pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05759 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 📊 stat.CO · stat.ME· stat.ML

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

High-dimensional reliability-based design optimization using stochastic emulators

M. Moustapha , B. Sudret
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📊 stat.CO stat.MEstat.ML
keywords reliability-based design optimizationstochastic emulatorssurrogate modelinghigh-dimensional optimizationfailure probabilitygeneralized lambda modelsstochastic polynomial chaos
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stochastic emulators reduce high-dimensional RBDO to deterministic optimization by mapping designs directly to output distributions.

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

The paper proposes reformulating reliability-based design optimization as a stochastic simulation problem where the limit-state function and input uncertainties are unified into a conditional response distribution over the design variables. Stochastic emulators then approximate this distribution directly, allowing failure probabilities and quantiles to be computed semi-analytically without Monte Carlo sampling inside each optimization iteration. This produces deterministic reliability constraints that standard optimization algorithms can handle, removing the classical double-loop structure. The efficiency advantage grows with problem dimension compared to full-space surrogate methods such as Kriging.

Core claim

Under the stochastic simulator viewpoint the deterministic limit-state and input uncertainties are combined into a unified representation; stochastic emulators built in the design space alone then approximate the conditional output distribution, yielding a direct deterministic mapping from design variables to reliability constraints that can be optimized without nested Monte Carlo loops.

What carries the argument

Stochastic emulators (generalized lambda models or stochastic polynomial chaos expansions) that map design variables to the parameters of the conditional response distribution, enabling direct evaluation of failure probabilities.

If this is right

  • Reliability constraints become ordinary deterministic functions of the design variables.
  • Standard deterministic optimization algorithms can be used directly on the RBDO problem.
  • Semi-analytical failure probability evaluation replaces Monte Carlo sampling at each design point.
  • Computational cost scales more favorably than Kriging as the dimension of the design space increases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The approach could open RBDO to engineering problems with dozens of design variables that remain intractable under nested-loop methods.
  • Tail accuracy of the emulators would need separate validation for safety-critical applications.
  • Combining the emulators with adaptive design-space sampling could reduce the number of required model evaluations further.

Load-bearing premise

The stochastic emulators must accurately represent the conditional output distributions across the design space so that the derived failure probabilities and quantiles remain reliable.

What would settle it

On a high-dimensional benchmark, run the method to obtain an optimized design, then compute its true failure probability with a large independent Monte Carlo sample and check whether it meets the target reliability within tolerance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05759 by B. Sudret, M. Moustapha.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: illustrates the transformation further called stochasticization. The original de￾terministic limit-state g is represented by the blue box and has two random input vectors, namely X|d and Z. In contrast, the stochastic limit-state gs, represented by the pink box, encapsulates these sources of uncertainty within the simulator itself. As a result, its only explicit input is the deterministic design vector d. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Uncertainty propagation using a deterministic simulator versus a stochastic sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Column buckling: Boxplots of the optimal costs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Column buckling: Conditional probability density functions of the model response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Corroded beam: Schematic representation of a beam under corrosion, from Kroetz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Corroded beam: Boxplots of the optimal costs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corroded beam: Boxplots of the optimal designs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Corroded beam: Conditional probability density functions of the model response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Corroded beam: Quantiles q0.05 (d) of the stochastic limit-state function evaluated over the design space using the original model. The dashed black line corresponds to the zero value. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Corroded beam: Quantiles q0.05 (d) of the stochastic limit-state function evalu￾ated over the design space using the surrogate models. The dashed black line corresponds to the zero value obtained from the original limit-state function. The red line corresponds to the surrogate. In addition to providing more accurate results than Kriging, the proposed stochastic￾27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Short column: Boxplots of the optimal costs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Short column: Boxplots of the optimal designs (mean values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Short column: Conditional probability density functions of the model response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Reliability-based design optimization (RBDO) is traditionally formulated as a nested optimization and reliability problem. Although surrogate models are generally employed to improve efficiency, the approach remains computationally prohibitive in high-dimensional settings. This paper proposes a novel RBDO framework based on a stochastic simulator viewpoint, in which the deterministic limit-state function and the uncertainty in the model inputs are combined into a unified stochastic representation. Under this formulation, the system response conditioned on a given design is modeled directly through its output distribution, rather than through an explicit limit-state function. Stochastic emulators are constructed in the design space to approximate the conditional response distribution, enabling the semi-analytical evaluation of failure probabilities or associated quantiles without resorting to Monte Carlo simulation. Two classes of stochastic emulators are investigated, namely generalized lambda models and stochastic polynomial chaos expansions. Both approaches provide a deterministic mapping between design variables and reliability constraints, which breaks the classical double-loop structure of RBDO and allows the use of standard deterministic optimization algorithms. The performance of the proposed approach is evaluated on a set of benchmark problems with dimensionality ranging from low to very high, including a case with stochastic excitation. The results are compared against a Kriging-based approach formulated in the full input space. The proposed method yields substantial computational gains, particularly in high-dimensional settings. While its efficiency is comparable to Kriging for low-dimensional problems, it significantly outperforms Kriging as the dimensionality increases.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a RBDO framework that unifies the deterministic limit-state function with input uncertainties into a stochastic representation. Conditional response distributions are approximated directly in the design space via stochastic emulators (generalized lambda models or stochastic polynomial chaos expansions), enabling semi-analytical failure-probability or quantile evaluation without Monte Carlo. This produces a deterministic mapping from design variables to reliability constraints, breaking the classical double-loop structure and permitting standard deterministic optimizers. The approach is benchmarked on problems from low to very high dimension (including stochastic excitation) and compared to a Kriging formulation in the full input space, with claims of substantial efficiency gains that increase with dimensionality.

