Skip to main content

Empirically Improving Model Adequacy in Scientific Computing

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Model Validation and Uncertainty Quantification, Volume 3

Abstract

In developing mechanistic models, we establish assumptions regarding aspects of the system behavior that are not fully understood. Such assumptions in turn may lead to a simplified representation or omission of some underlying phenomena. Although necessary for feasibility, such simplifications introduce systematic bias in the model predictions. Often times model bias is non-uniform across the operational domain of the system of interest. This operational domain is defined by the control parameters, i.e., those that can be controlled by experimentalists during observations of the system behavior. The conventional approach for addressing model bias involves empirically inferring a functional representation of the discrepancy with respect to control parameters and accordingly bias-correcting model predictions. This conventional process can be considered as experimental data fitting informed by theoretical knowledge, only providing a one-way interaction between simulation and observation. The model calibration approach presented herein recognizes that assumptions established during model development may require omission or simplification of interactions among model input parameters. When prediction accuracy relies on the inclusion of these interactions, it becomes necessary to infer the functional relationships between the input parameters from experiments. As such, this study demonstrates a two-way interaction in which theoretical knowledge is in turn informed by experimental data fitting. We propose to empirically learn previously unknown parameter interactions through the training of functions emulating these relationships. Such interactions can be posed in the form of reliance of model input parameter values on control parameter settings or on other input parameters. If the nature of the interactions is known, appropriate parametric functions may be implemented. Otherwise, nonparametric emulator functions can be leveraged. In our study, we use nonparametric Gaussian Process models in the Bayesian paradigm to infer the interactions among input parameters from the experimental data. The proposed approach will equip model developers with a tool capable of identifying the underlying and mechanistically-relevant physical processes absent from engineering models. This approach has the potential to not only significantly reduce the systematic bias between model predictions and experimental observations, but also further engineers’ knowledge of the physics principles governing complex systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A nonzero constant mean could be used as well. However, experience and published literature show that the bias is typically encouraged to center around 0, allowing a correct computer model to emerge with little bias when supported by the data.

References

  1. Williamson, R.L., et al.: Multidimensional multiphysics simulation of nuclear fuel behavior. J. Nucl. Mater. 423(1–3), 149–163 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Unal, C., Williams, B.J., Yacout, A., Higdon, D.M.: Application of advanced validation concepts to oxide fuel performance codes: LIFE-4 fast-reactor and FRAPCON thermal-reactor fuel performance codes. Nucl. Eng. Des. 263, 102–128 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hemez, F., Atamturktur, H.S., Unal, C.: Defining predictive maturity for validated numerical simulations. Comput. Struct. 88(7–8), 497–505 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Reese, C.S., Wilson, A.G., Hamada, M., Martz, H.F., Ryan, K.J.: Integrated analysis of computer and physical experiments. Technometrics. 46(2), 153–164 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Kennedy, M.C., Anderson, C.W., Conti, S., O’Hagan, A.: Case studies in Gaussian process modelling of computer codes. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 91(10–11), 1301–1309 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Higdon, D., Nakhleh, C., Gattiker, J., Williams, B.: A Bayesian calibration approach to the thermal problem. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 197(29–32), 2431–2441 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Kennedy, M.C., O’Hagan, A.: Bayesian calibration of computer models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 63(3), 425–464 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Williams, B., Higdon, D., Gattiker, J., McKay, M., Keller-McNulty, S., Moore, L.: Combining experimental data and computer simulations, with an application to flyer plate experiments. Bayesian Anal. 1(4), 765–792 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Bayarri, M.J., et al.: A framework for validation of computer models. Technometrics. 49(2), 138–154 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Atamturktur, S., Hegenderfer, J., Williams, B., Egeberg, M., Lebensohn, R.A., Unal, C.: A resource allocation framework for experiment-based validation of numerical models. Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 22(8), 641–654 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gustafson, P.: On model expansion, model contraction, identifiability and prior information: two illustrative scenarios involving mismeasured variables. Stat. Sci. 20(2), 111–140 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Fricker, T.E., Oakley, J.E., Urban, N.M.: Multivariate Gaussian process emulators with nonseparable covariance structures. Technometrics. 55(1), 47–56 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. O’Hagan, A., Kingman, J.F.C.: Curve fitting and optimal design for prediction. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 1–42 (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Neal, R.M.: Regression and classification using Gaussian process priors. Bayesian Stat. 6, 1–16 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Santner, T.J., Williams, B.J., Notz, W.I.: The Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments. Springer Science & Business Media, New York (2003)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Rasmussen, C.E., Williams, C.K.I.: Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Rubin, D. B.: Bayesian Data Analysis, vol. 2. Chapman & Hall, London (2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sez Atamturktur .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc.

About this paper

Cite this paper

Atamturktur, S., Stevens, G.N., Brown, D.A. (2017). Empirically Improving Model Adequacy in Scientific Computing. In: Barthorpe, R., Platz, R., Lopez, I., Moaveni, B., Papadimitriou, C. (eds) Model Validation and Uncertainty Quantification, Volume 3. Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54858-6_37

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54858-6_37

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54857-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54858-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics