pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.28601 · v1 · pith:7BHLJ342new · submitted 2026-05-27 · 💻 cs.CE

Local Information Operators for Spatial Identifiability in Distributed-Parameter Inverse Problems in Computational Mechanics

Tammam Bakeer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 09:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CE
keywords information operatorspatial identifiabilitydistributed-parameter inverse problemsFisher informationGauss-Newton methodcomputational mechanicsparameter estimationsensitivity analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

A linearized information operator on parameter perturbations quantifies spatial identifiability in distributed inverse problems.

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

The paper develops a local information-operator framework for assessing which spatial perturbation patterns of a distributed parameter field are distinguishable from noisy observations. It linearizes the parameter-to-observation map around a nominal field and treats the likelihood's contribution to posterior precision as an operator acting on those perturbations. For Gaussian models with parameter-independent covariance, the operator unifies Fisher information, Gauss-Newton curvature, and noise-weighted sensitivity Gramian. The diagonal encodes local information density at each point while the kernel and spectra rank the visibility of entire spatial patterns. This separation aids in understanding sensor performance and reconstruction limits beyond simple pointwise measures.

Core claim

Around a nominal parameter field, the parameter-to-observation map is linearized and the likelihood contribution to posterior precision is interpreted as an operator on parameter-field perturbations. For locally linearized Gaussian models with parameter-independent covariance, this operator is equivalently Fisher information, Gauss-Newton data-misfit curvature, and a noise-weighted sensitivity Gramian. The framework separates pointwise visibility from spatial identifiability. The diagonal gives a coordinate-dependent local information density, while the full kernel and metric- or prior-preconditioned spectra rank spatial patterns that are strongly visible, weakly visible, or locally invisibl

What carries the argument

The local information operator, defined as the likelihood contribution to posterior precision acting on parameter-field perturbations.

If this is right

  • Heterogeneous observation blocks assemble in a common parameter space, with information additive only under conditional independence.
  • Correlated errors require the full joint covariance.
  • Model discrepancy modifies the geometry through covariance inflation.
  • Nuisance parameters cause information loss via Schur complement.
  • Prior information modifies the same geometry through prior-preconditioned modes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The spectral decomposition could be used to design experiments that target specific invisible patterns.
  • This operator view may generalize to time-dependent or nonlinear settings through successive linearizations.
  • Connections to optimal design of experiments in other inverse problem domains follow naturally from the shared geometry.

Load-bearing premise

The parameter-to-observation map can be meaningfully linearized around a nominal parameter field and the observation covariance does not depend on the parameters themselves.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of predicted identifiability from the operator against actual posterior uncertainty in a nonlinear or parameter-dependent covariance case where they diverge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28601 by Tammam Bakeer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual loss landscape for an ill-posed inverse problem. The valley of small weighted residual norm contains multiple estimates mˆ 1, mˆ 2, mˆ 3 with comparable data fit, illustrating that the observations may constrain only some parameter combinations while leaving other directions weakly constrained or nearly non-identifiable. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: General mechanics setting for the distributed-parameter inverse problem. An unknown spatial field m(x) enters a mechanics-governed forward model on a domain Ω. Loads, boundary conditions, excitations, sensors, and sampling choices define experiments ξk, which generate state responses uk and observations yk. The inverse problem uses these observations to infer the parameter field and to assess which spatial… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Two-dimensional illustration of the Bayesian update geometry. (a) Prior distribution πpr(m) = N (mpr, Cpr). (b) Likelihood π(y | m) ∝ exp[−Φ(m; y)] induced by a nonlinear forward map; weak and strong directions indicate data resolution anisotropy. (c) Posterior π(m | y) and its local Laplace approximation (blue contours) around mMAP, with posterior precision given by Eq. (8). where I(m0; Ξ) is the data-ind… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Conceptual illustration of pointwise visibility and operator-level spatial identifiability. (a) Full information kernel I(x, x¯), with the diagonal x = x¯ marked. (b) Surface view of the same kernel, emphasizing that information is a two-point spatial object. (c) Diagonal information density I(x, x), which visualizes coordinate-wise local visibility. (d) Leading information modes ψi(x), obtained from the f… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Conceptual examples of observation classes in the local information-operator framework. Each panel illustrates a different way in which the mechanical state u, or a derived quantity of u, can be sampled to form rows of the local Jacobian J. Pointwise measurements contribute localized rows, distributed line and surface measurements provide spatially extended rows, integral and relative measurements produce … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Numerical rendering of the pointwise information density I v ρ,diag(s) from Eq. (57) for a quarter-span rotation sensor (solid blue) and for support sensors (dashed gray). The jump discontinuity at s = ρ reflects the piecewise-affine influence field µρ; finite sensor gauge length or regularized observation operators smooth this jump into a sharp transition. The right-shifted maximum for ρ = 1/4 illustrates… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Full local information kernel for a simply supported beam with a rotation sensor at ρ = 0.25. The plot shows the normalized EI-kernel I EI r (x, x¯); for a uniform reference stiffness this has the same spatial pattern as the compliance kernel up to a positive constant factor. (a) Contour plot of the normalized kernel with the diagonal x = x¯ (blue line), sensor position (dashed), and contour lines. (b) Thr… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Normalized spectrum and leading local parameter-observability modes for a single rotation sensor at ρ = 0.25, computed from the exact sensor-weighted information kernel. The normalized eigenvalue decay shows that most information is concentrated in a few parameter directions, while the plotted modes ψi(x) show increasingly weakly visible spatial patterns; the dashed vertical line marks the sensor position.… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Pointwise Fisher-information density I EI r,diag(x) for EI along a two-span continuous beam under moving-load excitation and rotation sensing. The colored curves show representative sensor positions along the two-span domain, the red envelope summarizes the maximum visibility obtained over the moving sensor sweep, and the vertical dashed line marks the interior support at s = 1. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Full local information kernel I EI r (x, x¯) for a two-span continuous beam with a rotation sensor at ρs = 0.25 and an interior support at s = 1. (a) Contour plot of the normalized kernel with the diagonal x = x¯ (blue line), sensor position (dashed), interior support (dash-dotted), and contour lines. (b) Three-dimensional surface representation showing the kernel structure and the influence of the interi… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Hybrid static–dynamic identification of a damaged flexural-rigidity field EI(x). (a) Beam, true stiffness profile, static moving-load positions, dynamic excitation locations, and sensor layout. (b) Static tilt responses under the moving load and model responses from the identified fields. (c) Dynamic frequency-response functions for several excitation locations and corresponding identified-model responses… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows a representative reconstruction on a 17 × 81 grid, corresponding to 1377 damage unknowns. The observation vector stacks 14 axial-strain sensors, 3 vertical￾displacement sensors, and 3 rotation-like sensors over eight moving-load cases, giving 160 scalar observations. The reconstruction uses the first k = 8 Euclidean eigenmodes of the discrete local information operator. This compact illustrative sub… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In distributed-parameter inverse problems in computational mechanics, spatially varying fields are inferred from noisy, indirect, and heterogeneous observations. The relevant identifiability question concerns which spatial perturbation patterns of the field are distinguishable under a specified sensing and excitation programme. This paper develops a local information-operator framework for this purpose. Around a nominal parameter field, the parameter-to-observation map is linearized and the likelihood contribution to posterior precision is interpreted as an operator on parameter-field perturbations. For locally linearized Gaussian models with parameter-independent covariance, this operator is equivalently Fisher information, Gauss-Newton data-misfit curvature, and a noise-weighted sensitivity Gramian. The framework separates pointwise visibility from spatial identifiability. The diagonal gives a coordinate-dependent local information density, while the full kernel and metric- or prior-preconditioned spectra rank spatial patterns that are strongly visible, weakly visible, or locally invisible. Heterogeneous observation blocks are assembled in a common parameter space; information is additive only under conditional independence, whereas correlated errors require the full joint covariance. Model discrepancy, nuisance parameters, and prior information modify the same geometry through covariance inflation, Schur-complement information loss, and prior-preconditioned modes. Examples cover analytic beam kernels, two-span support coupling, static-dynamic fusion for flexural-rigidity identification, and two-dimensional damage-field reconstruction in a leading information subspace. The operator view supports interpretation of identifiability, sensor complementarity, and reduced reconstruction in distributed-parameter inverse problems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a local information-operator framework for spatial identifiability questions in distributed-parameter inverse problems. Around a nominal parameter field the parameter-to-observation map is linearized; the likelihood contribution to posterior precision is interpreted as an operator on field perturbations. Under the stated scope (locally linearized Gaussian models with parameter-independent covariance) this operator is equivalently the Fisher information, the Gauss-Newton data-misfit curvature, and the noise-weighted sensitivity Gramian. The diagonal supplies a coordinate-dependent local information density while the kernel and (metric- or prior-preconditioned) spectra rank strongly visible, weakly visible, or locally invisible spatial patterns. Heterogeneous observation blocks are assembled in a common parameter space; information additivity, model discrepancy, nuisance parameters, and priors are handled via standard Gaussian rules (conditional independence, covariance inflation, Schur complements). Analytic and numerical examples are given for beam kernels, two-span coupling, static-dynamic fusion, and 2-D damage-field reconstruction.

