MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553871150 · doi:10.1029/2009wr008957

Reducing the computational cost of automatic calibration through model preemption

2010· article· en· W1553871150 on OpenAlexafffund
Saman Razavi, Bryan A. Tolson, L. Shawn Matott, Neil R. Thomson, Angela MacLean, Frank Seglenieks

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPreemptionCalibrationComputer scienceMathematical optimizationAlgorithmGLUESet (abstract data type)MathematicsStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational budget is frequently a limiting factor in both uncertainty‐based (e.g., through generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE)) and optimization‐based (e.g., through least squares minimization) calibration of computationally intensive environmental simulation models. This study introduces and formalizes the concept of simulation model preemption during automatic calibration. The proposed “model preemption” method terminates a simulation model early to save computational budget if it is recognized through intermediate simulation model results that a given solution (model parameter set) is so poor that it will not benefit the search strategy. The methodology proposed here is referred to as deterministic model preemption because it leads to exactly the same calibration result as when deterministic preemption is not applied. As such, deterministic preemption–enabled calibration algorithms which make no approximations to the mathematical simulation model are a simple alternative to the increasingly common and more complex approach of metamodeling for computationally constrained model calibration. Despite its simplicity, the deterministic model preemption concept is a promising concept that has yet to be formalized in the environmental simulation model automatic calibration literature. The model preemption concept can be applied to a subset of uncertainty‐based and optimization‐based automatic calibration strategies using a variety of different objective functions. Results across multiple calibration case studies demonstrate actual preemption computational savings ranging from 14% to 49%, 34% to 59%, and 52% to 96% for the dynamically dimensioned search, particle swarm optimization, and GLUE automatic calibration methods, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207