1 / 15

EARG presentation Oct 3, 2005 by Frank Hutter

Physical Experiments & Computer Experiments, Preliminaries Chapters 1&2 “Design and Analysis of Experiments“ by Thomas J. Santner, Brian J. Williams and William I. Notz. EARG presentation Oct 3, 2005 by Frank Hutter. Preface. What they mean by Computer Experiments

nona
Télécharger la présentation

EARG presentation Oct 3, 2005 by Frank Hutter

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Physical Experiments &Computer Experiments,PreliminariesChapters 1&2 “Design and Analysis of Experiments“by Thomas J. Santner, Brian J. Williams and William I. Notz EARG presentation Oct 3, 2005by Frank Hutter

  2. Preface • What they mean by Computer Experiments • Code that serves as a proxy for physical process • Can modify inputs and observe how process output is affedcted • Math • Should be understandable with a Masters level training of Statistics

  3. Overview of the book • Chapter 1: intro, application domains • Chapter 2: • Research goals for various types of inputs (random, controlled, model parameters) • Lots of definitions, Gaussian processes • Chapters 3-4: Predicting Output from Computer Experiments • Chapter 5: Basic Experimental Design (similar to last term) • Chapter 6: Active Learning (sequential experimental design) • Chapter 7: Sensitivity analysis • Appendix C: code

  4. Physical experiments: a few concepts we saw last term (2f) • Randomization • In order to prevent unrecognized nuisance variables from systematically affecting response • Blocking • Deals with recognized nuisance variables • Group experimental units into homogeneous groups • Replication • Reduce unavoidable measurement variation • Computer experiments • Deterministic outputs • “None of the traditional principles [...] are of use“

  5. Types of input variables (15f) • Control variables xc • Can be set by experimenter / engineer • Engineering variables, manufactoring variables • Environmental variables Xe • Depend on the environment/user • Random variables with known or unknown distribution • When known for a particular problem: xe • Noise variables • Model variables xm • Parameters of the computer model that need to be set to get the best approximation of the physical process • Model parameters, tuning parameters

  6. Examples of Computer Models (6ff) • ASET (Available Safe Egress Time) • 5 inputs, 2 outputs • Design of Prosthesis Devices • 3 environment variables, 2 control variables • 2 competing outputs • Formation of Pockets in Sheet Metal • 6 control variables, 1 output • Other examples • Optimally shaping helicopter blade – 31 control variables • Public policy making: greenhouse gases – 30 input variables, some of them modifiable (control variables)

  7. ASET (Available Safe Egress Time) (4f) • Evolution of fires in enclosed areas • Inputs • Room ceiling height and room area • Height of burning object • Heat loss fraction for the room (depends on insulation) • Material-specific heat release rate • Maximum time for simulation (!) • Outputs • Temperature of the hot smoke layer • Distance of hot smoke layer from fire source

  8. Design of Prosthesis Devices (6f) • 2 control variables • b, the length of the bullet tip • d, the midstem parameter • 3 environment variables • , the joint angle • E, the elastic modulus of the surrounding cancellous bone • Implant-bone interface friction • 2 conflicting outputs • Femoral stress shielding • Implant toggling • (flexible prostheses minimize stress, but toggle more  loosen)

  9. Formation of Pockets in Steel (8ff) • 6 control variables • Length l • Width w • Fillet radius f • Clearance c • Punch plan view radius p • Lock bead distance d • Output • Failure depth (depth at which the metal tears)

  10. Research goals for homogeneous-input codes (17f) • Homogeneous-input: only one of the three possible variable types present • All control variables: x=xc • Predict y(x) well for all x in some domain X • Global perspective • Integrated squared error sX [y‘(x) - y(x)]2 w(x) dx • Can‘t be computed since y(x) unknown, but in Chapter 6 we‘ll replace [y‘(x)-y(x)]2 by a computable posterior mean squared value • Local perspective • Level set: Find x such that y(x) = t0 • t0 = maximum value

  11. All environmental variables: x=Xe (18) • How does the variability in Xe transmit through the computer code ? • Find the distribution of y(Xe) • When the problem is to find the mean: • Latin hypercube designs for choosing the training sites

  12. All model variables x=xm (18f) • Mathematical modelling contains unknown parameters (unknown rates or physical constants) • Calibration (parameter fitting) • Choose the model variables xm so that the computer output best matches the output from the physical experiment

  13. Research goals for mixed inputs (19ff) • Focus on case with control and environmental variables x=(xc,Xe) where Xe has a known distribution • Example: hip prosthesis • y(xc,Xe) is a random variable whose distribution is induced by Xe • Mean (xc) = E{y(xc,Xe)} • Upper alpha quantile  = (xc): • P{y(xc,Xe) >= } = 

  14. Research goals for mixed inputs:simple adaption of previous goals (20ff) • Predict y well over its domain: • Minimize sX [‘(x) - (x)]2 w(x) dx • (again, there is a Bayesian analog with computable mean) • Maximize the mean output: maxxc(xc)

  15. When the distribution of Xe is unknown • Various flavours of robustness • G-robust: minimax • Want to minimize your maximal loss • Pessimistic • (.)-robust • Minimize weighted loss (weighted by prior density on distribution over Xe) • M-robust • Suppose for a given xc, y(xc,xe) is fairly flat • Then value of Xe doesn‘t matter so much for that xc • Maximize (xc) subject to constraints on variance w.r.t. Xe

More Related