A Fast, Scalable, and Calibrated Computer Model Emulator: An Empirical Bayes Approach

Mathematical models implemented on a computer have become the driving force behind the acceleration of the cycle of scientific processes. This is because computer models are typically much faster and economical to run than physical experiments. In this work, we develop an empirical Bayes approach to predictions of physical quantities using a computer model, where we assume that the computer model under consideration needs to be calibrated and is computationally expensive. We propose a Gaussian process emulator and a Gaussian process model for the systematic discrepancy between the computer model and the underlying physical process. This allows for closed-form and easy-to-compute predictions given by a conditional distribution induced by the Gaussian processes. We provide a rigorous theoretical justification of the proposed approach by establishing posterior consistency of the estimated physical process. The computational efficiency of the methods is demonstrated in an extensive simulation study and a real data example. The newly established approach makes enhanced use of computer models both from practical and theoretical standpoints.

[1]  Stefan M. Wild,et al.  Nuclear energy density optimization: Shell structure , 2013, 1312.1746.

[3]  By Rui Tuo A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR CALIBRATION IN COMPUTER MODELS : PARAMETRIZATION , ESTIMATION AND CONVERGENCE PROPERTIES , 2013 .

[4]  S. Fayans Towards a universal nuclear density functional , 1998 .

[5]  S. Ghosal,et al.  Posterior consistency of Gaussian process prior for nonparametric binary regression , 2006, math/0702686.

[6]  Sallie Keller-McNulty,et al.  Combining experimental data and computer simulations, with an application to flyer plate experiments , 2006 .

[7]  Stefan M. Wild,et al.  Nuclear energy density optimization: Large deformations , 2011, 1111.4344.

[8]  D. Higdon,et al.  Computer Model Calibration Using High-Dimensional Output , 2008 .

[9]  E. Gadioli,et al.  Introductory Nuclear Physics , 1997 .

[10]  Hans A. Bethe,et al.  Nuclear Physics A. Stationary States of Nuclei , 1936 .

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

[12]  M. Bender,et al.  From finite nuclei to the nuclear liquid drop: Leptodermous expansion based on self-consistent mean-field theory , 2006 .

[13]  M. Webb,et al.  Multivariate probabilistic projections using imperfect climate models part I: outline of methodology , 2012, Climate Dynamics.

[14]  Murali Haran,et al.  Large ensemble modeling of the last deglacial retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet: comparison of simple and advanced statistical techniques , 2015 .

[15]  Vojtech Kejzlar,et al.  Variational Inference with Vine Copulas: An efficient Approach for Bayesian Computer Model Calibration , 2020 .

[16]  T. J. Mitchell,et al.  Exploratory designs for computational experiments , 1995 .

[17]  Taeryon Choi,et al.  Alternative posterior consistency results in nonparametric binary regression using Gaussian process priors , 2007 .

[18]  Luca Martino,et al.  Probabilistic cross-validation estimators for Gaussian process regression , 2017, 2017 25th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO).

[19]  W. D. Myers,et al.  NUCLEAR MASSES AND DEFORMATIONS , 1966 .

[20]  James O. Berger,et al.  A Framework for Validation of Computer Models , 2007, Technometrics.

[21]  Long Wang,et al.  Scaled Gaussian Stochastic Process for Computer Model Calibration and Prediction , 2017, SIAM/ASA J. Uncertain. Quantification.

[22]  J. Ghosh,et al.  Posterior consistency of logistic Gaussian process priors in density estimation , 2007 .

[23]  S. Sundararajan,et al.  Predictive Approaches for Choosing Hyperparameters in Gaussian Processes , 1999, Neural Computation.

[24]  Stefan M. Wild,et al.  A Bayesian approach for parameter estimation and prediction using a computationally intensive model , 2014, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics.

[25]  M. Plumlee Computer model calibration with confidence and consistency , 2019, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology).

[26]  M. Schervish,et al.  On posterior consistency in nonparametric regression problems , 2007 .

[27]  Jon A. Wellner,et al.  Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes: With Applications to Statistics , 1996 .

[28]  C. Yuan A statistical view on nuclear mass formula based on liquid drop model , 2014, 1407.3970.

[29]  Yanxun Xu,et al.  Bayesian Projected Calibration of Computer Models , 2018, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[30]  A. O'Hagan,et al.  Bayesian calibration of computer models , 2001 .

[31]  Witold Nazarewicz,et al.  Neutron Drip Line in the Ca Region from Bayesian Model Averaging. , 2019, Physical review letters.

[32]  D. Bingham,et al.  Estimating Parameter Uncertainty in Binding-Energy Models by the Frequency-Domain Bootstrap. , 2017, Physical review letters.

[33]  G. Wahba Spline models for observational data , 1990 .

[34]  S. Bentridi,et al.  Bethe–Weizsäcker semiempirical mass formula coefficients 2019 update based on AME2016 , 2020 .

[35]  M. Kirson Mutual influence of terms in a semi-empirical mass formula , 2008 .

[36]  C. F. Wu,et al.  Efficient Calibration for Imperfect Computer Models , 2015, 1507.07280.

[37]  Jenný Brynjarsdóttir,et al.  Learning about physical parameters: the importance of model discrepancy , 2014 .

[38]  Vojtech Kejzlar,et al.  Statistical aspects of nuclear mass models , 2020 .

[39]  Hui Yang,et al.  Calibrating Functional Parameters in the Ion Channel Models of Cardiac Cells , 2016 .

[40]  A. H. Wapstra,et al.  The AME2003 atomic mass evaluation . (II). Tables, graphs and references , 2003 .

[41]  Stefan M. Wild,et al.  Uncertainty quantification for nuclear density functional theory and information content of new measurements. , 2015, Physical review letters.

[42]  Witold Nazarewicz,et al.  Bayesian approach to model-based extrapolation of nuclear observables , 2018, Physical Review C.

[43]  L. Neufcourt,et al.  Direct Comparison between Bayesian and Frequentist Uncertainty Quantification for Nuclear Reactions. , 2019, Physical review letters.

[44]  C. Weizsäcker Zur Theorie der Kernmassen , 1935 .

[45]  Stefan M. Wild,et al.  Nuclear Energy Density Optimization , 2010, 1005.5145.

[46]  J. Ghosh,et al.  Posterior consistency for semi-parametric regression problems , 2003 .

[47]  M. Plumlee Bayesian Calibration of Inexact Computer Models , 2017 .

[48]  M. Schervish,et al.  Posterior Consistency in Nonparametric Regression Problems under Gaussian Process Priors , 2004 .