Significance. If the equivalences hold, the operator view supplies a compact, geometrically interpretable language for identifiability, sensor complementarity, and reduced reconstruction that is directly usable by practitioners in computational mechanics. The explicit reduction to standard second-derivative quantities of the Gaussian negative log-likelihood and the clean separation of pointwise versus pattern-wise visibility are the main contributions; the handling of heterogeneous blocks and prior preconditioning follows directly from existing information geometry and does not introduce new machinery.

minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract packs several distinct concepts (operator equivalences, diagonal/kernel decomposition, heterogeneous blocks, Schur complements) into a single paragraph; splitting the framework description into two or three shorter sentences would improve readability without changing content.
  2. Early in the manuscript an explicit equation defining the local information operator (e.g., as the integral kernel of the linearized map composed with the inverse covariance) would anchor the subsequent verbal descriptions.
  3. In the examples section, the transition from the analytic beam kernels to the two-dimensional damage reconstruction would benefit from a short statement of the discretization size and the numerical linear-algebra method used to extract the leading eigenmodes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough summary and positive evaluation of the local information-operator framework. The report correctly identifies the core contributions and the scope limitations (linearized Gaussian models with parameter-independent covariance). No specific major comments requiring point-by-point rebuttal were listed in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; equivalences follow from standard definitions

full rationale

The paper scopes its claims explicitly to locally linearized Gaussian models with parameter-independent covariance. Under these conditions the stated operator equivalences (Fisher information, Gauss-Newton data-misfit curvature, noise-weighted sensitivity Gramian) are direct algebraic consequences of the second derivative of the negative log-likelihood and the coincidence of the Gauss-Newton Hessian with the true Hessian for a linearized map; they do not reduce any claimed result to a fitted quantity defined by the result itself. The diagonal-versus-kernel decomposition is the standard spectral decomposition of a compact self-adjoint operator on the parameter space. No self-citation is invoked as load-bearing justification, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in. The framework therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks of information geometry and Gaussian inverse problems.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central construction rests on linearization of the forward map and parameter-independent covariance; these are standard but load-bearing domain assumptions for the claimed equivalences.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The parameter-to-observation map admits a linearization around a nominal field.
    Explicitly invoked in the abstract to define the operator on perturbations.
  • domain assumption Observation covariance is independent of the parameter field.
    Required for the stated equivalence to Fisher information and Gauss-Newton curvature.
invented entities (1)
  • Local information operator no independent evidence
    purpose: Represents the likelihood contribution to posterior precision as an operator on parameter-field perturbations.
    Central new object introduced to separate pointwise visibility from spatial identifiability.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5787 in / 1079 out tokens · 28671 ms · 2026-06-29T09:25:03.466054+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    and Friswell, M

    Adhikari, S. and Friswell, M. I. Distributed Parameter Model Updating Using the Karhunen–Loève Expansion.Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing24.(2) (2010), 326–339.doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2009.08.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2009.08.007 2010

  2. [2]

    et al.High-Fidelity Digital Twins: Detecting and Localizing Weaknesses in Structures

    Löhner, R. et al.High-Fidelity Digital Twins: Detecting and Localizing Weaknesses in Structures. 2023.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2311.10925. 35

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.10925 2023

  3. [3]

    Airaudo, F. N. et al. Adjoint-Based Determination of Weaknesses in Structures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering417(2023), 116471.doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2023.116471

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2023.116471 2023

  4. [4]

