A Taylor Expansion‐Based Adaptive Design Strategy for Global Surrogate Modeling With Applications in Groundwater Modeling

Global sensitivity analysis (GSA) and uncertainty quantification (UQ) for groundwater modeling are challenging because of the model complexity and significant computational requirements. To reduce the massive computational cost, a cheap‐to‐evaluate surrogate model is usually constructed to approximate and replace the expensive groundwater models in the GSA and UQ. Constructing an accurate surrogate requires actual model simulations on a number of parameter samples. Thus, a robust experimental design strategy is desired to locate informative samples so as to reduce the computational cost in surrogate construction and consequently to improve the efficiency in the GSA and UQ. In this study, we develop a Taylor expansion‐based adaptive design (TEAD) that aims to build an accurate global surrogate model with a small training sample size. TEAD defines a novel hybrid score function to search informative samples, and a robust stopping criterion to terminate the sample search that guarantees the resulted approximation errors satisfy the desired accuracy. The good performance of TEAD in building global surrogate models is demonstrated in seven analytical functions with different dimensionality and complexity in comparison to two widely used experimental design methods. The application of the TEAD‐based surrogate method in two groundwater models shows that the TEAD design can effectively improve the computational efficiency of GSA and UQ for groundwater modeling.

[1]  Biswarup Bhattacharyya,et al.  A Critical Appraisal of Design of Experiments for Uncertainty Quantification , 2018 .

[2]  James Irving,et al.  On uncertainty quantification in hydrogeology and hydrogeophysics , 2017 .

[3]  Liang Tian,et al.  Gaussian process emulators for quantifying uncertainty in CO2 spreading predictions in heterogeneous media , 2017, Comput. Geosci..

[4]  Guang Lin,et al.  Efficient evaluation of small failure probability in high‐dimensional groundwater contaminant transport modeling via a two‐stage Monte Carlo method , 2017 .

[5]  D. Crevillén-García,et al.  Gaussian process modelling for uncertainty quantification in convectively-enhanced dissolution processes in porous media , 2017 .

[6]  Haitao Liu,et al.  A survey of adaptive sampling for global metamodeling in support of simulation-based complex engineering design , 2017, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization.

[7]  Lingzao Zeng,et al.  An adaptive Gaussian process‐based method for efficient Bayesian experimental design in groundwater contaminant source identification problems , 2016 .

[8]  Tom Dhaene,et al.  High dimensional Kriging metamodelling utilising gradient information , 2016 .

[9]  Rajesh J. Pawar,et al.  Reduced order models for assessing CO 2 impacts in shallow unconfined aquifers , 2016 .

[10]  Bruno Sudret,et al.  Using sparse polynomial chaos expansions for the global sensitivity analysis of groundwater lifetime expectancy in a multi-layered hydrogeological model , 2015, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[11]  Patrick R. Conrad,et al.  Accelerating Asymptotically Exact MCMC for Computationally Intensive Models via Local Approximations , 2014, 1402.1694.

[12]  Ming Ye,et al.  Variance-based global sensitivity analysis for multiple scenarios and models with implementation using sparse grid collocation , 2015 .

[13]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  A review of surrogate models and their application to groundwater modeling , 2015 .

[14]  Huan Wu,et al.  Stepwise sensitivity analysis from qualitative to quantitative: Application to the terrestrial hydrological modeling of a Conjunctive Surface‐Subsurface Process (CSSP) land surface model , 2015 .

[15]  Tom Dhaene,et al.  A Fuzzy Hybrid Sequential Design Strategy for Global Surrogate Modeling of High-Dimensional Computer Experiments , 2015, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[16]  Xin Wu,et al.  Optimizing water resources management in large river basins with integrated surface water‐groundwater modeling: A surrogate‐based approach , 2015 .

[17]  Hans Janssen,et al.  Efficiency enhancement of optimized Latin hypercube sampling strategies: Application to Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis and meta-modeling , 2015 .

[18]  Mohammad Rajabi,et al.  Polynomial chaos expansions for uncertainty propagation and moment independent sensitivity analysis of seawater intrusion simulations , 2015 .

[19]  Ming Ye,et al.  Global sensitivity analysis in hydrological modeling: Review of concepts, methods, theoretical framework, and applications , 2015 .

[20]  A. Marrel,et al.  Development of a surrogate model and sensitivity analysis for spatio-temporal numerical simulators , 2015, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment.

[21]  Neil D. Lawrence,et al.  Nested Variational Compression in Deep Gaussian Processes , 2014, 1412.1370.

[22]  Selen Cremaschi,et al.  Adaptive sequential sampling for surrogate model generation with artificial neural networks , 2014, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[23]  Behzad Ataie-Ashtiani,et al.  Sampling efficiency in Monte Carlo based uncertainty propagation strategies: Application in seawater intrusion simulations , 2014 .

[24]  Ming Ye,et al.  Assessment of parametric uncertainty for groundwater reactive transport modeling , 2014 .

[25]  Ali Ajdari,et al.  An Adaptive Exploration-Exploitation Algorithm for Constructing Metamodels in Random Simulation Using a Novel Sequential Experimental Design , 2014, Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput..

[26]  Joan Bruna,et al.  Intriguing properties of neural networks , 2013, ICLR.

[27]  Christine A. Shoemaker,et al.  Estimation of plume distribution for carbon sequestration using parameter estimation with limited monitoring data , 2013 .

[28]  S. Finsterle,et al.  Reduced order models for many-query subsurface flow applications , 2013, Computational Geosciences.

[29]  Christine A. Shoemaker,et al.  Comparison of optimization algorithms for parameter estimation of multi-phase flow models with application to geological carbon sequestration , 2013 .

[30]  Nikolaos V. Sahinidis,et al.  Uncertainty Quantification in CO2 Sequestration Using Surrogate Models from Polynomial Chaos Expansion , 2013 .

