Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 100 references

Mechanical State Estimation with a Polynomial-Chaos-Based Statistical Finite Element Method

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A sampling-free statistical finite element method updates polynomial chaos coefficients of a displacement field by an algebraic Kalman-type formula, giving a posterior over mechanical states from sensor data without online sampling or…

desk verdict A promising sampling-free statFEM that marries PC expansions with a Kalman filter for non-Gaussian priors, but the printed Kalman gain contradicts the observation model and the posteriors are never checked against a reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05037 v2 pith:VGQ5QA4R submitted 2024-12-06 cs.CE

Vahab Narouie , Henning Wessels , Fehmi Cirak , Ulrich Römer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CE
keywords StatisticalFiniteElementMethodBayesianupdatingDataassimilationUncertaintyquantificationPolynomialchaosexpansionKarhunen-LoèveGauss-Markov-KalmanfilterStructuralhealthmonitoring
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

The paper proposes a sampling-free statistical finite element method (statFEM) that turns sparse displacement measurements into a posterior distribution over the whole finite element displacement field. Unlike earlier statFEM variants that rely on Markov chain Monte Carlo or online finite element solves, the update is a purely algebraic operation on polynomial chaos (PC) coefficients via a Gauss-Markov-Kalman filter. The prior is built from an uncertain Young's modulus modeled as a weakly stationary random field through a Karhunen-Loève expansion, so the prior displacement is non-stationary and non-Gaussian. Model error and measurement noise are treated as Gaussian random fields, with the model-reality mismatch allowed to be non-stationary via its own KL expansion and identified from data by maximizing the marginal likelihood. If correct, the method gives fast posterior estimates well suited to structural health monitoring and digital twins.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the extended polynomial chaos basis $\hat{\Psi}=[\Psi,\chi,\zeta]^\top$ combined with the Gauss-Markov-Kalman filter, which embeds the PC-expanded displacement, the KL-expanded model-reality mismatch, and the sensor noise into one common basis so that the linear update becomes coefficient-wise and algebraic. The Smolyak sparse grid supplies the projection that computes the prior PC coefficients from offline finite element solves, and the KL expansion gives a low-dimensional parameterization of both the uncertain Young's modulus and the non-stationary model-reality mismatch. The marginal-likelihood maximization tunes the hyperparameters $w^v=(\rho^v,\sigma_{d^v,1},\ldots,\sigma_{d^v,M_d})$ using a numerically stable log-sum-exp quadrature.

What would settle it

Run the proposed update on a 1D bar with a strongly skewed prior displacement (large variance of the log-normal Young's modulus) and few sensor readings, and compare the posterior mean and credible interval against a full MCMC posterior. If the difference between the two means is of the same order as the reported posterior standard deviation, the affine update is the limiting error and the method's credible intervals are not reliable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a generalized Kalman filter applied to PC representations makes the statFEM posterior update algebraic. In the paper's formulation, the forecast observation $y^v_f$ is a sum of the PC-expanded displacement projected to sensors, the model-reality mismatch $d^v(\chi)$, and noise $e^v(\zeta)$, all written on one extended PC basis $\hat{\Psi}=[\Psi,\chi,\zeta]^\top$. The GMKF update then gives the posterior PC coefficients directly as $\hat{u}^v_{a,\alpha}=\hat{u}^v_{f,\alpha}+K^v\bigl(\sum_r \hat{y}^v_{r,\alpha}/n_r-\rho^v H^v\hat{u}^v_{f,\alpha}-\hat{d}^v_\alpha-\hat{e}^v_\alpha\bigr)$, with the Kalman gain determined from the prior covariance and the mismatch and noise covariances. The paper acknowledges that this updated random variable is exactly correct only in the linear Gaussian case and that nonlinear conditional-expectation corrections are needed in general, but the numerical examples show the linear filter can be fairly accurate.