    You, R.-Z. et al. Distributed Bending Stiffness Estimation of Bridges Using Adaptive Inverse Unit Load Method.Engineering Structures297(2023), 116981.doi: 10. 1016/j.engstruct.2023.116981

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Bakeer, T., Herbers, M., and Marx, S.Sensor Informativeness, Identifiability, and Uncertainty in Bayesian Inverse Problems for Structural Health Monitoring. 2025. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.16628

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.16628 2025

  6. [6]

    Diaz, M., Charbonnel, P.-É., and Chamoin, L. Merging Experimental Design and Structural Identification around the Concept of Modified Constitutive Relation Error in Low-Frequency Dynamics for Enhanced Structural Monitoring.Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing197(2023), 110371.doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2023.110371

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2023.110371 2023

  7. [7]

    Beck, J. V. and Arnold, K. J.Parameter Estimation in Engineering and Science. New York: Wiley, 1977

    1977

  8. [8]

    Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2005

    Tarantola, A.Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2005

    2005

  9. [9]

    Stuart, A. M. Inverse Problems: A Bayesian Perspective.Acta Numerica19(2010), 451–559.doi:10.1017/S0962492910000061

    work page doi:10.1017/s0962492910000061 2010

  10. [10]

    Kammer, D. C. Sensor Placement for On-Orbit Modal Identification and Correlation of Large Space Structures.Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics14.(2) (1991), 251–259.doi:10.2514/3.20635

    work page doi:10.2514/3.20635 1991

  11. [11]

    Sensor Placement for Parameter Estimation of Structures Using Fisher Information Matrix

    Sanayei, M. and Javdekar, C. N. “Sensor Placement for Parameter Estimation of Structures Using Fisher Information Matrix”.Applications of Advanced Technologies in Transportation (2002). Boston Marriot, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2002, pp. 385–386.doi:10.1061/40632(245)49

    work page doi:10.1061/40632(245)49 2002

  12. [12]

    L., and Au, S.-K

    Papadimitriou, C., Beck, J. L., and Au, S.-K. Entropy-Based Optimal Sensor Location for Structural Model Updating.Journal of Vibration and Control6.(5) (2000), 781– 800.doi:10.1177/107754630000600508

    work page doi:10.1177/107754630000600508 2000

  13. [13]

    Optimal Sensor Placement Methodology for Parametric Identifica- tion of Structural Systems.Journal of Sound and Vibration278.(4) (2004), 923–947

    Papadimitriou, C. Optimal Sensor Placement Methodology for Parametric Identifica- tion of Structural Systems.Journal of Sound and Vibration278.(4) (2004), 923–947. doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2003.10.063

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2003.10.063 2004

  14. [14]

    and Li, H.-N

    Yi, T.-H. and Li, H.-N. Methodology Developments in Sensor Placement for Health Monitoring of Civil Infrastructures.International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks8.(8) (2012), 612726.doi:10.1155/2012/612726

    work page doi:10.1155/2012/612726 2012

  15. [15]

    Barthorpe, R. J. and Worden, K. Emerging Trends in Optimal Structural Health Monitoring System Design: From Sensor Placement to System Evaluation.Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks9.(3) (2020), 31.doi:10.3390/jsan9030031

    work page doi:10.3390/jsan9030031 2020

  16. [16]

    Ebrahimian, H. et al. Information-Theoretic Approach for Identifiability Assessment of Nonlinear Structural Finite-Element Models.Journal of Engineering Mechanics 145.(7) (2019), 04019039.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001590

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)em.1943-7889.0001590 2019

  17. [17]

    and Papadimitriou, C

    Ercan, T. and Papadimitriou, C. Bayesian Optimal Sensor Placement for Parameter Estimation under Modeling and Input Uncertainties.Journal of Sound and Vibration 563(2023), 117844.doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2023.117844. 36

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2023.117844 2023

  18. [18]

    2026.doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2602.02981

    Antil, H., Jain, A., and Löhner, R.Fisher-Information-Based Sensor Placement for Structural Digital Twins: Analytic Results and Benchmarks. 2026.doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2602.02981

    work page arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Vande Wouwer, A. et al. An Approach to the Selection of Optimal Sensor Locations in Distributed Parameter Systems.Journal of Process Control10.(4) (2000), 291–300. doi:10.1016/S0959-1524(99)00048-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0959-1524(99)00048-7 2000

