Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.5555/2431518.2431693acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswscConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Panel discussion: integrating data from multiple simulation models of different fidelity

Published: 11 December 2011 Publication History

Abstract

Computer models are used to simulate physical processes in almost all areas of science and engineering. A single evaluation of these computation models (or computer codes) can take as little as a few seconds or as long as weeks or months. In either case, experimenters use the model outputs to learn something about the physical system. In some settings, outputs from several computational models, with varying levels of fidelity, are available to researchers. In addition, observations from the physical system may also be in hand. In this panel discussion we address issues relating to model formulation, estimation, prediction and extrapolation using multi-fidelity computer models are addressed. In the first presentation, Bayesian methods are used to build a predictive model using low and high fidelity computational models with different inputs and also field observations. The second presentation deals with the difficult computational issues facing computer model calibration and prediction using a Bayesian framework that are typically remedied through the use of Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. While the computational burden is substantial, we review faster alternatives to standard MCMC techniques that are particularly useful in the multi-fidelity simulator problem. In the final presentation, calibration of computational models is discussed in the context of validation and extrapolation, with introduction to developments in stochastic model calibration.

References

[1]
Bayarri, M., J. Berger, R. Paulo, J. Sacks, J. Cafeo, J. Cavendish, C. Lin, and J. Tu. 2007. "A Framework for Validation of Computer Models". Technometrics 49:138--154.
[2]
Christen, J., and C. Fox. 2005. "Markov Chain Monte Carlo Using an Approximation". Journal of Computational & Graphical Statistics 14 (4): 795--810.
[3]
Fox, C., and G. Nicholls. 1997. "Sampling Conductivity Images via MCMC". In Proceedings of the Leeds Annual Statistical Research Workshop (LASR), 91--100. University of Leeds.
[4]
Gelman, A., G. Roberts, and W. Gilks. 1996. "Efficient Metropolis jumping rules". In Bayesian Statistics, edited by J. M. Bernado et al., Volume 5, 599. OUP.
[5]
Higdon, D., J. Gattiker, B. Williams, and M. Rightley. 2008. "Computer model calibration using high-dimensional output". Journal of the American Statistical Association 103 (482): 570--583.
[6]
Higdon, D., M. Kennedy, J. C. Cavendish, J. A. Cafeo, and R. D. Ryne. 2004. "Combining Field Data and Computer Simulations for Calibration and Prediction". SIAM Journal of Scientific Computing 26:448--466.
[7]
Higdon, D., H. Lee, and Z. Bi. 2002. "A Bayesian Approach to Characterizing Uncertainty in Inverse Problems Using Coarse and Fine Scale Information". IEEE Transactions in Signal Processing 50:389--399.
[8]
Hills, R., and T. Trucano. 2002. "Statistical validation of engineering and scientific models: a maximum likelihood based metric". Technical Report SAND2001-1783, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
[9]
Jimenez, R., L. Verde, H. Peiris, and A. Kosowsky. 2004. "Fast cosmological parameter estimation from microwave background temperature and polarization power spectra". Physical Review D 70 (2): 23005.
[10]
Kaipio, J. P., and E. Somersalo. 2004. Statistical and Computational Inverse Problems. New York: Springer.
[11]
Kennedy, M., C. Anderson, A. O'Hagan, M. Lomas, I. Woodward, J. Gosling, and A. Heinemeyer. 2008. "Quantifying Uncertainty in the Biospheric Carbon Flux for England and Wales". Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 171:109--135.
[12]
Kennedy, M., and A. O'Hagan. 2000. "Predicting the Output from a Complex Computer Code when Fast Approximations are Available". Biometrika 87:11--13.
[13]
Kennedy, M., and A. O'Hagan. 2001. "Bayesian Calibration of Computer Models". Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical Methodology 63:425--464.
[14]
Metropolis, N., A. Rosenbluth, M. Rosenbluth, A. Teller, and E. Teller. 1953. "Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines". Journal of Chemical Physics 21:1087--1091.
[15]
Oberkampf, W., and M. Barone. 2006. "Measures of agreement between computation and experiment: validation metrics". Journal of Computational Physics 217 (1): 5--36.
[16]
Oden, T., R. Moser, and O. Ghattas. 2010a. "Computer Predictions with Quantified Uncertainty, Part I". SIAM News 43 (9): 1--4.
[17]
Oden, T., R. Moser, and O. Ghattas. 2010b. "Computer Predictions with Quantified Uncertainty, Part II". SIAM News 43 (10): 1--4.
[18]
Qian, P., and C. Wu. 2008. "Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling for Integrating Low-accuracy and High-accuracy Experiments". Technometrics 50:192--204.
[19]
Ranjan, P., D. Bingham, and G. Michailidis. 2008. "Sequential experiment design for contour estimation from complex computer codes". Technometrics 50 (4): 527--541.
[20]
Sacks, J., W. J. Welch, T. J. Mitchell, and H. Wynn. 1989. "Design and analysis of computer experiments". Statistical Science 4:409--423.
[21]
Stenerud, V., V. Kippe, K. Lie, and A. Datta-Gupta. 2008. "Adaptive multiscale streamline simulation and inversion for high-resolution geomodels". SPE Journal 13 (1): 99--111.
[22]
ter Braak, C. F. J. 2006. "A Markov Chain Monte Carlo version of the genetic algorithm Differential Evolution: easy Bayesian computing for real parameter spaces". Statistics and Computing 16 (3): 239--249.
[23]
Wang, S., W. Chen, and K. Tsui. 2009. "Bayesian validation of computer models". Technometrics 51 (4): 439--451.
[24]
Weir, I. 1997. "Fully Bayesian Reconstructions from single photon emission computed tomography". Journal of the American Statistical Association 92:49--60.
[25]
Williams, B. J., J. L. Loeppky, L. M. Moore, and M. S. Macklem. 2011. "Batch sequential design to achieve predictive maturity with calibrated computer models". Reliability Engineering & System Safety 96 (9): 1208--1219.

Index Terms

  1. Panel discussion: integrating data from multiple simulation models of different fidelity

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    WSC '11: Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference
    December 2011
    4336 pages

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Winter Simulation Conference

    Publication History

    Published: 11 December 2011

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    WSC'11
    Sponsor:
    WSC'11: Winter Simulation Conference 2011
    December 11 - 14, 2011
    Arizona, Phoenix

    Acceptance Rates

    WSC '11 Paper Acceptance Rate 203 of 270 submissions, 75%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 3,413 of 5,075 submissions, 67%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 24
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
    Reflects downloads up to 18 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media