Investigating Model Form Error Estimation for Sparse Data

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published Nov 5, 2024
Kyle D. Neal Mohammad Khalil Teresa Portone

Abstract

Computational simulations of dynamical systems involve the use of mathematical models and algorithms to mimic and analyze complex real-world phenomena. By leveraging computational power, simulations enable researchers to explore and understand systems that are otherwise challenging to study experimentally. They offer a cost-effective and efficient means to predict and analyze the behavior of physical, biological, and social systems. However, model form error arises in computational simulations from simplifications, assumptions, and limitations inherent in the mathematical model formulation. Several methods for addressing model form error have been proposed in the literature, but their robustness in the face of challenges inherent to real-world systems has not been thoroughly investigated. In this work, a data assimilation-based approach for model form error estimation is investigated in the presence of sparse observation data. Including physics-based domain knowledge to improve estimation performance is also explored. The Lotka-Volterra equations are employed as a simple computational simulation for demonstration.

How to Cite

Neal, K. D., Khalil, M., & Portone, T. (2024). Investigating Model Form Error Estimation for Sparse Data. Annual Conference of the PHM Society, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.36001/phmconf.2024.v16i1.4081
Abstract 41 | PDF Downloads 42

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

Model form error, Data assimilation, computational simulations

References
Carpenter, J., Clifford, P., & Fearnhead, P. (1999). Improved particle filter for nonlinear problems. IEE Proceedings- Radar, Sonar and Navigation, 146(1), 2–7.

Kennedy, M. C., & O’Hagan, A. (2001). Bayesian calibration of computer models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 63(3), 425–464.

Morrison, R. E., Oliver, T. A., & Moser, R. D. (2018). Representing model inadequacy: A stochastic operator approach. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 6(2), 457–496.

Neal, K., Hu, Z., Mahadevan, S., & Zumberge, J. (2019). Discrepancy prediction in dynamical system models under untested input histories. Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, 14(2), 021009.

Oberkampf, W. L., DeLand, S. M., Rutherford, B. M., Diegert, K. V., & Alvin, K. F. (2002). Error and uncertainty in modeling and simulation. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 75(3), 333–357.

Oliver, T. A., Terejanu, G., Simmons, C. S., & Moser, R. D. (2015). Validating predictions of unobserved quantities. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 283, 1310–1335.

OpenAI. (2021). Sandia national laboratories chatgpt (chatgpt 3.5 turbo) [large language model]. Retrieved from https://ai.sandia.gov/chat

Portone, T., & Moser, R. D. (2022). Bayesian inference of an uncertain generalized diffusion operator. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 10(1), 151– 178.

Reynolds, W. C. (1976). Computation of turbulent flows. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 8(1), 183–208.

Sargsyan, K., Najm, H. N., & Ghanem, R. (2015). On the statistical calibration of physical models. International Journal of Chemical Kinetics, 47(4), 246–276.

Subramanian, A., & Mahadevan, S. (2019). Error estimation in coupled multi-physics models. Journal of Computational Physics, 395, 19–37.
Section
Industry Experience Papers