  20. [20]

    and Marzouk, Y

    Huan, X. and Marzouk, Y. M. Simulation-Based Optimal Bayesian Experimental Design for Nonlinear Systems.Journal of Computational Physics232.(1) (2013), 288–317.doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2012.08.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2012.08.013 2013

  21. [21]

    Alexanderian, A. et al. A-Optimal Design of Experiments for Infinite-Dimensional Bayesian Linear Inverse Problems with Regularizedℓ0-Sparsification.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing36.(5) (2014), A2122–A2148.doi:10.1137/130933381

    work page doi:10.1137/130933381 2014

  22. [22]

    Optimal Experimental Design for Infinite-Dimensional Bayesian Inverse Problems Governed by PDEs: A Review.Inverse Problems37.(4) (2021), 043001.doi:10.1088/1361-6420/abe10c

    Alexanderian, A. Optimal Experimental Design for Infinite-Dimensional Bayesian Inverse Problems Governed by PDEs: A Review.Inverse Problems37.(4) (2021), 043001.doi:10.1088/1361-6420/abe10c

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6420/abe10c 2021

  23. [23]

    Ryan, E. G. et al. A Review of Modern Computational Algorithms for Bayesian Optimal Design.International Statistical Review84.(1) (2016), 128–154.doi: 10. 1111/insr.12107

    2016

  24. [24]

    Optimal Experimental Design: Formu- lations and Computations.Acta Numerica33(2024), 715–840.doi: 10

    Huan, X., Jagalur, J., and Marzouk, Y. Optimal Experimental Design: Formu- lations and Computations.Acta Numerica33(2024), 715–840.doi: 10 . 1017 / S0962492924000023

    2024

  25. [25]

    Flath, H. P. et al. Fast Algorithms for Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification in Large- Scale Linear Inverse Problems Based on Low-Rank Partial Hessian Approximations. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing33.(1) (2011), 407–432.doi: 10 . 1137 / 090780717

    2011

  26. [26]

    Bui-Thanh, T. et al. A Computational Framework for Infinite-Dimensional Bayesian Inverse Problems Part I: The Linearized Case, with Application to Global Seismic Inversion.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing35.(6) (2013), A2494–A2523.doi: 10.1137/12089586X

    work page doi:10.1137/12089586x 2013

  27. [27]

    Cui, T. et al. Likelihood-Informed Dimension Reduction for Nonlinear Inverse Prob- lems.Inverse Problems30.(11) (2014), 114015.doi: 10.1088/0266-5611/30/11/ 114015

    work page doi:10.1088/0266-5611/30/11/ 2014

  28. [28]

    Spantini, A. et al. Optimal Low-rank Approximations of Bayesian Linear Inverse Problems.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing37.(6) (2015), A2451–A2487.doi: 10.1137/140977308

    work page doi:10.1137/140977308 2015

  29. [29]

    Likelihood-informed Model Reduction for Bayesian Inference of Static Structural Loads

    Scheffels, J. et al.Likelihood-Informed Model Reduction for Bayesian Inference of Static Structural Loads. 2025.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.07950

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.07950 2025

  30. [30]

    Moore, B. Principal Component Analysis in Linear Systems: Controllability, Ob- servability, and Model Reduction.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control26.(1) (1981), 17–32.doi:10.1109/TAC.1981.1102568

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.1981.1102568 1981

  31. [31]

    Scherpen, J. M. A. Balancing for Nonlinear Systems.Systems & Control Letters21.(2) (1993), 143–153.doi:10.1016/0167-6911(93)90117-O

    work page doi:10.1016/0167-6911(93)90117-o 1993

  32. [32]

    E., and Glavaški, S

    Lall, S., Marsden, J. E., and Glavaški, S. Empirical Model Reduction of Controlled Nonlinear Systems.IFAC Proceedings Volumes. 14th IFAC World Congress 1999, Beijing, Chia, 5-9 July32.(2) (1999), 2598–2603.doi:10.1016/S1474- 6670(17) 56442-3. 37

    work page doi:10.1016/s1474- 1999

  33. [33]

    emgr - The Empirical Gramian Framework.Algorithms11.(7) (2018), 91

    Himpe, C. emgr - The Empirical Gramian Framework.Algorithms11.(7) (2018), 91. doi:10.3390/a11070091

    work page doi:10.3390/a11070091 2018

  34. [34]

