Cited by 53Structural Health Monitoring TechniquesControl Systems and IdentificationGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference

Full Gibbs Sampling procedure for Bayesian system identification incorporating sparse Bayesian learning with Automatic Relevance Determination

Open access
Huang, Yong, Beck, James L.·2018·Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1111/mice.12358

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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