Significance. If the stochastic emulators accurately capture the conditional distributions (including tails) across the design space, the framework would offer a scalable route to high-dimensional RBDO by eliminating nested Monte Carlo loops. The deterministic mapping to reliability metrics is a conceptually clean way to simplify the problem and could be broadly useful once accuracy is established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and numerical results] Abstract and numerical-results sections: the central claim of substantial computational gains and outperformance versus Kriging in high dimensions rests on the emulators supplying sufficiently accurate failure probabilities or quantiles, yet no quantitative error metrics (relative error, bias, or variance of the reliability estimates relative to reference Monte Carlo) or convergence studies with respect to emulator hyperparameters are reported.
  2. [Stochastic emulator construction] Stochastic-emulator construction and validation: the assumption that generalized lambda models or stochastic PCE faithfully represent the full conditional output distributions (especially tails) for arbitrary design points in high-dimensional spaces is not supported by any diagnostic on tail accuracy or by comparison against direct Monte Carlo at selected design locations.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Methodology] The distinction between the inner stochastic emulator and the outer deterministic optimizer could be clarified with an explicit algorithmic outline or pseudocode.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on validation and quantitative assessment. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested additions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and numerical results] Abstract and numerical-results sections: the central claim of substantial computational gains and outperformance versus Kriging in high dimensions rests on the emulators supplying sufficiently accurate failure probabilities or quantiles, yet no quantitative error metrics (relative error, bias, or variance of the reliability estimates relative to reference Monte Carlo) or convergence studies with respect to emulator hyperparameters are reported.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative error metrics and convergence studies are necessary to rigorously support the accuracy of the reliability estimates underlying the reported computational gains. In the revised manuscript, we will add a new subsection within the numerical results that reports relative errors, bias, and variance of the failure probabilities and quantiles produced by the stochastic emulators (both generalized lambda models and stochastic PCE) against reference Monte Carlo simulations. These will be evaluated at multiple design points across the benchmark problems, including high-dimensional cases. We will also include convergence studies with respect to key emulator hyperparameters, such as the number of training samples and polynomial degree. These additions will directly substantiate the claims while preserving the focus on efficiency gains. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Stochastic emulator construction] Stochastic-emulator construction and validation: the assumption that generalized lambda models or stochastic PCE faithfully represent the full conditional output distributions (especially tails) for arbitrary design points in high-dimensional spaces is not supported by any diagnostic on tail accuracy or by comparison against direct Monte Carlo at selected design locations.

