IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/csdana/v55y2011i4p1638-1655.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mechanism-based emulation of dynamic simulation models: Concept and application in hydrology

Author

Listed:
  • Reichert, P.
  • White, G.
  • Bayarri, M.J.
  • Pitman, E.B.

Abstract

Many model-based investigation techniques, such as sensitivity analysis, optimization, and statistical inference, require a large number of model evaluations to be performed at different input and/or parameter values. This limits the application of these techniques to models that can be implemented in computationally efficient computer codes. Emulators, by providing efficient interpolation between outputs of deterministic simulation models, can considerably extend the field of applicability of such computationally demanding techniques. So far, the dominant techniques for developing emulators have been priors in the form of Gaussian stochastic processes (GASP) that were conditioned with a design data set of inputs and corresponding model outputs. In the context of dynamic models, this approach has two essential disadvantages: (i) these emulators do not consider our knowledge of the structure of the model, and (ii) they run into numerical difficulties if there are a large number of closely spaced input points as is often the case in the time dimension of dynamic models. To address both of these problems, a new concept of developing emulators for dynamic models is proposed. This concept is based on a prior that combines a simplified linear state space model of the temporal evolution of the dynamic model with Gaussian stochastic processes for the innovation terms as functions of model parameters and/or inputs. These innovation terms are intended to correct the error of the linear model at each output step. Conditioning this prior to the design data set is done by Kalman smoothing. This leads to an efficient emulator that, due to the consideration of our knowledge about dominant mechanisms built into the simulation model, can be expected to outperform purely statistical emulators at least in cases in which the design data set is small. The feasibility and potential difficulties of the proposed approach are demonstrated by the application to a simple hydrological model.

