2012
DOI: 10.1115/1.4007573
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improving Identifiability in Model Calibration Using Multiple Responses

Abstract: In physics-based engineering modeling, the two primary sources of model uncertainty, which account for the differences between computer models and physical experiments, are parameter uncertainty and model discrepancy. Distinguishing the effects of the two sources of uncertainty can be challenging. For situations in which identifiability cannot be achieved using only a single response, we propose to improve identifiability by using multiple responses that share a mutual dependence on a common set of calibration… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
34
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 103 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This approach is sufficient for the calibration of tuning parameters for prediction of model output but does not address calibration of physical parameters. Arendt, Apley, Chen, Lamb and Gorsich () discussed the use of multiple outputs to improve calibration of physical parameters but they did not provide an explicit approach for calibration of physical parameters with functional output. Brynjarsdottir and O'Hagan () discussed the issue of artificially decreasing posterior variance by increased sampling from the design space.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This approach is sufficient for the calibration of tuning parameters for prediction of model output but does not address calibration of physical parameters. Arendt, Apley, Chen, Lamb and Gorsich () discussed the use of multiple outputs to improve calibration of physical parameters but they did not provide an explicit approach for calibration of physical parameters with functional output. Brynjarsdottir and O'Hagan () discussed the issue of artificially decreasing posterior variance by increased sampling from the design space.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is a closely-related alternative to the DIT assumption that one may be tempted to consider, which, for the reasons discussed below, is not appropriate in this approach. Specifically, in the co-kriging literature [16,35,[40][41][42][43] with a single computer model, it is common to assume that the simulation model y m .x/ is independent of the discrepancy function ı.x/. For our model formulation as Equation (8), if we had assumed that Cov.y m¹i º .x/; ı ¹j º .x 0 // D 0 (for all x; x 0 , and i; j 2 OE1; 2; : : : ; Q), this would imply that for any i ¤ j…”
Section: Approach 2: Parallel Combination Pcmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An MRGP model is fitted to the simulation responses. Based on the previous work [40,41,43], the prior for this MRGP model can be denoted as:…”
Section: Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The so-called "multiple response" calibration of these models is a possible way to overcome this problem [49].…”
Section: Proportional To )mentioning
confidence: 99%