MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6983377428

Metamodeling strategies for high-dimensional simulation-based design problems

2010· dissertation· en· W6983377428 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Air ForceManitoba HydroNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsMetamodelingRepresentation (politics)Process (computing)Function (biology)Computational modelDecompositionBasis (linear algebra)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational tools such as finite element analysis and simulation are commonly used for system performance analysis and validation. It is often impractical to rely exclusively on the high-fidelity simulation model for design activities because of high computational costs. Mathematical models are typically constructed to approximate the simulation model to help with the design activities. Such models are referred to as “metamodel.” The process of constructing a metamodel is called “metamodeling.” Metamodeling, however, faces eminent challenges that arise from high-dimensionality of underlying problems, in addition to the high computational costs and unknown function properties (that is black-box functions) of analysis/simulation. The combination of these three challenges defines the so-called high-dimensional, computationally-expensive, and black-box (HEB) problems. Currently there is a lack of practical methods to deal with HEB problems. This dissertation, by means of surveying existing techniques, has found that the major deficiency of the current metamodeling approaches lies in the separation of the metamodeling from the properties of underlying functions. The survey has also identified two promising approaches - mapping and decomposition - for solving HEB problems. A new analytic methodology, radial basis function–high-dimensional model representation (RBF-HDMR), has been proposed to model the HEB problems. The RBF-HDMR decomposes the effects of variables or variable sets on system outputs. The RBF-HDMR, as compared with other metamodels, has three distinct advantages: 1) fundamentally reduces the number of calls to the expensive simulation in order to build a metamodel, thus breaks/alleviates exponentially-increasing computational difficulty; 2) reveals the functional form of the black-box function; and 3) discloses the intrinsic characteristics (for instance, linearity/nonlinearity) of the black-box function. The RBF-HDMR has been intensively tested with mathematical and practical problems chosen from the literature. This methodology has also successfully applied to the power transfer capability analysis of Manitoba-Ontario Electrical Interconnections with 50 variables. The test results demonstrate that the RBF-HDMR is a powerful tool to model large-scale simulation-based engineering problems. The RBF-HDMR model and its constructing approach, therefore, represent a breakthrough in modeling HEB problems and make it possible to optimize high-dimensional simulation-based design problems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207