Load-bearing premise

The filter's affine mean-squared-error-optimal formula $L(y_f)=Ky_f+b$ is assumed to track the true conditional expectation $\mathbb{E}[u|y_r]$ well enough, although the prior displacement is non-Gaussian.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Posterior mean and covariance of the displacement field follow from a single algebraic coefficient update, so state estimation requires no MCMC burn-in and no online finite element solves.
  • The model-reality mismatch is described as a non-stationary KL random field whose mode amplitudes are learned from data, absorbing spatially localized discrepancies such as a heterogeneous modulus or a hyperelastic material response near a hole.
  • In the 1D benchmarks, identified hyperparameters move toward the values used to generate the data as the number of repeated sensor readings $n_r$ grows, and the error $\|\mu_z-\mu_{\mathbf{Y}_{1000}}\|$ decreases.
  • In the 2D plate-with-hole example, more sensors yield posterior displacement fields closer to the synthetic truth, with the largest error reduction in the loading direction.
  • Because only the PC coefficients change, the same offline-computed prior can be updated repeatedly as new measurements arrive, which suits sequential monitoring.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the prior displacement is strongly skewed or multimodal, the affine update will likely bias the posterior mean and understate tail uncertainty; a natural extension is to add a second-order or machine-learned correction to the conditional expectation while keeping the PC representation.
  • The learned amplitudes $\sigma_{d^v,m}$ of the mismatch KL modes could be read as a spatial damage indicator: large localized amplitudes flag where reality departs most from the model, a direction the paper hints at but does not develop into a detection statistic.
  • The same marginal-likelihood surrogate computed on Smolyak grids could be reused for sensor placement and for comparing candidate mismatch kernels, since it already scores how well the statistical model explains the observations.
  • The update is formally time-invariant, so iterating the PC update across sequential time windows would give a sampling-free Bayesian filter for quasi-static or transient monitoring without resampling, connecting this work to sequential data assimilation.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a sampling-free variant of the statistical finite element method (statFEM) in which the prior displacement is represented by a polynomial chaos (PC) expansion obtained from a stochastic finite element analysis with lognormal Young's modulus, the model-reality mismatch is represented by a non-stationary Gaussian random field via its Karhunen-Loève expansion, and the posterior is obtained by algebraically updating the PC coefficients with a Gauss-Markov-Kalman filter (GMKF). The hyperparameters of the mismatch are identified by maximizing a surrogate marginal likelihood computed with Smolyak quadrature. The method is demonstrated on a 1D tension bar and a 2D plate with a hole, using synthetic observations generated with a known model.

Significance. If correct, the proposal would be a valuable contribution: a fully sampling-free posterior update for statFEM with non-conjugate, non-Gaussian priors, enabling efficient state estimation for digital twins without online FEM solves or MCMC. The paper ships reproducible code on GitHub/Zenodo, which is a clear strength. However, the central algebraic update contains an inconsistency with the stated observation model, and the numerical validation is largely in-sample and lacks reference comparisons. These issues currently prevent the paper's central claims from being accepted as demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (19) vs. Sec. 3.1, Eq. (9)] The printed Kalman gain in Eq. (19) is inconsistent with the statistical model in Eq. (9). For the model y = ρ H u + d + e with u, d, and e mutually independent and zero-mean, the optimal affine gain minimizing (17) is K = ρ C_u H^T (ρ² H C_u H^T + C_d + C_e)^{-1} for a single observation, and K = ρ C_u H^T (ρ² H C_u H^T + C_d + C_e/n_r)^{-1} for the averaged observation used in Eq. (38). The printed Eq. (19) instead has ρ H C_u H^T + C_d + C_e/(n_r ρ) inside the inverse. These expressions differ unless C_d = 0 and ρ = 1. Since the posterior PC coefficients in Eq. (38) scale linearly with K, every reported posterior mean, credible interval, and error metric inherits this inconsistency. The paper does not test against a Gaussian case with a known closed-form posterior, so the error is not exposed. This is a load-bearing issue in the central derivation and must be corrected and re-validated.
  2. [Sec. 3.4 and Sec. 4.1-4.3] The hyperparameters ρ and σ_dv,m are identified from the same synthetic dataset that is later used to evaluate the posterior accuracy. For instance, in Sec. 4.1 the predefined hyperparameters generate the data, and Table 1 compares the identified values with those predefined values; the error measure in Eq. (58) is then computed on the same data. Because the model-reality mismatch term is flexible, the reported agreement with the truth is partly an in-sample fit rather than an out-of-sample prediction. The paper would need a validation where the hyperparameters are fixed on one dataset and the posterior is evaluated on independent data, or a controlled experiment where the gain and posterior update are compared against a reference solution (e.g., an exactly Gaussian case or an MCMC-based posterior).
  3. [Sec. 3.3, paragraph after Eq. (38)] The authors correctly acknowledge that the updated random variable 'only has the correct probability distribution in the linear Gaussian case' and that nonlinear approximations of the conditional expectation are required in general. However, the numerical examples never quantify the resulting bias: the posterior mean and credible intervals are compared only against the synthetic truth for in-sample data, and no comparison is made with a reference approximation of the true conditional expectation, such as MCMC, an ensemble Kalman filter, or a nonlinear conditional-mean filter. Thus the claim that 'the linear filter can be fairly accurate' is not supported by the evidence presented. A quantitative assessment of non-Gaussianity (e.g., comparing first and second moments to a reference posterior) is needed to substantiate the central claim of posterior accuracy.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.4, Eqs. (49) and (52)] The Gaussian normalization prefactors appear inconsistent between Eqs. (49) and (52): Eq. (49) has β(σ_d) times (2π)^{P_u/2}, while Eq. (52) has β^{n_r}(σ_d) divided by (2π)^{n_gl/2}. Please check and correct the prefactors; even if the optimization is unaffected by a constant, the current display is mathematically ambiguous.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (3) and Sec. 3.3, Eq. (21)] The notation for σσσ_dv in Eq. (21) is confusing: the text states that φ contains the eigenfunctions and that σσσ_dv 'contains the product of (square-roots of) eigenvalues and eigenfunctions', but the displayed expression σσσ_dv = φ diag(σ_dv) does not make the inclusion of √λ_m explicit. Clarify the definition to make Eq. (22) unambiguous.
  3. [CRediT authorship statement] There is a typo in the CRediT authorship statement: 'Fehmi Cirk' should be 'Fehmi Cirak'.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous copyediting issues, including inconsistent accent formatting in names such as 'K´alm´an' and 'Mat´ern', and occasional broken mathematical symbols in the text. A thorough language and typesetting pass is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The posterior coefficient derivation is algebraic and self-contained; the circularity-adjacent element is the in-sample validation, where the flexible mismatch hyperparameters are fitted on the same data later used as the error target.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.1 (Hyperparameter identification), eq. (58); hyperparameters from Sec. 3.4, eqs. (53)-(54)]
    "These predefined hyperparameters are used to generate different sets of synthetic observation data and serve as benchmarks to evaluate the accuracy of the identification process described in Sec. 3.4. ... err1000 = |µz − µYYY1000 |, which represents the norm of the error between the inferred true displacement from statFEM, as given in (40), and the mean of 1000 realizations of the data."

