An Investigation of Surrogate Models for Efficient Performance-Based Decoding of 3D Point Clouds

This work investigates surrogate modeling techniques for learning to approximate a computationally expensive function evaluation of 3D models. While in the past, 3D point clouds have been a data format that is too high dimensional for surrogate modeling, by leveraging advances in 3D object autoencoding neural networks, these point clouds can be mapped to a one-dimensional latent space. This leads to the fundamental research question: what surrogate modeling technique is most suitable for learning relationships between the 3D geometric features of the objects captured in the encoded latent vector and the physical phenomena captured in the evaluation software? Radial basis functions (RBFs), Kriging, and shallow 1D analogs of popular deep 2D image classification neural networks are investigated in this work. We find the nonintuitive result that departing from neural networks to decode latent representations of 3D objects into performance predictions is far more efficient than using a neural network decoder. In test cases using datasets of aircraft and watercraft 3D models, the non-neural network surrogate models achieve comparable accuracy to the neural network models. We find that an RBF surrogate model is able to approximate the lift and drag coefficients of 234 aircraft models with a mean absolute error of 1.97 × 10−3 and trains in only 3 seconds. Furthermore, the RBF surrogate model is able to rank a set of designs with an average percentile error of less than 8%. In comparison, a 1D ResNet achieves an average absolute error of 1.35 × 103 in 38 min for the same test case. We validate the comparable accuracy of the four techniques through a test case involving 214 3D watercraft models, but we also find that the distribution of the performance values of the data, in particular the presence of many outliers, has a significant negative impact on accuracy. These results contradict a common perception of neural networks as an efficient “one-size-fits-all” solution for learning black-box functions and suggests that even within systems that utilize multiple neural networks, potentially more efficient alternatives should be considered for each network in the system. Depending on the required accuracy of the application, this surrogate modeling approach could be used to approximate an expensive simulation software, or if the tolerance for error is low, it serves as a first pass which can narrow down the number of candidate designs to be analyzed more thoroughly.

[1]  Roman A. Solovyev,et al.  Deep Learning Approaches for Understanding Simple Speech Commands , 2018, 2020 IEEE 40th International Conference on Electronics and Nanotechnology (ELNANO).

[2]  Anima Anandkumar,et al.  Tensor Regression Networks , 2017, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[3]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  Deep transfer learning in the assessment of the quality of protein models , 2018, 1804.06281.

[4]  Mathieu Aubry,et al.  AtlasNet: A Papier-M\^ach\'e Approach to Learning 3D Surface Generation , 2018, CVPR 2018.

[5]  Francisco Javier Martinez-de-Pison,et al.  Metamodel-based design optimization of structural one-way slabs based on deep learning neural networks to reduce environmental impact , 2018 .

[6]  Andreas Richter,et al.  Performance of different optimization concepts for reactive flow systems based on combined CFD and response surface methods , 2018, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[7]  Christopher K. I. Williams,et al.  The shape variational autoencoder: A deep generative model of part‐segmented 3D objects , 2017, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[8]  Leonidas J. Guibas,et al.  Representation Learning and Adversarial Generation of 3D Point Clouds , 2017, ArXiv.

[9]  Sebastian Thrun,et al.  Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks , 2017, Nature.

[10]  Leonidas J. Guibas,et al.  PointNet: Deep Learning on Point Sets for 3D Classification and Segmentation , 2016, 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[11]  Gernot Riegler,et al.  OctNet: Learning Deep 3D Representations at High Resolutions , 2016, 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[12]  Honglak Lee,et al.  Estimating and Exploring the Product Form Design Space Using Deep Generative Models , 2016, DAC 2016.

[13]  J. Morlier,et al.  Improving kriging surrogates of high-dimensional design models by Partial Least Squares dimension reduction , 2016, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization.

[14]  Silvio Savarese,et al.  Learning to Track at 100 FPS with Deep Regression Networks , 2016, ECCV.

[15]  Jian Sun,et al.  Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition , 2015, 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[16]  Javier L. Lara,et al.  Validation of OpenFOAM® for Oscillating Water Column three-dimensional modeling , 2015 .

[17]  Sebastian Scherer,et al.  VoxNet: A 3D Convolutional Neural Network for real-time object recognition , 2015, 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).

[18]  Ingmar Posner,et al.  Voting for Voting in Online Point Cloud Object Detection , 2015, Robotics: Science and Systems.