    Observability and Fisher Information Matrix in Nonlinear Regression

    Jauffret, C. Observability and Fisher Information Matrix in Nonlinear Regression. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems43.(2) (2007), 756–759.doi: 10.1109/TAES.2007.4285368

    work page doi:10.1109/taes.2007.4285368 2007

  35. [35]

    Lewis, J. M. and Lakshmivarahan, S. Role of the Observability Gramian in Param- eter Estimation: Application to Nonchaotic and Chaotic Systems via the Forward Sensitivity Method.Atmosphere13.(10) (2022).doi:10.3390/atmos13101647

    work page doi:10.3390/atmos13101647 2022

  36. [36]

    Kunwoo, L. et al. Observability Gramian for Bayesian Inference in Nonlinear Systems With Its Industrial Application.IEEE Control Systems Letters7(2023), 871–876. doi:10.1109/LCSYS.2022.3227452

    work page doi:10.1109/lcsys.2022.3227452 2023

  37. [37]

    The Bayesian Approach to Inverse Problems

    Dashti, M. and Stuart, A. M. “The Bayesian Approach to Inverse Problems”.Handbook of Uncertainty Quantification. Cham: Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 311–428.doi:10. 1007/978-3-319-12385-1_7

    2017

  38. [38]

    and Morgansen, K

    Powel, N. and Morgansen, K. A.Empirical Observability Gramian for Stochastic Observability of Nonlinear Systems. 2020.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2006.07451

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.07451 2020

  39. [39]

    and van Breugel, F

    Boyacıoğlu, B. and van Breugel, F. Duality of Stochastic Observability and Con- structability and Links to Fisher Information.IEEE Control Systems Letters8(2024), 3458–3463.doi:10.1109/LCSYS.2025.3547297

    work page doi:10.1109/lcsys.2025.3547297 2024

  40. [40]

    Ashyraliyev, M. et al. Systems Biology: Parameter Estimation for Biochemical Models. The FEBS Journal276.(4) (2009), 886–902.doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2008.06844. x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2008.06844 2009

  41. [41]

    and Baker, R

    Qi, J. and Baker, R. E. Optimal Experimental Design for Parameter Estimation in the Presence of Observation Noise.Mathematical Biosciences392(2026), 109571. doi:10.1016/j.mbs.2025.109571

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mbs.2025.109571 2026

  42. [42]

    and Constantinescu, E

    Attia, A. and Constantinescu, E. Optimal Experimental Design for Inverse Problems in the Presence of Observation Correlations.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 44(2022).doi:10.1137/21M1418666

    work page doi:10.1137/21m1418666 2022

  43. [43]

    Petra, N. et al. A Computational Framework for Infinite-Dimensional Bayesian Inverse Problems, Part II: Stochastic Newton MCMC with Application to Ice Sheet Flow Inverse Problems.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing36.(4) (2014), A1525– A1555.doi:10.1137/130934805

    work page doi:10.1137/130934805 2014

  44. [44]

    T., and Zahm, O

    Cui, T., Tong, X. T., and Zahm, O. Prior Normalization for Certified Likelihood- Informed Subspace Detection of Bayesian Inverse Problems.Inverse Problems38.(12) (2022), 124002.doi:10.1088/1361-6420/ac9582

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6420/ac9582 2022

  45. [45]

    Bertola, N. J. et al. Optimal Multi-Type Sensor Placement for Structural Identification by Static-Load Testing.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)17.(12) (2017), 2904.doi: 10.3390/s17122904

    work page doi:10.3390/s17122904 2017

  46. [46]

    Bell, E. S. et al. Multiresponse Parameter Estimation for Finite-Element Model Updating Using Nondestructive Test Data.Journal of Structural Engineering133.(8) (2007), 1067–1079.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:8(1067)

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2007)133:8(1067 2007

  47. [47]

    Kim, S. et al. A Sequential Framework for Improving Identifiability of FE Model Updating Using Static and Dynamic Data.Sensors19.(23) (2019), 5099.doi: 10. 3390/s19235099. 38

    2019

  48. [48]

    Attia, A., Alexanderian, A., and Saibaba, A. K. Goal-Oriented Optimal Design of Experiments for Large-Scale Bayesian Linear Inverse Problems.Inverse Problems 34.(9) (2018).doi:10.1088/1361-6420/aad210

