Full Gibbs Sampling procedure for Bayesian system identification incorporating sparse Bayesian learning with Automatic Relevance Determination
Open accessAbstract
Bayesian system identification has attracted substantial interest in recent years for inferring structural models and quantifying their uncertainties based on measured dynamic response in a structure. The relative plausibility of each structural model in a specified model class is quantified by its posterior probability from Bayes’ Theorem. The relative plausibility of each model class within a set of candidate model classes for the structure can also be assessed via Bayes’ Theorem. Computation of this posterior probability over all candidate model classes automatically applies a quantitative Ockham's razor that trades off a data-fit measure with an information-theoretic measure of model complexity, which penalizes model classes that “over-fit” the data. In this article, we first present a general Bayesian system identification framework and point out that combining it with sparse Bayesian learning (SBL) is an effective strategy to implement the Bayesian Ockham razor. Then we review our recent progress in exploring SBL with the automatic relevance determination likelihood concept to detect and quantify spatially sparse substructure stiffness reductions. To characterize the full posterior uncertainty for this problem, an improved Gibbs sampling procedure for SBL is then developed. Finally, illustrative results are provided to compare the performance and validate the capability of the presented SBL algorithms for structural system identification.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The full GS algorithm was verified to be more reliable than the partial one for real experimental studies.
“The full GS algorithm was verified to be more reliable than the partial one for real experimental studies.”
From Review on the new development of vibration-based damage identification for civil engineering structures: 2010–2019 (2021) · cites this paper as [219]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hou, R., & Xia, Y. (2021) · Journal of Sound and Vibration · doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2020.115741 · Cited by 674 · see citing works
Fractal dimension based damage identification incorporating multi-task sparse Bayesian learning
Huang, Y., Li, H., Wu, S., & Yang, Y. (2018) · Smart Materials and Structures · doi:10.1088/1361-665x/aac248 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Huang, Y., & Beck, J. L.
- Affiliations
- Harbin Institute of Technology (CN)
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Huang, Yong
- Venue
- Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-09
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 712-730
- ISSN
- 1093-9687 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2791210712
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 6.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (51778192, 51308161)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Control Systems and Identification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Gaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
- Keywords
- Bayesian identification, sparse Bayesian learning, automatic relevance determination, Gibbs sampling, model selection, Occam's razor, structural model updating, structural dynamics, model complexity penalty
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review