    The hyperparameters w = (ρ, σ_dv,m) entering the mismatch covariance C_d and the gain K are obtained by maximizing the marginal likelihood (53)-(54) over exactly the observation matrix YYY whose column mean µYYY1000 is then used as the target in the error (58). Since the model-reality mismatch d is a flexible KL-Gaussian term with amplitudes optimized on the same YYY, the posterior mean µ_z in (40) is pulled toward the data mean; the reported convergence err1000 -> 0 with increasing nr is therefore an in-sample fit of the flexible mismatch term, not an out-of-sample prediction. The GMKF coefficient update (38) itself remains a direct algebraic consequence of (18), so this is a validation-protocol circularity rather than a collapse of the derivation.

full rationale

The algebraic derivation chain is self-contained: the prior PC coefficients come from the projection (7), the affine GMKF is defined by the minimization (17), the gain and posterior coefficient update (38) are linear rearrangements of (18)-(19), and the marginal-likelihood hyperparameter identification (52)-(55) is a standard empirical-Bayes step rather than a hidden renaming of the answer. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears: the cited prior PC-statFEM work [52] is used only to position the contribution, while the GMKF and conditional-expectation results are external to the authors. The acknowledged non-Gaussian limitation in Sec. 3.3 and any inconsistency in the printed Kalman gain (19) are correctness concerns, not circularity. The only circularity-adjacent element is the validation protocol: the same synthetic data that identify the flexible mismatch hyperparameters are also used as the accuracy target in eq. (58), making the reported agreement partly an in-sample fit. The central posterior update does not reduce by construction to a fitted value, so the score is moderate rather than high.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-chosen truncations (p=2, ε=0.001, kernel correlation lengths), on fitted hyperparameters (ρ, σ_dv,m) identified from the same data used for validation, and on the adequacy of linear-Gaussian posterior approximation for a non-Gaussian prior. No new physical entities are introduced beyond a flexible statistical mismatch term. The main load-bearing assumptions are the affine conditional expectation, the Gaussian/PC approximations in the marginal likelihood, and the representational sufficiency of the chosen KL and PC truncations.

