MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reduced-Order Flood Modeling Using Uncertainty-Aware Deep Neural Networks

2020· article· en· W3111645479 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pierre Jacquier, Azzedine Abdedou, Azzeddine Soulaïmani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Deep learningBenchmark (surveying)Artificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceFlood mythEncoderMachine learningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key Words: Uncertainty Quantification, Deep Learning, Space-Time POD, Flood Modeling While impressive results have been achieved in the well-known fields where Deep Learning allowed for breakthroughs such as computer vision, language modeling, or content generation [1], its impact on different, older fields is still vastly unexplored. In computational fluid dynamics and especially in Flood Modeling, many phenomena are very high-dimensional, and predictions require the use of finite element or volume methods, which can be, while very robust and tested, computational-heavy and may not prove useful in the context of real-time predictions. This led to various attempts at developing Reduced-Order Modeling techniques, both intrusive and non-intrusive. One late relevant addition was a combination of Proper Orthogonal Decomposition with Deep Neural Networks (POD-NN) [2]. Yet, to our knowledge, in this example and more generally in the field, little work has been conducted on quantifying uncertainties through the surrogate model. In this work, we aim at comparing different novel methods addressing uncertainty quantification in reduced-order models, pushing forward the POD-NN concept with ensembles, latent-variable models, as well as encoder-decoder models. These are tested on benchmark problems, and then applied to a real-life application: flooding predictions in the Mille-Iles river in Laval, QC, Canada. For the flood modeling application, our setup involves a set of input parameters resulting from onsite measures. High-fidelity solutions are then generated using our own finite-volume code CuteFlow, which is solving the highly nonlinear Shallow Water Equations. The goal is then to build a non-intrusive surrogate model, that’s able to know what it knows, and more importantly, know when it doesn’t, which is still an open research area as far as neural networks are concerned [3]. REFERENCES [1] C. Szegedy, S. Ioffe, V. Vanhoucke, and A. A. Alemi, “Inception-v4, inception-resnet and the impact of residual connections on learning”, in Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2017. [2] Q. Wang, J. S. Hesthaven, and D. Ray, “Non-intrusive reduced order modeling of unsteady flows using artificial neural networks with application to a combustion problem”, Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 384, pp. 289–307, May 2019. [3] B. Lakshminarayanan, A. Pritzel, and C. Blundell, “Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles”, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017, pp. 6402–6413.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207