TY - JOUR

T1 - Corrigendum to “Small-noise approximation for Bayesian optimal experimental design with nuisance uncertainty” [Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 399 (2022) 115320] (Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering (2022) 399, (S0045782522004194), (10.1016/j.cma.2022.115320))

AU - Bartuska, Arved

AU - Espath, Luis

AU - Tempone, Raúl

N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier B.V.

PY - 2023/5/15

Y1 - 2023/5/15

N2 - The authors regret that because of the condensed notation in Eq. (21), we failed to keep track of the dependence of the correction term [Formula presented] on the parameters of interest [Formula presented] entering through [Formula presented] in Section 5 and Appendix B. The following equations were incorrect in the original submission; thus, we provide updated versions below. [Formula presented] [Formula presented] Following Eq. (42), we note that [Formula presented] is a constant. However, it depends on [Formula presented] and has the following shape: [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] This mistake did not significantly influence the numerical results presented in Section 7. Furthermore, the second to last term in Eq. (93) should have been [Formula presented] rather than [Formula presented]. For completeness, we present the corrected versions of the affected Figs. 1–5 and Figs. 7–11. Finally, the dependence on the data [Formula presented] of the approximate posterior in Section 6 should have been made explicit. The updated equations are as follows: [Formula presented] [Formula presented] For the fully updated version of this article, we refer the reader to arXiv:2112.06794. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

AB - The authors regret that because of the condensed notation in Eq. (21), we failed to keep track of the dependence of the correction term [Formula presented] on the parameters of interest [Formula presented] entering through [Formula presented] in Section 5 and Appendix B. The following equations were incorrect in the original submission; thus, we provide updated versions below. [Formula presented] [Formula presented] Following Eq. (42), we note that [Formula presented] is a constant. However, it depends on [Formula presented] and has the following shape: [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] This mistake did not significantly influence the numerical results presented in Section 7. Furthermore, the second to last term in Eq. (93) should have been [Formula presented] rather than [Formula presented]. For completeness, we present the corrected versions of the affected Figs. 1–5 and Figs. 7–11. Finally, the dependence on the data [Formula presented] of the approximate posterior in Section 6 should have been made explicit. The updated equations are as follows: [Formula presented] [Formula presented] For the fully updated version of this article, we refer the reader to arXiv:2112.06794. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85150923528&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cma.2023.115995

DO - 10.1016/j.cma.2023.115995

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85150923528

SN - 0045-7825

VL - 410

JO - Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering

JF - Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering

M1 - 115995

ER -