free parameters (5)
  • ρ (dimensional scaling hyperparameter) = 1.6514 (Example 1, nr=1000); 1.7969 (Example 3, v=1); 1.1386 (Example 3, v=2)
    Scales the prior displacement to match observations; identified by maximizing the marginal likelihood (Sec. 3.4, eq. 42).
  • σ_dv,m (KL mode standard deviations of the model-reality mismatch) = e.g., σ_d1=3.0733 to σ_d9=0.2136 (Example 1, nr=1000); 32 values per dimension in Example 3
    Hyperparameters defining the covariance of the non-stationary mismatch field; identified from the same data used for posterior validation (Sec. 3.4, eqs. 41-42).
  • Correlation length l_d of the mismatch kernel = L/10, 25 mm, 50 mm, 100 mm in Example 1; 8 cm in Example 3
    Chosen by hand to set the number of KL terms Md; not identified from data.
  • KL truncation threshold ε = 0.001 (eq. 67)
    Determines Mκ and Md; a standard but arbitrary value chosen by hand.
  • PC polynomial order p = 2 (all examples)
    Truncation order of the PC expansion; chosen by hand and not studied for convergence.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Young's modulus is a lognormally distributed weakly stationary random field with known mean, standard deviation, and Matérn or squared-exponential correlation kernel (Sec. 4).
    The prior uncertainty model; its adequacy for real structural applications is assumed without validation.
  • domain assumption The model-reality mismatch is a mean-free non-stationary Gaussian random field, independent of the displacement, and describable by a finite KL expansion (Sec. 3.1, eq. 21).
    Justifies the additive mismatch term; the true model error may be non-Gaussian or correlated with the state.
  • ad hoc to paper The affine conditional expectation L(y)=Ky+b is a sufficiently accurate surrogate for the true conditional expectation for the non-Gaussian posterior (Sec. 3.2, eqs. 16-18).
    The paper states this is exact only in the linear Gaussian case and that nonlinear updating formulas are omitted (Sec. 3.3).
  • ad hoc to paper The marginal likelihood (51), computed by replacing u with its PC expansion and integrating against the Gaussian germ distribution, adequately approximates the true marginal likelihood (Sec. 3.4, stage IV).
    The prior displacement is non-Gaussian; the integral over the PC surrogate is not the exact Bayesian evidence, and the approximation error is not assessed.
  • domain assumption The KL and PC truncations (Mκ=10, p=2 in 1D; Mκ=13, p=2 in 2D) retain enough variance and polynomial content for accurate posterior statistics (Sec. 4).
    No convergence study over Mκ or p for the prior is reported in the paper.
invented entities (1)
  • Model-reality mismatch random field d(χ)
    purpose: Absorbs systematic discrepancies between the FE model and reality in the observation model (eq. 9).
    A flexible KL-expanded Gaussian field whose hyperparameters are fit to the same observation data used for validation; no independent falsifiable predictions are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mechanical State Estimation with a Polynomial-Chaos-Based Statistical Finite Element Method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VGQ5QA4R

@misc{pith2026241205037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mechanical State Estimation with a Polynomial-Chaos-Based Statistical Finite Element Method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VGQ5QA4R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05037}
}
read the original abstract

The Statistical Finite Element Method (statFEM) offers a Bayesian framework for integrating computational models with observational data, thus providing improved predictions for structural health monitoring and digital twinning. This paper presents an efficient sampling-free statFEM tailored for non-conjugate, non-Gaussian prior probability densities. We assume that constitutive parameters, modeled as weakly stationary random fields, are the primary source of uncertainty and approximate them using Karhunen-Lo\`eve (KL) expansion. The resulting stochastic solution field, i.e., the displacement field, is a non-stationary, non-Gaussian random field, which we approximate via Polynomial Chaos (PC) expansion. The PC coefficients are determined through projection using Smolyak sparse grids. Additionally, we model the measurement noise as a stationary Gaussian random field and the model misspecification as a mean-free, non-stationary Gaussian random field, which is also approximated using KL expansion. The coefficients of the KL expansion are treated as hyperparameters. The PC coefficients of the stochastic posterior displacement field are computed using the Gauss-Markov-K\'alm\'an filter, while the hyperparameters are determined by maximizing the marginal likelihood. We demonstrate the efficiency and convergence of the proposed method through one- and two-dimensional elastostatic problems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [52]

    Narouie, H

    V. Narouie, H. Wessels, and U. R¨ omer. Inferring displacement fields from sparse measurements using the statistical finite element method. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 200:110574, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Z. He, W. Li, H. Salehi, H. Zhang, H. Zhou, and P. Jiao. Integrated structural health monitoring in bridge engineering. Automation in Construction , 136:104168, 2022

    2022

  3. [2]

    Y. Lu, Y. Li, M. Skibniewski, Z. Wu, R. Wang, and Y. Le. Information and communication technology applications in architecture , engineering, and construction organizations: A 15-year review. Journal of Management in Engineering , 31(1):A4014010, 2015

    2015

  4. [3]

    V. R. Gharehbaghi, E. Noroozinejad Farsangi, M. Noori, T. Yang, S. Li, A. Nguyen, C. M´ alaga- Chuquitaype, P. Gardoni, and S. Mirjalili. A critical review on structural health monitoring: Definitions, methods, and perspectives. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering , 29(4): 2209–2235, 2022

    2022

  5. [4]

    Azimi, A

    M. Azimi, A. Eslamlou Dadras, and G. Pekcan. Data-driven structural health monitoring and damage detection through deep learning: State-of-the-art review. Sensors, 20(10):2778, 2020

    2020

  6. [5]

    Bukenya, P

    P. Bukenya, P. Moyo, H. Beushausen, and C. Oosthuizen. Health monitoring of concrete dams: a literature review. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring , 4:235–244, 2014

    2014

  7. [6]

    Prasad, C

    S. Prasad, C. Chiang, D. Kumar, S. Kalra, and A. Khandelwal. Robust and efficient feature-based method for structural health monitoring of large structures. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring, 13(4):961–982, 2023