    Authors: We acknowledge that explicit diagnostics for tail accuracy are important for validating the stochastic emulators, particularly given the emphasis on reliability constraints. In the revision, we will add targeted validation studies comparing the emulators against direct Monte Carlo at selected design locations in both low- and high-dimensional benchmarks. These will include tail-specific diagnostics such as comparisons of extreme quantiles, probability plots for the upper tails, and assessments of failure probability accuracy for small target probabilities. The comparisons will be performed at representative points in the design space to demonstrate fidelity across the conditional distributions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; new RBDO formulation applies established emulators independently

full rationale

The paper's core contribution is a reformulation of RBDO as a stochastic simulator problem, where conditional output distributions are emulated directly in design space using generalized lambda models or stochastic PCE to enable semi-analytical reliability measures and break the double loop. This is not derived from or equivalent to its own fitted outputs; the emulators are applied as black-box approximators whose accuracy is validated on benchmarks against Kriging, rather than tautologically defined by the same data or predictions. No self-citation chain, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz is invoked to force the central efficiency claims, which rest on explicit numerical comparisons across dimensions. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the approach relies on standard assumptions of emulator accuracy and distribution modeling that are not enumerated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5552 in / 1137 out tokens · 41502 ms · 2026-05-10T18:46:15.485723+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Agarwal, H. and J. Renaud (2004). Reliability-based design optimization using response surfaces in application to multidisciplinary systems. Engineering Optimization\/ 36\/ (3), 291--311

    2004

  2. [2]

    Aoues, Y. and A. Chateauneuf (2010). Benchmark study of numerical methods for reliability-based design optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization\/ 41\/ (2), 277--294

    2010

  3. [3]

    Au, S. K. and J. L. Beck (2001). Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics\/ 16\/ (4), 263--277

    2001

  4. [4]

    Au, S.-K. and E. Patelli (2016). Rare event simulation in finite-infinite dimensional space. Reliability Engineering and System Safety\/ 148 , 67--77

    2016

  5. [5]

    Billings, S. A. (2013). Nonlinear system identification: NARMAX methods in the time, frequency, and spatio-temporal domains . John Wiley & Sons

    2013

  6. [6]

    Boroson, E. and S. Missoum (2017). Stochastic optimization of nonlinear energy sinks. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization\/ 55 , 633--646

    2017

  7. [7]

    Chateauneuf, A. and Y. Aoues (2008). Structural design optimization considering uncertainties , Chapter 9, pp.\ 217--246. Taylor & Francis

    2008

  8. [8]

    Chen, C., C. Li, L. Chen, W. Wang, Y. Pu, and L. C. Duke (2018). Continuous-time flows for efficient inference and density estimation. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning , Volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pp.\ 824--833

    2018

  9. [9]

    Hasselman, T., and D

    Chen, X., K. Hasselman, T., and D. J. Neil (1997). Reliability based structural design optimization for practical applications. In 38th Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference , pp.\ 2724--2732

    1997

  10. [10]

    Clark, D. L., H. Bae, and E. E. Forster (2020). G aussian surrogate dimension reduction for efficient reliability-based design optimization. In AIAA SciTech Forum , January 6-20, 2020, Orlanda, Florida, USA

    2020

  11. [11]

    Du, X. and W. Chen (2004). Sequential optimization and reliability assessment method for efficient probabilistic design. Journal of Mechanical Design\/ 126\/ (2), 225--233

    2004

  12. [12]

    Sudret, and J.-M

    Dubourg, V., B. Sudret, and J.-M. Bourinet (2011). Reliability-based design optimization using Kriging and subset simulation. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization\/ 44\/ (5), 673--690

    2011

  13. [13]

    Faes, M. G. and M. A. Valdebenito (2020). Fully decoupled reliabiliy-based design optimization of structural systems subject to uncertain loads. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering\/ 371 , 113313

    2020

  14. [14]

    and N.-C

    Hasofer, A.-M. and N.-C. Lind (1974, February). Exact and invariant second moment code format. Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE)\/ 100\/ (1), 111--121

    1974

  15. [15]

    Jerez, D. J., H. A. Jensen, and M. Beer (2022). Reliability-based design optimization of structural systems under stochastic excitation: A n overview. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing\/ 106 , 108397

    2022

  16. [16]

    Jia, G. and A. A. Taflanidis (2013). Non-parametric stochastic subset optimization for optimal-reliability design problems. Comput. Struct.\/ 126 , 86--99

    2013

  17. [17]

