How We Solve the Weights in Our Surrogate Models Matters

被引:6
|
作者
Correia, Daniel [1 ]
Wilke, Daniel N. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pretoria, Dept Mech & Aeronaut Engn, Ctr Asset & Integr Management, Pretoria, South Africa
关键词
FUNCTION NEURAL-NETWORK; CONDITION NUMBERS; INTERPOLATION; MATRICES; LIMIT;
D O I
10.1115/1.4042622
中图分类号
TH [机械、仪表工业];
学科分类号
0802 ;
摘要
The construction of surrogate models, such as radial basis function (RBF) and Kriging-based surrogates, requires an invertible (square and full rank matrix) or pseudoinvertible (overdetermined) linear system to be solved. This study demonstrates that the method used to solve this linear system may result in up to five orders of magnitude difference in the accuracy of the constructed surrogate model using exactly the same information. Hence, this paper makes the canonic and important point toward reproducible science: the details of solving the linear system when constructing a surrogate model must be communicated. This point is clearly illustrated on a single function, namely the Styblinski-Tang test function by constructing over 200 RBF surrogate models from 128 Latin Hypercubed sampled points. The linear system in the construction of each surrogate model was solved using LU, QR, Cholesky, Singular-Value Decomposition, and the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse. As we show, the decomposition method influences the utility of the surrogate model, which depends on the application, i.e., whether an accurate approximation of a surrogate is required or whether the ability to optimize the surrogate and capture the optimal design is pertinent. Evidently the selection of the optimal hyperparameters based on the cross validation error also significantly impacts the utility of the constructed surrogate. For our problem, it turns out that selecting the hyperparameters at the lowest cross validation error favors function approximation but adversely affects the ability to optimize the surrogate model. This is demonstrated by optimizing each constructed surrogate model from 16 fixed initial starting points and recording the optimal designs. For our problem, selecting the optimal hyperparameter that coincides with the lowest monotonically decreasing function value significantly improves the ability to optimize the surrogate for most solution strategies.
引用
收藏
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] To the Editor: How Do We Solve This Confusion?
    Tez, Mesut
    Yildiz, Baris
    Ozden, Sabri
    JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK, 2017, 15 (08): : 975 - 975
  • [22] Transforming Our Models of Learning and Development: How Far Do We Go?
    Ford, J. Kevin
    INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY-PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE AND PRACTICE, 2008, 1 (04): : 468 - 471
  • [23] NUCLEAR MATTERS, NEED WE BE OUR BROTHERS KEEPERS
    CARRUTHE.J
    SCIENCE FORUM, 1974, 7 (01): : 22 - 23
  • [24] How should we estimate inverse probability weights with possibly misspecified propensity score models?
    Katsumata, Hiroto
    POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND METHODS, 2024,
  • [26] Ethics: What we do and how we do it matters
    Mason, Dawn
    ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 2013, 245
  • [27] Do we Need to Solve the Exozodi Question? If Yes, How to Best Solve It?
    Absil, O.
    Eiroa, C.
    Augereau, J-C
    Beichman, C. A.
    Danchi, W. C.
    Defrere, D.
    Fridlund, M.
    Roberge, A.
    PATHWAYS TOWARDS HABITABLE PLANETS, 2010, 430 : 293 - +
  • [28] How we name academic prizes matters
    Gehmlich, Katja
    Krause, Stefan
    NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR, 2024, 8 (02) : 190 - 193
  • [29] How we frame the message of globalization matters
    Snider, Jamie S.
    Reysen, Stephen
    Katzarska-Miller, Iva
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2013, 43 (08) : 1599 - 1607
  • [30] How we name academic prizes matters
    Katja Gehmlich
    Stefan Krause
    Nature Human Behaviour, 2024, 8 : 190 - 193