    2023

  8. [7]

    Sierra-P´ erez, M

    J. Sierra-P´ erez, M. A. Torres-Arredondo, and A. G¨ uemes. Damage and nonlinearities detection in wind turbine blades based on strain field pattern recognition. fbgs, obr and strain gauges compar- ison. Composite Structures, 135:156–166, 2016

    2016

Show all 100 references
  1. [8]

    Torzoni, M

    M. Torzoni, M. Tezzele, S. Mariani, A. Manzoni, and K. Willcox. A digital twin framework for civil engineering structures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 418:116584, 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    H. Feng, C. Gomes, and P. G. Larsen. Model-based monitoring and state estimation for digital twins: The kalman filter. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.00252 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Thelen, X

    A. Thelen, X. Zhang, O. Fink, Y. Lu, S. Ghosh, B. Youn, M. Todd, S. Mahadevan, C. Hu, and Z. Hu. A comprehensive review of digital twin—part 1: Modeling and twinning enabling technologies. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , 65(12):354, 2022

    2022

  4. [11]

    Eduardo and E

    R. Eduardo and E. De Arantes. Theoretical foundations of the finite element method. Int. J. Solids Struct , 4:929–952, 1968

    1968

  5. [12]

    Stefanou

    G. Stefanou. The stochastic finite element method: Past, present and future. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 198(9-12):1031–1051, 2009

    2009

  6. [13]

    Papadrakakis and V

    M. Papadrakakis and V. Papadopoulos. Robust and efficient methods for stochastic finite element analysis using monte carlo simulation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 134(3-4):325–340, 1996

    1996

  7. [14]

    G Graham, F

    I. G Graham, F. Y Kuo, D. Nuyens, R. Scheichl, and I. H Sloan. Quasi-monte carlo methods for elliptic pdes with random coefficients and applications. Journal of Computational Physics , 230 (10):3668–3694, 2011. 38

    2011

  8. [15]

    Badia, J

    S. Badia, J. Hampton, and J. Principe. Embedded multilevel monte carlo for uncertainty quantifi- cation in random domains. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification , 11(1), 2021

    2021

  9. [16]

    Sudret and A

    B. Sudret and A. Der Kiureghian. Stochastic Finite Element Methods and Reliability: a State-of- the-art Report. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California . . . , 2000

    2000

  10. [17]

    A. Keese. A Review of Recent Developments in the Numerical Solution of Stochastic Partial Differential Equations (Stochastic Finite Elements) . Univ.-Bibl., 2003

    2003

  11. [18]

    R. G. Ghanem and P. D. Spanos. Stochastic Finite Elements: a Spectral Approach . Courier Corporation, 2003

    2003

  12. [19]

    Xiu and G

    D. Xiu and G. Em Karniadakis. The wiener–askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations. SIAM journal on scientific computing , 24(2):619–644, 2002

    2002

  13. [20]

    Xiu and G

    D. Xiu and G. Em Karniadakis. Modeling uncertainty in steady state diffusion problems via generalized polynomial chaos. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 191(43): 4927–4948, 2002

    2002

  14. [21]

    D. J. MacKay. Introduction to Gaussian processes. NATO ASI Series F Computer and Systems Sciences, 168:133–166, 1998

    1998

  15. [22]

    M. Seeger. Gaussian processes for machine learning. International Journal of Neural Systems , 14 (02):69–106, 2004

    2004

  16. [23]

    Soize and R

    C. Soize and R. Ghanem. Probabilistic learning on manifolds constrained by nonlinear partial differential equations for small datasets. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 380:113777, 2021

    2021

  17. [24]

    N. Wiener. The homogeneous chaos. American Journal of Mathematics , 60(4):897–936, 1938

    1938

  18. [25]

    Babuska, R

    I. Babuska, R. Tempone, and G. Zouraris. Galerkin finite element approximations of stochastic elliptic partial differential equations. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 42(2):800–825, 2004

    2004

  19. [26]

    H. G. Matthies and A. Keese. Galerkin methods for linear and nonlinear elliptic stochastic partial differential equations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 194(12-16):1295– 1331, 2005

    2005

  20. [27]

    Berveiller, B

    M. Berveiller, B. Sudret, and M. Lemaire. Non linear non intrusive stochastic finite element method-application to a fracture mechanics problem. In Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Struct. Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR’2005), Rome, Italie , 2005

    2005

  21. [28]

    Berveiller, B

    M. Berveiller, B. Sudret, and M. Lemaire. Stochastic finite element: a non-intrusive approach by regression. European Journal of Computational Mechanics/Revue Europ´ eenne de M´ ecanique Num´ erique, 15(1-3):81–92, 2006

    2006

  22. [29]