    Zhang, M

    Jiang, Y., X. Zhang, M. Beer, H. Zhou, and Y. Leng (2024). An efficient method for reliability-based design optimization of structures under random excitation by mapping between reliability and operator norm. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety\/ 245 , 109972

    2024

  18. [18]

    S., and J

    Kim, J., Y. S., and J. Song (2024). Active learning-based optimization of structures under stochastic excitations with first-passage probability constraints. Engineering Structures\/ 307 , 117873

    2024

  19. [19]

    Kim, J. and J. Song (2021). Reliability-based design optimization using quantile surrogates by adaptive gaussian process. Journal of Engineering Mechanics\/ 147 , 04021020--1 -- 16

    2021

  20. [20]

    Prince, and M

    Kobyzev, I., S. Prince, and M. Brubaker (2020). Normalizing flows: An introduction and review of current methods. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence\/ 43\/ (11), 3964--3979

    2020

  21. [21]

    Kroetz, H., A. T. Beck, L. G. L. Costa, F. C. Macedo, S. Marelli, and B. Sudret (2026). Fragility analysis of structures under non-synoptic winds using stochastic emulators. Engineering Structures\/ 357 , 122515

    2026

  22. [22]

    Moustapha, A

    Kroetz, H., M. Moustapha, A. Beck, and B. Sudret (2020). A two-level K riging-based approach with active learning for solving time-variant risk optimization problems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety\/ 203\/ ( 107033 )

    2020

  23. [23]

    Wicaksono, S

    Lataniotis, C., D. Wicaksono, S. Marelli, and B. Sudret (2026). UQLab user manual -- Kriging (Gaussian process modeling) . Technical report, Chair of Risk, Safety and Uncertainty Quantification, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Report UQLab-V2.2-105

    2026

  24. [24]

    Lee, D. and S. Rahman (2022). Reliability-based design optimization under dependent random variables by a generalized polynomial chaos expansion. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization\/ 65\/ (21)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Lee, U. (2025). Reliability-based design optimization ( RBDO ) framework for high-energy laser weapons ( HELWs ) using artificial neural network ensemble. Expert Systems with Applications\/ 287 , 128202

    2025

  26. [26]

    Li, M. and Z. Wang (2022). Deep reliability learning with latent adaptation for design optimization under uncertainty. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering\/ 397 , 115130

    2022

  27. [27]

    Schofield, and M

    Li, Y., O. Schofield, and M. G\"onen (2019). A tutorial on D irichlet process mixture modeling. Journal of Mathematical Psychology\/ 91

    2019

  28. [28]

    Mourelatos, and J

    Liang, J., Z. Mourelatos, and J. Tu (2004). A single-loop method for reliability-based design optimization. In Proc. DETC'04 ASME 2004 Design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Sept.28 - Oct. 2, 2004, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

    2004

  29. [29]

    Lu, and W

    Ling, C., Z. Lu, and W. Zhang (2021). Bayesian support vector regression for reliability-based design optimization. AIAA Journals\/ 55 , 5141--5157

    2021

  30. [30]

    Gong, and Q

    Liu, X., C. Gong, and Q. Liu (2022). Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow. In Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022

    2022

  31. [31]

    uthen, N. (2022). Sparse spectral surrogate models for deterministic and stochastic computer simulations . Ph.\ D. thesis, ETH Z\

    L\"uthen, N. (2022). Sparse spectral surrogate models for deterministic and stochastic computer simulations . Ph.\ D. thesis, ETH Z\"urich, Z\"urich, Switzerland

    2022

  32. [32]

    Lüthen, N., X. Zhu, S. Marelli, and B. Sudret (2026a). UQLab user manual - Generalized Lambda Model . Technical report, Chair of Risk, Safety and Uncertainty Quantification, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Report UQLab-V2.2-120

  33. [33]

    Lüthen, N., X. Zhu, S. Marelli, and B. Sudret (2026b). UQLab user manual - Stochastic PCE . Technical report, Chair of Risk, Safety and Uncertainty Quantification, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Report UQLab-V2.2-121

  34. [34]

    Marelli, S. and B. Sudret (2014). UQLab : a framework for uncertainty quantification in MATLAB . In MascotNum Annual Workshop, Zurich

    2014

  35. [35]

    Melchers, R. E. and A. T. Beck (2018). Structural reliability analysis and prediction . John Wiley & Sons