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6420/aad210 2018

  49. [49]

    Kennedy, M. C. and O’Hagan, A. Bayesian Calibration of Computer Models.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)63.(3) (2001), 425–464.doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00294

    work page doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00294 2001

  50. [50]

    and O’Hagan, A

    Brynjarsdóttir, J. and O’Hagan, A. Learning about Physical Parameters: The Impor- tance of Model Discrepancy.Inverse Problems30.(11) (2014), 114007.doi: 10.1088/ 0266-5611/30/11/114007

    2014

  51. [51]

    Selection of Model Discrepancy Priors in Bayesian Calibration.Journal of Computational Physics276(2014), 665–680.doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.08.005

    Ling, Y., Mullins, J., and Mahadevan, S. Selection of Model Discrepancy Priors in Bayesian Calibration.Journal of Computational Physics276(2014), 665–680.doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.08.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2014.08.005 2014

  52. [52]

    Alexanderian, A. et al. A Fast and Scalable Method for A-Optimal Design of Experi- ments for Infinite-dimensional Bayesian Nonlinear Inverse Problems.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing38.(1) (2016), A243–A272.doi:10.1137/140992564

    work page doi:10.1137/140992564 2016

  53. [53]

    Sensor Placement on a Cantilever Beam Using Observability Gramians

    Brace, N. L. et al. “Sensor Placement on a Cantilever Beam Using Observability Gramians”.2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2022, pp. 388–395.doi:10.1109/CDC51059.2022.9992639

    work page doi:10.1109/cdc51059.2022.9992639 2022

  54. [54]

    Bagheri, A. et al. Identification of Flexural Rigidity in Bridges with Limited Structural Information.Journal of Structural Engineering144.(8) (2018), 04018126.doi: 10. 1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002131

    2018

  55. [55]

    and Yi, J.-H

    Koo, K.-Y. and Yi, J.-H. Substructural Identification of Flexural Rigidity for Beam- Like Structures.Shock and Vibration2015(2015), 1–15.doi: 10.1155/2015/726410

    work page doi:10.1155/2015/726410 2015

  56. [56]

    and Shin, J

    Lee, U. and Shin, J. A Frequency-Domain Method of Structural Damage Identification Formulated from the Dynamic Stiffness Equation of Motion.Journal of Sound and Vibration257.(4) (2002), 615–634.doi:10.1006/jsvi.2002.5058

    work page doi:10.1006/jsvi.2002.5058 2002

  57. [57]

    Pan, D. et al. Resonance-Based Approach for Section Flexural Rigidity Identification of Simply Supported Beams.Engineering Structures236(2021), 112070.doi: 10. 1016/j.engstruct.2021.112070

    work page arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Bońkowski, P. A. et al. Stiffness Identification of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Rotation Rate Sensors.Engineering Structures307(2024), 117969.doi: 10.1016/j. engstruct.2024.117969

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2024

  59. [59]

    Qian, E. et al. Model Reduction of Linear Dynamical Systems via Balancing for Bayesian Inference.Journal of Scientific Computing91.(1) (2022), 29.doi: 10.1007/ s10915-022-01798-8

    2022

  60. [60]

    Bangerth, W. et al. Estimating and Using Information in Inverse Problems.Inverse Problems and Imaging24(2026), 1–33.doi:10.3934/ipi.2026003

    work page doi:10.3934/ipi.2026003 2026

  61. [61]

    Menke, W.Resolution and Covariance in Generalized Least Squares Inversion. 2014

    2014

  62. [62]

    Wieland, F.-G. et al. On Structural and Practical Identifiability.Current Opinion in Systems Biology25(2021), 60–69.doi:10.1016/j.coisb.2021.03.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.coisb.2021.03.005 2021

  63. [63]

    Huber, P. J. Robust Estimation of a Location Parameter.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics35.(1) (1964), 73–101.doi:10.1214/aoms/1177703732

    work page doi:10.1214/aoms/1177703732 1964

  64. [64]

    Huber, P. J. and Ronchetti, E.Robust Statistics. 2nd ed. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, 2009.doi:10.1002/9780470434697. 39

    work page doi:10.1002/9780470434697 2009