    M. T. Reagana, H. N. Najm, R. G. Ghanem, and O. M. Knio. Uncertainty quantification in reacting-flow simulations through non-intrusive spectral projection. Combustion and Flame , 132 (3):545–555, 2003. 39

    2003

  23. [30]

    Xiu and J

    D. Xiu and J. S. Hesthaven. High-order collocation methods for differential equations with random inputs. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 27(3):1118–1139, 2005

    2005

  24. [31]

    Babuˇ ska, F

    I. Babuˇ ska, F. Nobile, and R. Tempone. A stochastic collocation method for elliptic partial differ- ential equations with random input data. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 45(3):1005–1034, 2007

    2007

  25. [32]

    Sudret and A

    B. Sudret and A. Der Kiureghian. Comparison of finite element reliability methods. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 17(4):337–348, 2002

    2002

  26. [33]

    N. Feng, G. Zhang, and K. Khandelwal. On the performance evaluation of stochastic finite elements in linear and nonlinear problems. Computers & Structures , 243:106408, 2021

    2021

  27. [34]

    S. A. Smolyak. Quadrature and interpolation formulas for tensor products of certain classes of functions. Doklady Akademii Nauk , 148(5):1042–1045, 1963

    1963

  28. [35]

    Gerstner and M

    T. Gerstner and M. Griebel. Numerical integration using sparse grids. Numerical Algorithms, 18 (3):209–232, 1998

    1998

  29. [36]

    Novak and K

    E. Novak and K. Ritter. Simple cubature formulas with high polynomial exactness. Constructive Approximation, 15:499–522, 1999

    1999

  30. [37]

    Blatman and B

    G. Blatman and B. Sudret. An adaptive algorithm to build up sparse polynomial chaos expansions for stochastic finite element analysis. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 25(2):183–197, 2010

    2010

  31. [38]

    Blatman and B

    G. Blatman and B. Sudret. Adaptive sparse polynomial chaos expansion based on least angle regression. Journal of Computational Physics , 230(6):2345–2367, 2011

    2011

  32. [39]

    Doostan and H

    A. Doostan and H. Owhadi. A non-adapted sparse approximation of pdes with stochastic inputs. Journal of Computational Physics , 230(8):3015–3034, 2011

    2011

  33. [40]

    Hampton and A

    J. Hampton and A. Doostan. Compressive sampling of polynomial chaos expansions: Convergence analysis and sampling strategies. Journal of Computational Physics , 280:363–386, 2015

    2015

  34. [41]

    Kaarnioja

    V. Kaarnioja. Smolyak quadrature. University of Helsinki, Department of Mathematics and Statis- tics, 2013

    2013

  35. [42]

    R. Mahnken. Identification of Material Parameters for Constitutive Equations , volume 4, pages 1–21. John Wiley & Sons, 2 edition, 2017

    2017

  36. [43]

    Hartmann and R

    S. Hartmann and R. R. Gilbert. Identifiability of material parameters in solid mechanics. Archive of Applied Mechanics , 88:3–26, 2018

    2018

  37. [44]

    Hossain and P

    M. Hossain and P. Steinmann. More hyperelastic models for rubber-like materials: Consistent tangent operators and comparative study. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials , 22 (1-2):27–50, 2013

    2013

  38. [45]

    Mahnken and E

    R. Mahnken and E. Stein. Parameter identification for finite deformation elasto-plasticity in prin- cipal directions. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 147(1-2):17–39, 1997

    1997

  39. [46]

    Cooreman, D

    S. Cooreman, D. Lecompte, H. Sol, J. Vantomme, and D. Debruyne. Elasto-plastic material parameter identification by inverse methods: Calculation of the sensitivity matrix. International Journal of Solids and Structures , 44(13):4329–4341, 2007. 40

    2007

  40. [47]

    Mathieu, H

    F. Mathieu, H. Leclerc, F. Hild, and S. Roux. Estimation of elastoplastic parameters via weighted femu and integrated-dic. Experimental Mechanics, 55:105–119, 2015

    2015

  41. [48]

    F. J. Mont´ ans, F. Chinesta, R. G´ omez-Bombarelli, and J. N. Kutz. Data-driven modeling and learning in science and engineering. Comptes Rendus M´ ecanique, 347(11):845–855, 2019

    2019

  42. [49]

    B. Le, J. Yvonnet, and Q-C. He. Computational homogenization of nonlinear elastic materials using neural networks. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , 104(12): 1061–1084, 2015

    2015

  43. [50]

    Girolami, E

    M. Girolami, E. Febrianto, G. Yin, and F. Cirak. The statistical finite element method (statFEM) for coherent synthesis of observation data and model predictions. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 375:113533, 2021

    2021

  44. [51]