    2018

  36. [36]

    Marelli, , and B

    Moustapha, M., S. Marelli, , and B. Sudret (2026). UQLab user manual -- Reliability-Based Design Optimization . Technical report, Chair of Risk, Safety and Uncertainty Quantification, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Report UQLab-V2.2-115

    2026

  37. [37]

    Marelli, and B

    Moustapha, M., S. Marelli, and B. Sudret (2022, May). Active learning for structural reliability: S urvey, general framework and benchmark. Structural Safety\/ 96\/ (102174)

    2022

  38. [38]

    Moustapha, M. and B. Sudret (2019). Surrogate-assisted reliability-based design optimization: a survey and a unified modular framework. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization\/ 60 , 2157--2176

    2019

  39. [39]

    Sudret, J.-M

    Moustapha, M., B. Sudret, J.-M. Bourinet, and B. Guillaume (2016). Quantile-based optimization under uncertainties using adaptive K riging surrogate models. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization\/ 54\/ (6), 1403--1421

    2016

  40. [40]

    Nikolaidis, E. and R. Burdisso (1988). Reliability-based optimization: A safety index approach. Comput. Struct.\/ 28\/ (6), 781--788

    1988

  41. [41]

    Papaioannou, I., W. Betz, K. Zwirglmaier, and D. Straub (2015). MCMC algorithms for subset simulation. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics\/ 41 , 89 -- 103

    2015

  42. [42]

    Papadimitriou, and D

    Papaioannou, I., C. Papadimitriou, and D. Straub (2016). Sequential importance sampling for structural reliability analysis. Struct. Saf.\/ 62 , 66--75

    2016

  43. [43]

    Park, J. W. and I. Lee (2023). A new framework for efficient sequential sampling-based RBDO using space mapping. Journal of Mechanical Design\/ 145 , 031702

    2023

  44. [44]

    Peng, H., A. A. Taflanidis, and J. Zhang (2026). Accelerating seismic response distribution estimation with scalable mixture density network stochastic surrogate models. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics\/ 55 , 721--742

    2026

  45. [45]

    Pires, A. V., M. Moustapha, S. Marelli, and B. Sudret (2025a). AL-SPCE - R eliability analysis for nondeterministic models using stochastic polynomial chaos expansions and active learning. Structural Safety\/ . (submitted)

  46. [46]

    Pires, A. V., M. Moustapha, S. Marelli, and B. Sudret (2025b). Reliability analysis for nondeterministic limit-states using stochastic emulators. Structural Safety\/ 117 , 102621

  47. [47]

    Tikhonov, O

    Ramchandran, S., G. Tikhonov, O. Lönnroth, P. Tiikkainen, and H. Lähdesmäki (2024). Learning conditional variational autoencoders with missing covariates. Pattern Recognition\/ 147 , 110113

    2024

  48. [48]

    Rubinstein, R. Y. and D. P. Kroese (2016, November). Simulation and the Monte Carlo method . John Wiley & Sons, Inc

    2016

  49. [49]

    Marelli, and B

    Sch\"ar, S., S. Marelli, and B. Sudret (2024). Emulating the dynamics of complex systems using autoregressive models on manifolds (mNARX) . Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing\/ 208\/ (110956)

    2024

  50. [50]

    Marelli, and B

    Schär, S., S. Marelli, and B. Sudret (2025). Surrogate modeling with functional nonlinear autoregressive models ( F -narx). Reliability Engineering & System Safety\/ 264\/ (111276)

    2025

  51. [51]

    Marelli, and B

    Schär, S., S. Marelli, and B. Sudret (2026). mnarx + : A surrogate model for complex dynamical systems using manifold-narx and automatic feature selection. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering\/ 449\/ (118550)

    2026

  52. [52]

    Lee, and X

    Sohn, K., H. Lee, and X. Yan (2015). Learning structured output representation using deep conditional generative models. In C. Cortes, N. Lawrence, D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, and R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Volume 28, pp.\ 1 -- 9. Curran Associates, Inc

    2015

  53. [53]

    Spall, J. C. (2003). Introduction to stochastic search and optimization: E stimation, simulation and control . John Wiley & Sons

    2003

  54. [54]

