计算模型验证的一致性概率

IF 0.5 Q4 ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification Pub Date : 2023-02-08 DOI:10.1115/1.4056862
Matthew C. Ledwith, R. Hill, L. Champagne, Edward D. White
{"title":"计算模型验证的一致性概率","authors":"Matthew C. Ledwith, R. Hill, L. Champagne, Edward D. White","doi":"10.1115/1.4056862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Determining whether a computational model is valid for its intended use requires the rigorous assessment of agreement between observed system responses of the computational model and the corresponding real world system or process of interest. In this article, a new method for assessing the validity of computational models is proposed based upon the probability of agreement (PoA) approach. The proposed method quantifies the probability that observed simulation and system response differences are small enough to be considered acceptable, and hence the two systems can be used interchangeably. Rather than relying on Boolean-based statistical tests and procedures, the distance-based probability of agreement validation metric (PoAVM) assesses the similarity of system responses used to predict system behaviors by comparing the distributions of output behavior. The corresponding PoA plot serves as a useful tool for summarizing agreement transparently and directly while accounting for potentially complicated bias and variability structures. A general procedure for employing the proposed computational model validation method is provided which leverages bootstrapping to overcome the fact that in most situations where computational models are employed, one's ability to collect real world data is limited. The new method is demonstrated and contextualized through an illustrative application based upon empirical data from a transient-phase assembly line manufacturing process and a discussion on its desirability based upon an established validation framework.","PeriodicalId":52254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Probabilities of Agreement for Computational Model Validation\",\"authors\":\"Matthew C. Ledwith, R. Hill, L. Champagne, Edward D. White\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/1.4056862\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Determining whether a computational model is valid for its intended use requires the rigorous assessment of agreement between observed system responses of the computational model and the corresponding real world system or process of interest. In this article, a new method for assessing the validity of computational models is proposed based upon the probability of agreement (PoA) approach. The proposed method quantifies the probability that observed simulation and system response differences are small enough to be considered acceptable, and hence the two systems can be used interchangeably. Rather than relying on Boolean-based statistical tests and procedures, the distance-based probability of agreement validation metric (PoAVM) assesses the similarity of system responses used to predict system behaviors by comparing the distributions of output behavior. The corresponding PoA plot serves as a useful tool for summarizing agreement transparently and directly while accounting for potentially complicated bias and variability structures. A general procedure for employing the proposed computational model validation method is provided which leverages bootstrapping to overcome the fact that in most situations where computational models are employed, one's ability to collect real world data is limited. The new method is demonstrated and contextualized through an illustrative application based upon empirical data from a transient-phase assembly line manufacturing process and a discussion on its desirability based upon an established validation framework.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4056862\",\"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/10.1115/1.4056862","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: 0

摘要

确定计算模型是否对其预期用途有效,需要严格评估计算模型的观测系统响应与相应的真实世界感兴趣的系统或过程之间的一致性。在本文中,基于一致性概率(PoA)方法,提出了一种评估计算模型有效性的新方法。所提出的方法量化了观测到的模拟和系统响应差异小到可以接受的概率,因此这两个系统可以互换使用。基于距离的一致性概率验证度量(PoAVM)通过比较输出行为的分布来评估用于预测系统行为的系统响应的相似性,而不是依赖于基于布尔的统计测试和程序。相应的PoA图是一个有用的工具,可以透明、直接地总结协议,同时考虑潜在的复杂偏差和可变性结构。提供了使用所提出的计算模型验证方法的一般过程,该方法利用自举来克服这样一个事实,即在使用计算模型的大多数情况下,收集真实世界数据的能力是有限的。通过基于瞬态装配线制造过程的经验数据的说明性应用,以及基于已建立的验证框架对其可取性的讨论,对新方法进行了论证和背景分析。
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
Probabilities of Agreement for Computational Model Validation
Determining whether a computational model is valid for its intended use requires the rigorous assessment of agreement between observed system responses of the computational model and the corresponding real world system or process of interest. In this article, a new method for assessing the validity of computational models is proposed based upon the probability of agreement (PoA) approach. The proposed method quantifies the probability that observed simulation and system response differences are small enough to be considered acceptable, and hence the two systems can be used interchangeably. Rather than relying on Boolean-based statistical tests and procedures, the distance-based probability of agreement validation metric (PoAVM) assesses the similarity of system responses used to predict system behaviors by comparing the distributions of output behavior. The corresponding PoA plot serves as a useful tool for summarizing agreement transparently and directly while accounting for potentially complicated bias and variability structures. A general procedure for employing the proposed computational model validation method is provided which leverages bootstrapping to overcome the fact that in most situations where computational models are employed, one's ability to collect real world data is limited. The new method is demonstrated and contextualized through an illustrative application based upon empirical data from a transient-phase assembly line manufacturing process and a discussion on its desirability based upon an established validation framework.
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