    ¨O. D. Akyildiz, C. Duffin, S. Sabanis, and M. Girolami. Statistical finite elements via Langevin dynamics. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification , 10:1560–1585, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    K. J. Koh and F. Cirak. Stochastic PDE representation of random fields for large-scale G aussian process regression and statistical finite element analysis. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 417:116358, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Gelman, J

    A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, D. B. Dunson, A. Vehtari, and D. B. Rubin. Bayesian Data Analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 3rd edition, 2013

    2013

  47. [55]

    A. M. Stuart. Inverse problems: a bayesian perspective. Acta Numerica, 19:451–559, 2010

    2010

  48. [56]

    Febrianto, L

    E. Febrianto, L. Butler, M. Girolami, and F. Cirak. Digital twinning of self-sensing structures using the statistical finite element method. Data-centric Engineering, 3:e31, 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    W. R. Gilks, S. Richardson, and D. Spiegelhalter. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice . CRC press, 1995

    1995

  50. [58]

    N. N. Madras. Lectures on Monte Carlo Methods , volume 16. American Mathematical Soc., 2002

    2002

  51. [59]

    Gamerman and H

    D. Gamerman and H. F. Lopes. Markov Chain Monte Carlo: Stochastic Simulation for Bayesian Inference. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2006

    2006

  52. [60]

    B. V. Rosi´ c, A. Kuˇ cerov´ a, J. S` ykora, O. Pajonk, A. Litvinenko, and H. G. Matthies. Parameter identification in a probabilistic setting. Engineering Structures, 50:179–196, 2013

    2013

  53. [61]

    D. J. MacKay. Choice of basis for Laplace approximation. Machine Learning, 33:77–86, 1998

    1998

  54. [62]

    M. I. Jordan, Z. Ghahramani, T. S. Jaakkola, and L. K. Saul. An introduction to variational methods for graphical models. Machine Learning, 37:183–233, 1999

    1999

  55. [63]

    D. M. Blei, A. Kucukelbir, and J. D. McAuliffe. Variational inference: a review for statisticians. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 112(518):859–877, 2017. 41

    2017

  56. [64]

    Povala, I

    J. Povala, I. Kazlauskaite, E. Febrianto, F. Cirak, and M. Girolami. Variational Bayesian ap- proximation of inverse problems using sparse precision matrices. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 393:114712, 2022

    2022

  57. [65]

    T. A. Archbold, I. Kazlauskaite, and F. Cirak. Variational bayesian surrogate modelling with ap- plication to robust design optimisation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 432:117423, 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    Vondrejc and H

    J. Vondrejc and H. G. Matthies. Accurate computation of conditional expectation for highly nonlinear problems. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification , 7(4):1349–1368, 2019

    2019

  59. [67]

    Kaipio and E

    J. Kaipio and E. Somersalo. Statistical and Computational Inverse Problems, volume 160. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  60. [68]

    C. K. Chui, G. Chen, et al. Kalman Filtering . Springer, 2017

    2017

  61. [69]

    Duffin, E

    C. Duffin, E. Cripps, T. Stemler, and M. Girolami. Statistical finite elements for misspecified models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 118(2):e2015006118, 2021

    2021

  62. [70]

    M. Diaz, P. Charbonnel, and L. Chamoin. A new kalman filter approach for structural parameter tracking: Application to the monitoring of damaging structures tested on shaking-tables. Mechan- ical Systems and Signal Processing , 182:109529, 2023

    2023

  63. [71]

    H. G. Matthies, E. Zander, B. Rosi´ c, A. Litvinenko, and O. Pajonk. Inverse problems in a bayesian setting. Computational Methods for Solids and Fluids: Multiscale Analysis, Probability Aspects and Model Reduction, pages 245–286, 2016

    2016

  64. [72]

    O. G. Ernst, B. Sprungk, and H. Starkloff. Bayesian inverse problems and kalman filters. In Extraction of Quantifiable Information From Complex Systems , pages 133–159. Springer, 2014

    2014

  65. [73]

    H. G. Matthies, A. Litvinenko, B. V. Rosi´ c, and E. Zander. Bayesian parameter estimation via filtering and functional approximations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.09293 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Rosi´ c, A

    B.V. Rosi´ c, A. Litvinenko, O. Pajonk, and H. G. Matthies. Sampling-free linear bayesian update of polynomial chaos representations. Journal of Computational Physics , 231(17):5761–5787, 2012

    2012

  67. [75]

    Pajonk, B

    O. Pajonk, B. V. Rosi´ c, and H. G. Matthies. Sampling-free linear bayesian updating of model state and parameters using a square root approach. Computers & Geosciences , 55:70–83, 2013

    2013

  68. [76]

    G Ernst, B

    O. G Ernst, B. Sprungk, and H. Starkloff. Analysis of the ensemble and polynomial chaos kalman filters in bayesian inverse problems. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification , 3(1): 823–851, 2015