    Sudret, B. (2007). Uncertainty propagation and sensitivity analysis in mechanical models -- Contributions to structural reliability and stochastic spectral methods . Universit\'e Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand, France. Habilitation \`a diriger des recherches, 173 pages

    2007

  55. [55]

    Sudret, B. (2015). Polynomials chaos expansions and stochastic finite element methods . In K.-K. Phoon and J. Ching (Eds.), Risk Reliab. Geotech. Eng. , Chapter 6. Taylor and Francis

    2015

  56. [56]

    Taflanidis, A. A. and J. L. Beck (2008). Stochastic subset optimization for optimal reliability problems. Prob. Eng. Mech\/ 23 , 324--338

    2008

  57. [57]

    and K.-W

    Thedy, J. and K.-W. Liao (2023). Reliability‑based structural optimization using adaptive neural network multisphere importance sampling. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization\/ 66\/ (119)

    2023

  58. [58]

    McMullen, V

    Thompson, T., M. McMullen, V. Nemani, Z. Hu, and C. Hu (2025). A comparative study of acquisition functions for active learning K riging in reliability-based design optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization\/ 68\/ (51)

    2025

  59. [59]

    Tu, J., K. K. Choi, and Y. H. Park (1999). A new study on reliability-based design optimization. Journal of Mechanical Design\/ 121 , 557 -- 564

    1999

  60. [60]

    Valdebenito, A. M. and G. I. Schu\"eller (2010). A survey on approaches for reliability-based optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization\/ 42 , 645--663

    2010

  61. [61]

    Wang, Z. and J. Song (2016). Cross-entropy-based adaptive importance sampling using von M ises- F isher mixture for high dimensional reliability. Structural Safety\/ 59 , 42--52

    2016

  62. [62]

    Yuan, and H

    Xiao, N.-C., K. Yuan, and H. Zhan (2022). System reliability analysis based on dependent K riging predictions and parallel learning strategy. Reliability Engineering and System Safety\/ 218 , 108083

    2022

  63. [63]

    Xiu, D. and G. E. Karniadakis (2002). The Wiener-Askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations . SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing\/ 24\/ (2), 619--644

    2002

  64. [64]

    Barabano, and B

    Zhang, C., R. Barabano, and B. Jin (2020). Conditional variational autoencoder for learned image reconstruction. Computation\/ 9\/ (114), 1--23

    2020

  65. [65]

    Aoues, D

    Zhang, H., Y. Aoues, D. Lemosse, and E. Souza de Cursi (2021). A single loop approach with adaptive sampling and surrogate K riging for reliability-based design optimization. Engineering Optimization\/ 53 , 1450 -- 1466

    2021

  66. [66]

    Zhang, J., A. A. Taflanidis, and J. C. Medina (2017). Sequential approximate optimization for design under uncertainty problems utilizing Kriging metamodeling in augmented input space . Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering\/ 315 , 369--395

    2017

  67. [67]

    Zhang, Z., H. Liu, T. Wu, J. Xu, and C. Jiang (2024). A novel reliability-based design optimization method through instant-based transfer learning. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering\/ 432 , 117388

    2024

  68. [68]

    Zhou, Y. and Z. Lu (2019). Active polynomial chaos expansion for reliability-based design optimization. AIAA Journals\/ 57 , 5431--5446

    2019

  69. [69]

    urich, Z\

    Zhu, X. (2023). Surrogate modeling for stochastic simulators using statistical approaches . Ph.\ D. thesis, ETH Z\"urich, Z\"urich, Switzerland

    2023

  70. [70]

    Broccardo, and B

    Zhu, X., M. Broccardo, and B. Sudret (2023). Seismic fragility analysis using stochastic polynomial chaos expansions. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics\/ 72\/ (103413), 1--13

    2023

  71. [71]

    Zhu, X. and B. Sudret (2020). Replication-based emulation of the response distribution of stochastic simulators using generalized lambda distributions. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification\/ 10\/ (3), 249--275

    2020

  72. [72]

    Zhu, X. and B. Sudret (2021). Emulation of stochastic simulators using generalized lambda models. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification\/ 9\/ (4), 1345--1380

    2021

  73. [73]

    Zhu, X. and B. Sudret (2023). Stochastic polynomial chaos expansions to emulate stochastic simulators. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification\/ 13\/ (2), 31--52

    2023