[31]  Jun Xia,et al.  An efficient integrated approach for global sensitivity analysis of hydrological model parameters , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[32]  V. Schulz,et al.  Comparing sampling strategies for aerodynamic Kriging surrogate models , 2012 .

[33]  Stefan Finsterle,et al.  Modeling the performance of large-scale CO2 storage systems: A comparison of different sensitivity analysis methods , 2012 .

[34]  Ming Ye,et al.  Analysis of regression confidence intervals and Bayesian credible intervals for uncertainty quantification , 2012 .

[35]  Bryan A. Tolson,et al.  Review of surrogate modeling in water resources , 2012 .

[36]  Emanuele Borgonovo,et al.  Model emulation and moment-independent sensitivity analysis: An application to environmental modelling , 2012, Environ. Model. Softw..

[37]  T. Dhaene,et al.  Automated Near-Field Scanning Algorithm for the EMC Analysis of Electronic Devices , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility.

[38]  Bryan A. Tolson,et al.  Numerical assessment of metamodelling strategies in computationally intensive optimization , 2012, Environ. Model. Softw..

[39]  A. Cheng Multiquadric and its shape parameter—A numerical investigation of error estimate, condition number, and round-off error by arbitrary precision computation , 2012 .

[40]  Dirk Gorissen,et al.  A Novel Hybrid Sequential Design Strategy for Global Surrogate Modeling of Computer Experiments , 2011, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[41]  Jeremy Rohmer,et al.  Global sensitivity analysis of large-scale numerical landslide models based on Gaussian-Process meta-modeling , 2011, Comput. Geosci..

[42]  D. Shahsavani,et al.  Variance-based sensitivity analysis of model outputs using surrogate models , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[43]  Dirk Gorissen,et al.  Surrogate based sensitivity analysis of process equipment , 2011 .

[44]  J. Morlier,et al.  Surrogate modeling approximation using a mixture of experts based on EM joint estimation , 2011 .

[45]  Shie-Yui Liong,et al.  Efficient MCMC Schemes for Computationally Expensive Posterior Distributions , 2011, Technometrics.

[46]  D Deschrijver,et al.  Adaptive Sampling Algorithm for Macromodeling of Parameterized $S$ -Parameter Responses , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques.

[47]  Sonja Kuhnt,et al.  Design and analysis of computer experiments , 2010 .

[48]  Christian B Allen,et al.  Investigation of an adaptive sampling method for data interpolation using radial basis functions , 2010 .

[49]  Mojtaba Shourian,et al.  Adaptive sequentially space‐filling metamodeling applied in optimal water quantity allocation at basin scale , 2010 .

[50]  Olivier Bouc,et al.  A response surface methodology to address uncertainties in cap rock failure assessment for CO2 geological storage in deep aquifers , 2010 .

[51]  Piet Demeester,et al.  A Surrogate Modeling and Adaptive Sampling Toolbox for Computer Based Design , 2010, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[52]  D. Ginsbourger,et al.  Kriging is well-suited to parallelize optimization , 2010 .

[53]  D. Shahsavani,et al.  An adaptive design and interpolation technique for extracting highly nonlinear response surfaces from deterministic models , 2009, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[54]  Daniel Busby,et al.  Hierarchical adaptive experimental design for Gaussian process emulators , 2009, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[55]  Olivier Roustant,et al.  Calculations of Sobol indices for the Gaussian process metamodel , 2008, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

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

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

[58]  Bruno Sudret,et al.  Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions , 2008, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[59]  Stefan M. Wild,et al.  Bayesian Calibration and Uncertainty Analysis for Computationally Expensive Models Using Optimization and Radial Basis Function Approximation , 2008 .

[60]  Saltelli Andrea,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer , 2008 .

[61]  Christine A. Shoemaker,et al.  A Stochastic Radial Basis Function Method for the Global Optimization of Expensive Functions , 2007, INFORMS J. Comput..

[62]  Armin Iske,et al.  Hierarchical Nonlinear Approximation for Experimental Design and Statistical Data Fitting , 2007, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[63]  Dongxiao Zhang,et al.  An efficient, high-order perturbation approach for flow in random porous media via Karhunen-Loève and polynomial expansions , 2004 .

[64]  Thomas J. Santner,et al.  Design and analysis of computer experiments , 1998 .

[65]  Ruichen Jin,et al.  On Sequential Sampling for Global Metamodeling in Engineering Design , 2002, DAC 2002.

[66]  Bernard Yannou,et al.  Metamodeling of Combined Discrete/Continuous Responses , 2001 .

[67]  Richard J. Beckman,et al.  A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output From a Computer Code , 2000, Technometrics.

[68]  Arlen W. Harbaugh,et al.  MODFLOW-2000, The U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Model - User Guide to Modularization Concepts and the Ground-Water Flow Process , 2000 .

[69]  Paul P. Wang,et al.  MT3DMS: A Modular Three-Dimensional Multispecies Transport Model for Simulation of Advection, Dispersion, and Chemical Reactions of Contaminants in Groundwater Systems; Documentation and User's Guide , 1999 .

[70]  Donald R. Jones,et al.  Efficient Global Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions , 1998, J. Glob. Optim..

[71]  Martin T. Hagan,et al.  Neural network design , 1995 .

[72]  Stefan Finsterle,et al.  Solving the Estimation‐Identification Problem in Two‐Phase Flow Modeling , 1995 .

[73]  J. Freidman,et al.  Multivariate adaptive regression splines , 1991 .

[74]  M. E. Johnson,et al.  Minimax and maximin distance designs , 1990 .

[75]  Margaret J. Robertson,et al.  Design and Analysis of Experiments , 2006, Handbook of statistics.