Ensemble of metamodels with optimized weight factors

Approximate mathematical models (metamodels) are often used as surrogates for more computationally intensive simulations. The common practice is to construct multiple metamodels based on a common training data set, evaluate their accuracy, and then to use only a single model perceived as the best while discarding the rest. This practice has some shortcomings as it does not take full advantage of the resources devoted to constructing different metamodels, and it is based on the assumption that changes in the training data set will not jeopardize the accuracy of the selected model. It is possible to overcome these drawbacks and to improve the prediction accuracy of the surrogate model if the separate stand-alone metamodels are combined to form an ensemble. Motivated by previous research on committee of neural networks and ensemble of surrogate models, a technique for developing a more accurate ensemble of multiple metamodels is presented in this paper. Here, the selection of weight factors in the general weighted-sum formulation of an ensemble is treated as an optimization problem with the desired solution being one that minimizes a selected error metric. The proposed technique is evaluated by considering one industrial and four benchmark problems. The effect of different metrics for estimating the prediction error at either the training data set or a few validation points is also explored. The results show that the optimized ensemble provides more accurate predictions than the stand-alone metamodels and for most problems even surpassing the previously reported ensemble approaches.

[1]  R. L. Hardy Multiquadric equations of topography and other irregular surfaces , 1971 .

[2]  S. Rippa,et al.  Numerical Procedures for Surface Fitting of Scattered Data by Radial Functions , 1986 .

[3]  J. Friedman Multivariate adaptive regression splines , 1990 .

[4]  L. Cooper,et al.  When Networks Disagree: Ensemble Methods for Hybrid Neural Networks , 1992 .

[5]  Murray Smith,et al.  Neural Networks for Statistical Modeling , 1993 .

[6]  D. Madigan,et al.  Model Selection and Accounting for Model Uncertainty in Graphical Models Using Occam's Window , 1994 .

[7]  Douglas C. Montgomery,et al.  Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments , 1995 .

[8]  Christopher M. Bishop,et al.  Neural networks for pattern recognition , 1995 .

[9]  Alexander J. Smola,et al.  Support Vector Method for Function Approximation, Regression Estimation and Signal Processing , 1996, NIPS.

[10]  K. Burnham,et al.  Model selection: An integral part of inference , 1997 .

[11]  D. Mackay,et al.  Introduction to Gaussian processes , 1998 .

[12]  J. Renaud,et al.  New Adaptive Move-Limit Management Strategy for Approximate Optimization, Part 2 , 1998 .

[13]  T. W. Layne,et al.  A Comparison of Approximation Modeling Techniques: Polynomial Versus Interpolating Models , 1998 .

[14]  S. Gunn Support Vector Machines for Classification and Regression , 1998 .

[15]  T. Simpson,et al.  Comparative studies of metamodeling techniques under multiple modeling criteria , 2000 .

[16]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Metamodels for Computer-based Engineering Design: Survey and recommendations , 2001, Engineering with Computers.

[17]  G. Gary Wang,et al.  ADAPTIVE RESPONSE SURFACE METHOD - A GLOBAL OPTIMIZATION SCHEME FOR APPROXIMATION-BASED DESIGN PROBLEMS , 2001 .

[18]  Wei Shyy,et al.  Shape Optimization of Supersonic Turbines Using Response Surface and Neural Network Methods , 2001 .

[19]  T. Simpson,et al.  Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria , 2001 .

[20]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Kriging Models for Global Approximation in Simulation-Based Multidisciplinary Design Optimization , 2001 .

[21]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  AN INVESTIGATION OF METAMODELING TECHNIQUES FOR COMPLEX SYSTEMS DESIGN , 2002 .

[22]  Wei Shyy,et al.  Shape optimization of supersonic turbines using global approximation methods , 2002 .

[23]  Søren Nymand Lophaven,et al.  DACE - A Matlab Kriging Toolbox , 2002 .

[24]  Thomas J. Santner,et al.  The Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments , 2003, Springer Series in Statistics.

[25]  Geir Evensen,et al.  The Ensemble Kalman Filter: theoretical formulation and practical implementation , 2003 .

[26]  Nielen Stander,et al.  A Comparison of Metamodeling Techniques for Crashworthiness Optimization , 2004 .

[27]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Structural optimization complexity: what has Moore’s law done for us? , 2004 .

[28]  Salvador Pintos,et al.  An Optimization Methodology of Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer Flooding Processes Using Field Scale Numerical Simulation and Multiple Surrogates , 2005 .

[29]  T. Simpson,et al.  Analysis of support vector regression for approximation of complex engineering analyses , 2005, DAC 2003.

[30]  T. Simpson,et al.  Use of Kriging Models to Approximate Deterministic Computer Models , 2005 .

[31]  Achille Messac,et al.  Extended Radial Basis Functions: More Flexible and Effective Metamodeling , 2004 .

[32]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Surrogate-based Analysis and Optimization , 2005 .

[33]  Masoud Rais-Rohani,et al.  A comparative study of metamodeling methods for multiobjective crashworthiness optimization , 2005 .

[34]  Masoud Rais-Rohani,et al.  Reliability-based optimization of lightweight automotive structures for crashworthiness , 2006 .

[35]  Salvador A. Pintos,et al.  Toward an optimal ensemble of kernel-based approximations with engineering applications , 2006 .

[36]  G. Gary Wang,et al.  Review of Metamodeling Techniques in Support of Engineering Design Optimization , 2007 .

[37]  R. Haftka,et al.  Ensemble of surrogates , 2007 .

[38]  Martin D. Buhmann,et al.  Radial Basis Functions: Theory and Implementations: Preface , 2003 .

[39]  Carl E. Rasmussen,et al.  Gaussian processes for machine learning , 2005, Adaptive computation and machine learning.