Large‐Scale Inverse Problems and Quantification of Uncertainty 2010
DOI: 10.1002/9780470685853.ch7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Surrogate and Reduced‐Order Modeling: A Comparison of Approaches for Large‐Scale Statistical Inverse Problems

Abstract: Surrogate and reduced-order modeling: a comparison of approaches for large-scale statistical inverse problems [Chapter 7]The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. CitationFrangos, M., Y. Marzouk, K. Willcox, and B. van Bloemen Waanders (2010). Surrogate and reduced-order modeling: a comparison of approaches for large-scale statistical inverse problems.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
110
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 110 publications
(118 citation statements)
references
References 76 publications
(71 reference statements)
1
110
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, [32] shows that in a two-dimensional driven cavity flow example for a viscoelastic material, a projection-based reduced model with 60 degrees of freedom performs significantly better than a coarser discretization with 14,803 degrees of freedom. The paper [100] compares projection-based reduced models to stochastic spectral approximations in a statistical inverse problem setting and concludes that, for an elliptic problem with low parameter dimension, the reduced model requires fewer offline simulations to achieve a desired level of accuracy, while the polynomial chaos-based surrogate is cheaper to evaluate in the online phase. In [74] parametric reduced models are compared with Kriging models for a thermal fin design problem and for prediction of contaminant transport.…”
Section: Parametric Model Reduction In Actionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, [32] shows that in a two-dimensional driven cavity flow example for a viscoelastic material, a projection-based reduced model with 60 degrees of freedom performs significantly better than a coarser discretization with 14,803 degrees of freedom. The paper [100] compares projection-based reduced models to stochastic spectral approximations in a statistical inverse problem setting and concludes that, for an elliptic problem with low parameter dimension, the reduced model requires fewer offline simulations to achieve a desired level of accuracy, while the polynomial chaos-based surrogate is cheaper to evaluate in the online phase. In [74] parametric reduced models are compared with Kriging models for a thermal fin design problem and for prediction of contaminant transport.…”
Section: Parametric Model Reduction In Actionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…in order to compute sample statistics such as expectations, variances, and higher moments). Here we do not treat in detail statistical inverse problems and the various approaches that have been proposed in what is a vast field of applied statistics, but limit ourselves to mention that (i) reduction techniques prove to be mandatory also within a statistical approach (as detailed in [20,22,39]) and that (ii) the reduced basis framework is suitable also for uncertainty quantification [26] and more general probabilistic problems [8,46]. In this paper we identify two approaches to deal with uncertainty.…”
Section: A Statistical Framework For Inverse Problemsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Offline-Online decomposition. Under the affinity assumption (19)- (20), RB operators can be written isolating the parametric contribution as follows:…”
Section: Thanks To the (Considerably) Reduced Dimension O(n )mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…1 Interesting examples of intrusive techniques exploit multiple spatial resolutions of the forward model (Higdon et al, 2003;Christen and Fox, 2005;Efendiev et al, 2006), models with tunable accuracy (Korattikara et al, 2013;Bal et al, 2013), or projection-based reduced order models (Frangos et al, 2010;Lieberman et al, 2010;Cui et al, 2014). or simulated from, respectively (Andrieu and Roberts, 2009;Marin et al, 2011). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%