确定性和概率数据的验证度量

IF 0.5 Q4 ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification Pub Date : 2017-02-01 DOI:10.1115/1.4042443
K. Maupin, L. Swiler, N. Porter
{"title":"确定性和概率数据的验证度量","authors":"K. Maupin, L. Swiler, N. Porter","doi":"10.1115/1.4042443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Computational modeling and simulation are paramount to modern science. Computational models often replace physical experiments that are prohibitively expensive, dangerous, or occur at extreme scales. Thus, it is critical that these models accurately represent and can be used as replacements for reality. This paper provides an analysis of metrics that may be used to determine the validity of a computational model. While some metrics have a direct physical meaning and a long history of use, others, especially those that compare probabilistic data, are more difficult to interpret. Furthermore, the process of model validation is often application-specific, making the procedure itself challenging and the results difficult to defend. We therefore provide guidance and recommendations as to which validation metric to use, as well as how to use and decipher the results. An example is included that compares interpretations of various metrics and demonstrates the impact of model and experimental uncertainty on validation processes.","PeriodicalId":52254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1115/1.4042443","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation Metrics for Deterministic and Probabilistic Data\",\"authors\":\"K. Maupin, L. Swiler, N. Porter\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/1.4042443\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Computational modeling and simulation are paramount to modern science. Computational models often replace physical experiments that are prohibitively expensive, dangerous, or occur at extreme scales. Thus, it is critical that these models accurately represent and can be used as replacements for reality. This paper provides an analysis of metrics that may be used to determine the validity of a computational model. While some metrics have a direct physical meaning and a long history of use, others, especially those that compare probabilistic data, are more difficult to interpret. Furthermore, the process of model validation is often application-specific, making the procedure itself challenging and the results difficult to defend. We therefore provide guidance and recommendations as to which validation metric to use, as well as how to use and decipher the results. An example is included that compares interpretations of various metrics and demonstrates the impact of model and experimental uncertainty on validation processes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1115/1.4042443\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4042443\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4042443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

计算建模和模拟对现代科学至关重要。计算模型经常取代昂贵、危险或发生在极端规模下的物理实验。因此,至关重要的是,这些模型要准确地表示并可用作现实的替代品。本文对可用于确定计算模型有效性的度量进行了分析。虽然一些指标具有直接的物理意义和悠久的使用历史,但其他指标,尤其是那些比较概率数据的指标,更难解释。此外,模型验证过程往往是特定于应用程序的,这使得程序本身具有挑战性,结果难以辩护。因此,我们就使用哪种验证指标以及如何使用和解读结果提供了指导和建议。其中包括一个例子,比较了各种指标的解释,并证明了模型和实验不确定性对验证过程的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Validation Metrics for Deterministic and Probabilistic Data
Computational modeling and simulation are paramount to modern science. Computational models often replace physical experiments that are prohibitively expensive, dangerous, or occur at extreme scales. Thus, it is critical that these models accurately represent and can be used as replacements for reality. This paper provides an analysis of metrics that may be used to determine the validity of a computational model. While some metrics have a direct physical meaning and a long history of use, others, especially those that compare probabilistic data, are more difficult to interpret. Furthermore, the process of model validation is often application-specific, making the procedure itself challenging and the results difficult to defend. We therefore provide guidance and recommendations as to which validation metric to use, as well as how to use and decipher the results. An example is included that compares interpretations of various metrics and demonstrates the impact of model and experimental uncertainty on validation processes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Automatic Ground-Truth Image Labeling for Deep Neural Network Training and Evaluation Using Industrial Robotics and Motion Capture Using Responsive Feedback in Scaling a Gender Norms-Shifting Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health Intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo. A Solution Verification Study For Urans Simulations of Flow Over a 5:1 Rectangular Cylinder Using Grid Convergence Index And Least Squares Procedures Strategies for Computational Fluid Dynamics Validation Experiments On the Verification of Finite Element Determinations of Stress Concentration Factors for Handbooks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1