    2015

  69. [77]

    Hoang, S

    T. Hoang, S. Krumscheid, H. Matthies, and R. Tempone. Machine learning-based conditional mean filter: A generalization of the ensemble kalman filter for nonlinear data assimilation. Foundations of Data Science , 5(1):56–80, 2023

    2023

  70. [78]

    Inferring displacement fields from sparse measurements using the statistical finite element method

    V. Narouie. Code for the publication “Inferring displacement fields from sparse measurements using the statistical finite element method”. Github: https://github.com/VhI3/statFEM-Recon, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14906534. 42

    2025 doi

  71. [79]

    Grigoriu

    M. Grigoriu. Stochastic Systems: Uncertainty Quantification and Propagation . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  72. [80]

    Uribe, I

    F. Uribe, I. Papaioannou, W. Betz, and D. Straub. Bayesian inference of random fields represented with the karhunen-lo ` eve expansion. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 358:112632, 2020

    2020

  73. [81]

    Lindgren

    G. Lindgren. Stationary Stochastic Processes: Theory and Applications . CRC Press, 2012

    2012

  74. [82]

    Vanmarcke

    E. Vanmarcke. Random Fields: Analysis and Synthesis . World Scientific, 2010

    2010

  75. [83]

    Karhunen

    K. Karhunen. ¨Uber lineare Methoden in der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung . Soumalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1947

    1947

  76. [84]

    M. Loeve. Functions aleatoires du second ordre. Processus stochastique et mouvement Brownien , pages 366–420, 1948

    1948

  77. [85]

    D. Xiu. Numerical methods for stochastic computations. In Numerical Methods for Stochastic Computations. Princeton university press, 2010

    2010

  78. [86]

    T. J. Sullivan. Introduction to Uncertainty Quantification , volume 63. Springer, 2015

    2015

  79. [87]

    Tarantola

    A. Tarantola. Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation . SIAM, 2005

    2005

  80. [88]

    Bobrowski

    A. Bobrowski. Functional Analysis for Probability and Stochastic Processes: An Introduction . Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

  81. [89]

    Parameter estimation via conditional expectation: a bayesian inversion

    Hermann G Matthies, Elmar Zander, Bojana V Rosi´ c, and Alexander Litvinenko. Parameter estimation via conditional expectation: a bayesian inversion. Advanced modeling and simulation in engineering sciences , 3:1–21, 2016

    2016

  82. [90]

    Zhu and B

    X. Zhu and B. Sudret. Stochastic polynomial chaos expansions to emulate stochastic simulators. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification , 13(2), 2023

    2023

  83. [91]

    Blanchard, D

    P. Blanchard, D. J. Higham, and N. J Higham. Accurately computing the log-sum-exp and softmax functions. IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis , 41(4):2311–2330, 2021

    2021

  84. [92]

    M. C. Jones. Simple boundary correction for kernel density estimation. Statistics and Computing , 3:135–146, 1993

    1993

  85. [93]

    Duffin, E

    C. Duffin, E. Cripps, T. Stemler, and M. Girolami. Low-rank statistical finite elements for scalable model-data synthesis. Journal of Computational Physics , 463:111261, 2022

    2022

  86. [94]

    Mechanical state estimation with a polynomial-chaos-based statistical finite element method

    V. Narouie. Code for the publication “Mechanical state estimation with a polynomial-chaos-based statistical finite element method”. Github: https://github.com/VhI3/PC-Based-statFEM, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14927079

    2025 doi

  87. [95]

    A. H. Ang and W. H Tang. Probability Concepts in Engineering: Emphasis on Applications to Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2e Instructor Site . John Wiley & Sons Incorporated, 2007

    2007

  88. [96]

    Z. Cao, Y. Wang, and D. Li. Probabilistic Approaches for Geotechnical Site Characterization and Slope Stability Analysis . Springer, 2017. 43

    2017

  89. [97]

    Van Trees

    H.L. Van Trees. Estimation and modulation theory, part i, 1968

    1968

  90. [98]

    L. Wang. Karhunen-loeve Expansions and Their Applications . London School of Economics and Political Science (United Kingdom), 2008

    2008

  91. [99]

    L¨ uthen, S

    N. L¨ uthen, S. Marelli, and B. Sudret. A spectral surrogate model for stochastic simulators com- puted from trajectory samples. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 406: 115875, 2023

    2023

  92. [100]

    Mat´ ern.Spatial Variation: Stochastic Models and their Application to Some Problems in Forest Surveys and other Sampling Investigations

    B. Mat´ ern.Spatial Variation: Stochastic Models and their Application to Some Problems in Forest Surveys and other Sampling Investigations . Meddelanden fr ˚ an Statens skogsforskningsinstitut, bd.49, nr.5. Statens skogsforskningsinstitut, 1960

    1960

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.