula viewpoint

    Regis Lebrun and Anne Dutfoy. An innovating analysis of the nataf transformation from the copula viewpoint. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 24(3):312–320, 2009

    2009

  23. [31]

    A stratified beta-sphere sam- pling method combined with important sampling and active learning for rare event analysis

    Fangqi Hong, Jingwen Song, Pengfei Wei, Ziteng Huang, and Michael Beer. A stratified beta-sphere sam- pling method combined with important sampling and active learning for rare event analysis. Structural Safety, 112:102546, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Structural reliability under combined random load sequences

    Rüdiger Rackwitz and Bernd Flessler. Structural reliability under combined random load sequences. Computers & structures, 9(5):489–494, 1978

    1978

  25. [33]

    Optimization algorithms for structural reliability

    Pei-Ling Liu and Armen Der Kiureghian. Optimization algorithms for structural reliability. Structural safety, 9(3):161–177, 1991

    1991

  26. [34]

    Strategies for finding the design point in non-linear finite element reliability analysis

    Terje Haukaas and Armen Der Kiureghian. Strategies for finding the design point in non-linear finite element reliability analysis. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 21(2):133–147, 2006

    2006

  27. [35]

    Handbook of markov chain monte carlo

    Steve Brooks, Andrew Gelman, Galin Jones, and Xiao-Li Meng. Handbook of markov chain monte carlo. CRC press, 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Accelerating markov chain monte carlo simulation by differential evolution with self-adaptive randomized subspace sampling

    Jasper A Vrugt, Cajo JF ter Braak, Cees GH Diks, Bruce A Robinson, James M Hyman, and Dave Higdon. Accelerating markov chain monte carlo simulation by differential evolution with self-adaptive randomized subspace sampling. International journal of nonlinear sciences and numeri...

    2009

  29. [37]

    Ensemble samplers with affine invariance

    Jonathan Goodman and Jonathan Weare. Ensemble samplers with affine invariance. Communications in applied mathematics and computational science, 5(1):65–80, 2010

    2010

  30. [38]

    Intrepid mcmc: Metropolis-hastings with exploration

    Promit Chakroborty and Michael D Shields. Intrepid mcmc: Metropolis-hastings with exploration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17639, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Modified replica exchange-based mcmc algorithm for estimation of structural reliability based on particle splitting method

    Adwait Sharma and CS Manohar. Modified replica exchange-based mcmc algorithm for estimation of structural reliability based on particle splitting method. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 72:103448, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    J. M. T. Thompson and G. W. Hunt. A General Theory of Elastic Stability. John Wiley & Sons, 1973

    1973

  33. [41]

    Physics-based stochastic model to determine the failure load of suspension bridge main cables

    Arturo Montoya, George Deodatis, Raimondo Betti, and Haim Waisman. Physics-based stochastic model to determine the failure load of suspension bridge main cables. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering , 29(4):B4014002, 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    Directional importance sampling for ill-proportioned spaces

    Mohammad Reza Moarefzadeh and Robert E Melchers. Directional importance sampling for ill-proportioned spaces. Structural safety, 21(1):1–22, 1999

    1999

  35. [43]

    Rare event estimation with sequential directional importance sampling

    Kai Cheng, Iason Papaioannou, Zhenzhou Lu, Xiaobo Zhang, and Yanping Wang. Rare event estimation with sequential directional importance sampling. Structural Safety, 100:102291, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Adaptive stratified sampling for structural reliability analysis

    Chenxiao Song and Reiichiro Kawai. Adaptive stratified sampling for structural reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 101:102292, 2023. A A Formal Definition of the Tail as a Set Prior to this point, we have defined the tail only informally. In this section, we formalize thi...

    2023

  37. [45]

    1i.e., V ({x ∈ Ω : fX (x) ≥ u}) = V ({x ∈ Ω : fX (x) > u})

    If lim δu→0 V ({x ∈ Ω : fX (x) ≥ u + δu}) exists1, where V (W ) is the volume measure of a set W ⊂ Ω, then Suv = Su0 = {x ∈ Ω : fX (x) ≥ u} (83) In this case, the auxiliary variable v ≡ 0, as mentioned previously. 1i.e., V ({x ∈ Ω : fX (x) ≥ u}) = V ({x ∈ Ω : fX (x) > u}). Sin...

    2025

  38. [46]

    Otherwise, when lim δu→0 V ({x ∈ Ω : fX (x) ≥ u + δu}) does not exist, define Su0 = lim δu→0+ {x ∈ Ω : fX (x) ≥ u + δu} = {x ∈ Ω : fX (x) > u} (84) Su1 = lim δu→0− {x ∈ Ω : fX (x) ≥ u + δu} = {x ∈ Ω : fX (x) ≥ u} (85) and for all intermediate values of v ∈ (0, 1), Suv must sat...

    2025

  39. [47]

    Inner bound: ( fX (x) < fX(xl,i−1)+fX(xf,i ) 2 if fX (xl,i−1) ̸= fX (xf,i) fX (x) < fX (xf,i) , M (x) > MX(xl,i−1)+MX(xf,i ) 2 otherwise (99)

  40. [48]

    Outer bound: ( fX (x) ≥ fX(xl,i)+fX(xf,i+1) 2 if fX (xl,i) ̸= fX (xf,i+1) fX (x) ≥ fX (xl,i) , M (x) < MX(xl,i)+MX(xf,i+1) 2 otherwise (100) Algorithm 3 Adaptive Stratification Construction for TSS with Alternative Sample Allocation Require: fX (x), A∗, P(A∗), fX|A∗ (x|A∗), p0...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.