[19]  Pat Hanrahan,et al.  Semantically-enriched 3D models for common-sense knowledge , 2015, 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW).

[20]  Meng Wang,et al.  3D deep shape descriptor , 2015, 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[21]  Sergey Ioffe,et al.  Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift , 2015, ICML.

[22]  Andrew Zisserman,et al.  Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition , 2014, ICLR.

[23]  Jianxiong Xiao,et al.  3D ShapeNets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes , 2014, 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[24]  Li-Rong Dai,et al.  A Regression Approach to Speech Enhancement Based on Deep Neural Networks , 2015, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[25]  E. Paterson,et al.  OpenFOAM for computational fluid dynamics , 2014 .

[26]  Andrew G. Howard,et al.  Some Improvements on Deep Convolutional Neural Network Based Image Classification , 2013, ICLR.

[27]  Christian Szegedy,et al.  DeepPose: Human Pose Estimation via Deep Neural Networks , 2013, 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[28]  Emanuele Naboni,et al.  Extending the use of parametric simulation in practice through a cloud based online service , 2014 .

[29]  Jun Du,et al.  An Experimental Study on Speech Enhancement Based on Deep Neural Networks , 2014, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

[30]  Alexandros A. Taflanidis,et al.  Kriging metamodeling for approximation of high-dimensional wave and surge responses in real-time storm/hurricane risk assessment , 2013 .

[31]  Ivar S. Ertesvåg,et al.  Modeling of turbulent separated flows using OpenFOAM , 2013 .

[32]  I. Losada,et al.  Simulating coastal engineering processes with OpenFOAM , 2013 .

[33]  Javier L. Lara,et al.  Realistic wave generation and active wave absorption for Navier–Stokes models: Application to OpenFOAM® , 2013 .

[34]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks , 2012, Commun. ACM.

[35]  Ivar S. Ertesvåg,et al.  Large-Eddy Simulation of the Flow Over a Circular Cylinder at Reynolds Number 3900 Using the OpenFOAM Toolbox , 2012 .

[36]  Lars-Erik Eriksson,et al.  CFD optimization of a transonic compressor using multiobjective GA and metamodels , 2012 .

[37]  Luiz Fernando L. R. Silva,et al.  Development and implementation of a polydispersed multiphase flow model in OpenFOAM , 2011, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[38]  Khalid M. Saqr,et al.  Implementation of the eddy dissipation model of turbulent non-premixed combustion in OpenFOAM , 2011 .

[39]  Bithin Datta,et al.  Multi-objective management of saltwater intrusion in coastal aquifers using genetic programming and modular neural network based surrogate models. , 2010 .

[40]  Marin D. Guenov,et al.  A Comparison of Airfoil Shape Parameterization Techniques for Early Design Optimization , 2010 .

[41]  Caixeta,et al.  Neural network metamodel-based MDO for wing design considering aeroelastic constraints , 2010 .

[42]  Hrvoje Jasak,et al.  OpenFOAM: Open source CFD in research and industry , 2009 .

[43]  Peter Stephan,et al.  CFD Simulation of Boiling Flows Using the Volume-of-Fluid Method within OpenFOAM , 2009 .

[44]  Jack P. C. Kleijnen,et al.  Kriging Metamodeling in Simulation: A Review , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[45]  Olivier Petit,et al.  The ERCOFTAC centrifugal pump OpenFOAM case-study , 2009 .

[46]  A. Jahangirian,et al.  Airfoil shape parameterization for optimum Navier–Stokes design with genetic algorithm , 2007 .

[47]  Aleksandar Jemcov,et al.  OpenFOAM: A C++ Library for Complex Physics Simulations , 2007 .

[48]  G. Gary Wang,et al.  Review of Metamodeling Techniques in Support of Engineering Design Optimization , 2007, DAC 2006.

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

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

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

[52]  A Samareh Jamshid,et al.  A Survey of Shape Parameterization Techniques , 1999 .

[53]  Kyung K. Choi,et al.  A CAD-based design parameterization for shape optimization of elastic solids , 1999 .

[54]  Jerome Sacks,et al.  Designs for Computer Experiments , 1989 .

[55]  H. Wold Soft Modelling by Latent Variables: The Non-Linear Iterative Partial Least Squares (NIPALS) Approach , 1975, Journal of Applied Probability.