Suggested Citation

  • Reichert, P. & White, G. & Bayarri, M.J. & Pitman, E.B., 2011. "Mechanism-based emulation of dynamic simulation models: Concept and application in hydrology," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 1638-1655, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:55:y:2011:i:4:p:1638-1655
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-9473(10)00399-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S. Conti & J. P. Gosling & J. E. Oakley & A. O'Hagan, 2009. "Gaussian process emulation of dynamic computer codes," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 96(3), pages 663-676.
    2. Jeremy Oakley, 2002. "Bayesian inference for the uncertainty distribution of computer model outputs," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 89(4), pages 769-784, December.
    3. Marc C. Kennedy & Anthony O'Hagan, 2001. "Bayesian calibration of computer models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(3), pages 425-464.
    4. Craig P. S & Goldstein M. & Rougier J. C & Seheult A. H, 2001. "Bayesian Forecasting for Complex Systems Using Computer Simulators," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 717-729, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel W. Gladish & Daniel E. Pagendam & Luk J. M. Peeters & Petra M. Kuhnert & Jai Vaze, 2018. "Emulation Engines: Choice and Quantification of Uncertainty for Complex Hydrological Models," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 23(1), pages 39-62, March.
    2. Paulo, Rui & García-Donato, Gonzalo & Palomo, Jesús, 2012. "Calibration of computer models with multivariate output," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(12), pages 3959-3974.
    3. Mohammadi, Hossein & Challenor, Peter & Goodfellow, Marc, 2019. "Emulating dynamic non-linear simulators using Gaussian processes," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 178-196.
    4. Nott, David J. & Marshall, Lucy & Fielding, Mark & Liong, Shie-Yui, 2014. "Mixtures of experts for understanding model discrepancy in dynamic computer models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 491-505.
    5. Auffray, Yves & Barbillon, Pierre & Marin, Jean-Michel, 2014. "Bounding rare event probabilities in computer experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 153-166.
    6. Julia W. Fiedler & Adam P. Young & Bonnie C. Ludka & William C. O’Reilly & Cassandra Henderson & Mark A. Merrifield & R. T. Guza, 2020. "Predicting site-specific storm wave run-up," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(1), pages 493-517, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nott, David J. & Marshall, Lucy & Fielding, Mark & Liong, Shie-Yui, 2014. "Mixtures of experts for understanding model discrepancy in dynamic computer models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 491-505.
    2. Priscilla Avegliano & Jaime Simão Sichman, 2023. "Equation-Based Versus Agent-Based Models: Why Not Embrace Both for an Efficient Parameter Calibration?," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 26(4), pages 1-3.
    3. Yawen Guan & Christian Sampson & J. Derek Tucker & Won Chang & Anirban Mondal & Murali Haran & Deborah Sulsky, 2019. "Computer Model Calibration Based on Image Warping Metrics: An Application for Sea Ice Deformation," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 24(3), pages 444-463, September.
    4. O’Hagan, A., 2006. "Bayesian analysis of computer code outputs: A tutorial," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(10), pages 1290-1300.
    5. Jakub Bijak & Jason D. Hilton & Eric Silverman & Viet Dung Cao, 2013. "Reforging the Wedding Ring," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 29(27), pages 729-766.
    6. Xiaoyu Xiong & Benjamin D. Youngman & Theodoros Economou, 2021. "Data fusion with Gaussian processes for estimation of environmental hazard events," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), May.
    7. Petropoulos, G. & Wooster, M.J. & Carlson, T.N. & Kennedy, M.C. & Scholze, M., 2009. "A global Bayesian sensitivity analysis of the 1d SimSphere soil–vegetation–atmospheric transfer (SVAT) model using Gaussian model emulation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(19), pages 2427-2440.
    8. Gross, Eitan, 2015. "Effect of environmental stress on regulation of gene expression in the yeast," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 430(C), pages 224-235.
    9. Campbell, Katherine, 2006. "Statistical calibration of computer simulations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(10), pages 1358-1363.
    10. V. J. Roelofs & M. C. Kennedy, 2011. "Sensitivity Analysis and Estimation of Extreme Tail Behavior in Two‐Dimensional Monte Carlo Simulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1597-1609, October.
    11. Bozağaç, Doruk & Batmaz, İnci & Oğuztüzün, Halit, 2016. "Dynamic simulation metamodeling using MARS: A case of radar simulation," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 69-86.
    12. Raymond K. W. Wong & Curtis B. Storlie & Thomas C. M. Lee, 2017. "A frequentist approach to computer model calibration," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 79(2), pages 635-648, March.
    13. Jackson Samuel E. & Vernon Ian & Liu Junli & Lindsey Keith, 2020. "Understanding hormonal crosstalk in Arabidopsis root development via emulation and history matching," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 1-33, April.
    14. SungKu Kang & Ran Jin & Xinwei Deng & Ron S. Kenett, 2023. "Challenges of modeling and analysis in cybermanufacturing: a review from a machine learning and computation perspective," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 415-428, February.
    15. Evan Baker & Peter Challenor & Matt Eames, 2021. "Future proofing a building design using history matching inspired level‐set techniques," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(2), pages 335-350, March.
    16. Gyanendra Pokharel & Rob Deardon, 2022. "Emulation‐based inference for spatial infectious disease transmission models incorporating event time uncertainty," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 49(1), pages 455-479, March.
    17. Mohammadi, Hossein & Challenor, Peter & Goodfellow, Marc, 2019. "Emulating dynamic non-linear simulators using Gaussian processes," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 178-196.
    18. Lorenzo Tomassini & Peter Reichert & Hans R. Künsch & Christoph Buser & Reto Knutti & Mark E. Borsuk, 2009. "A smoothing algorithm for estimating stochastic, continuous time model parameters and its application to a simple climate model," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58(5), pages 679-704, December.
    19. Montserrat Fuentes & Peter Guttorp & Peter Challenor, 2003. "Statistical Assessment of Numerical Models," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 71(2), pages 201-221, August.
    20. Storlie, Curtis B. & Reich, Brian J. & Helton, Jon C. & Swiler, Laura P. & Sallaberry, Cedric J., 2013. "Analysis of computationally demanding models with continuous and categorical inputs," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 30-41.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:55:y:2011:i:4:p:1638-1655. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csda .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.