Efficient prediction uncertainty approximation in the calibration of environmental simulation models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is aimed at improving the efficiency of model uncertainty analyses that are conditioned on measured calibration data. Specifically, the focus is on developing an alternative methodology to the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) technique when pseudolikelihood functions are utilized instead of a traditional statistical likelihood function. We demonstrate for multiple calibration case studies that the most common sampling approach utilized in GLUE applications, uniform random sampling, is much too inefficient and can generate misleading estimates of prediction uncertainty. We present how the new dynamically dimensioned search (DDS) optimization algorithm can be used to independently identify multiple acceptable or behavioral model parameter sets in two ways. DDS could replace random sampling in typical applications of GLUE. More importantly, we present a new, practical, and efficient uncertainty analysis methodology called DDS–approximation of uncertainty (DDS‐AU) that quantifies prediction uncertainty using prediction bounds rather than prediction limits. Results for 13, 14, 26, and 30 parameter calibration problems show that DDS‐AU can be hundreds or thousands of times more efficient at finding behavioral parameter sets than GLUE with random sampling. Results for one example show that for the same limited computational effort, DDS‐AU prediction bounds can simultaneously be smaller and contain more of the measured data in comparison to GLUE prediction bounds. We also argue and then demonstrate that within the GLUE framework, when behavioral parameter sets are not sampled frequently enough, Latin hypercube sampling does not offer any improvements over simple random sampling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".