1. Wani, F.M., et al., Investigating the efficiency of machine learning algorithms in classifying pulse-like ground motions. Journal of Seismology, 2023. 27(5): p. 875-899.
2. Yazdani, A., et al., Near-field probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of metropolitan Tehran using region-specific directivity models. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 2017. 174: p. 117-132.
3. Kohrangi, M., D. Vamvatsikos, and P. Bazzurro, Pulse‐like versus non‐pulse‐like ground motion records: spectral shape comparisons and record selection strategies. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2019. 48(1): p. 46-64.
4. Fayjaloun, R., et al., Spatial variability of the directivity pulse periods observed during an earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2017. 107(1): p. 308-318.
5. Scala, A., G. Festa, and S. Del Gaudio, Relation between near‐fault ground motion impulsive signals and source parameters. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 2018. 123(9): p. 7707-7721.
6. Hayden, C.P., J.D. Bray, and N.A. Abrahamson, Selection of near-fault pulse motions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2014. 140(7): p. 04014030.
7. Qifang, L., Y. Yifan, and J. Xing, Basic characteristics of near-fault ground motion. EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION-CHINESE EDITION-, 2006. 26(1): p. 1.
8. Somerville, P.G., et al., Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismological research letters, 1997. 68(1): p. 199-222.
9. Liu, Z., X. Li, and Z. Zhang, Quantitative identification of near-fault ground motions based on ensemble empirical mode decomposition. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2020. 24(3): p. 922-930.
10. Luo, Q., et al., Seismic performance assessment of velocity pulse-like ground motions under near-field earthquakes. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2021. 54(8): p. 3799-3816.
11. Erdik, M., et al. Near-fault earthquake ground motion and seismic isolation design. in World Conference on Seismic Isolation. 2022. Springer.
12. Quaranta, G., G. Angelucci, and F. Mollaioli, Near-fault earthquakes with pulse-like horizontal and vertical seismic ground motion components: Analysis and effects on elastomeric bearings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2022. 160: p. 107361.
13. Aoi, S., T. Kunugi, and H. Fujiwara, Trampoline effect in extreme ground motion. Science, 2008. 322(5902): p. 727-730.
14. Peng, Y. and R. Han, A comprehensive categorization method for identifying near‐fault pulse‐like ground motions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2024. 53(14): p. 4404-4431.
15. Shahi, S.K. and J.W. Baker, An efficient algorithm to identify strong‐velocity pulses in multicomponent ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2014. 104(5): p. 2456-2466.
16. Yaghmaei-Sabegh, S., Detection of pulse-like ground motions based on continues wavelet transform. Journal of seismology, 2010. 14: p. 715-726.
17. Peng, Y., et al., Stochastic simulation of velocity pulses of near-fault ground motions based on multivariate copula modeling. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 2023. 72: p. 103434.
18. Zhao, D., et al. Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions selected by energy indicators. in Structures. 2022. Elsevier.
19. Chang, Z., F. De Luca, and K. Goda, Automated classification of near‐fault acceleration pulses using wavelet packets. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2019. 34(7): p. 569-585.
20. Ghaffarzadeh, H., A classification method for pulse-like ground motions based on S-transform. Natural Hazards, 2016. 84: p. 335-350.
21. Liu, Z., Quantitative Identification of Pulse‐Like Ground Motions Based on Hilbert–Huang Transform. Shock and Vibration, 2021. 2021(1): p. 9915362.
22. Chen, X., D. Wang, and R. Zhang, Identification of pulse periods in near‐fault ground motions using the HHT method. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2019. 109(6): p. 2384-2398.
23. Panella, D.S., M.E. Tornello, and C.D. Frau, A simple and intuitive procedure to identify pulse-like ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2017. 94: p. 234-243.
24. Zhao, G., et al., An easy-to-update pulse-like ground motion identification method based on Siamese convolutional neural networks. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2024. 28(1): p. 1-19.
25. Kardoutsou, V., I. Taflampas, and I. Psycharis. A new method for the classification of ground motions as pulse-like or non pulse-like. in Proceedings of 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, Turkey. 2014.
26. Wang, Y., PCA-LSTM: An Impulsive Ground-Shaking Identification Method Based on Combined Deep Learning. CMES-Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences, 2024. 139(3).
27. Alloghani, M., et al., A systematic review on supervised and unsupervised machine learning algorithms for data science. Supervised and unsupervised learning for data science, 2020: p. 3-21.
28. Mahesh, B., Machine learning algorithms-a review. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR).[Internet], 2020. 9(1): p. 381-386.
29. Habib, A., I. Youssefi, and M.M. Kunt, Identification of pulse-like ground motions using artificial neural network. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2022. 21(4): p. 899-912.
30. Baker, J.W., Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bulletin of the seismological society of America, 2007. 97(5): p. 1486-1501.
31. Baker, J.W., Identification of near-fault velocity pulses and prediction of resulting response spectra, in Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics IV. 2008. p. 1-10.
32. Zhai, C., et al., Quantitative identification of near‐fault pulse‐like ground motions based on energy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2013. 103(5): p. 2591-2603.
33. De Roeck, G., et al., Application of wavelet transform for identification of pulse-like ground motions effects on response spectra.
34. Pearson, K., Notes on the history of correlation. Biometrika, 1920. 13(1): p. 25-45.
35. Asgarkhani, N., et al., Seismic response and performance prediction of steel buckling-restrained braced frames using machine-learning methods. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2024. 128: p. 107388.
36. Angelucci, G., et al., Interpretable machine learning models for displacement demand prediction in reinforced concrete buildings under pulse-like earthquakes. Journal of Building Engineering, 2024. 95: p. 110124.
37. Mosca, E., et al. SHAP-based explanation methods: a review for NLP interpretability. in Proceedings of the 29th international conference on computational linguistics. 2022.
38. Barreñada, L., et al., Understanding overfitting in random forest for probability estimation: a visualization and simulation study. Diagnostic and Prognostic Research, 2024. 8(1): p. 14.
39. Wyner, A.J., et al., Explaining the success of adaboost and random forests as interpolating classifiers. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2017. 18(48): p. 1-33.
