0
Research Papers

Interval Predictor Models With a Linear Parameter Dependency

[+] Author and Article Information
Luis G. Crespo

Dynamic Systems and Control Branch,
NASA Langley Research Center,
Hampton, VA 23681
e-mail: Luis.G.Crespo@nasa.gov

Sean P. Kenny, Daniel P. Giesy

Dynamic Systems and Control Branch,
NASA Langley Research Center,
Hampton, VA 23681

Manuscript received April 21, 2015; final manuscript received October 15, 2015; published online January 6, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Sumanta Acharya.This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

J. Verif. Valid. Uncert 1(2), 021007 (Jan 06, 2016) (10 pages) Paper No: VVUQ-15-1019; doi: 10.1115/1.4032070 History: Received April 21, 2015; Revised October 15, 2015

This paper develops techniques for constructing metamodels that predict the range of an output variable given input–output data. We focus on models depending linearly on the parameters and arbitrarily on the input. This structure enables to rigorously characterize the range of the predicted output and the uncertainty in the model’s parameters. Strategies for calculating optimal interval predictor models (IPMs) that are insensitive to outliers are proposed. The models are optimal in the sense that they yield an interval valued function of minimal spread containing all (or, depending on the formulation, most) of the observations. Outliers are identified as the IPM is calculated by evaluating the extent by which their inclusion into the dataset degrades the tightness of the prediction. When the data generating mechanism (DGM) is stationary, the data are independent, and the optimization program (OP) used for calculating the IPM is convex (or when its solution coincides with the solution to an auxiliary convex program); the model’s reliability, which is the probability that a future observation would fall within the predicted range, is bounded tightly using scenario optimization theory. In contrast to most alternative techniques, this framework does not require making any assumptions on the underlying structure of the DGM.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Sudret, B. , 2012, “ Metamodels for Structural Reliability and Uncertainty Quantification,” Fifth Asian-Pacific Symposium on Structural Reliability and Its Applications, pp. 1–24.
Simpson, T. , Peplinski, J. , Koch, P. , and Allen, J. , 2001, “ Metamodels for Computer-Based Engineering Design: Survey and Recommendations,” Eng. Comput., 17(1), pp. 129–150. [CrossRef]
Santos, P. R. , and Santos, I. R. , 2010, “ Reinsch’s Smoothing Spline Simulation Metamodels,” 2010 Winter Simulation Conference, Baltimore, MD, Dec. 5–8, pp. 925–934.
Rasmussen, C. E. , and Williams, C. K. , 2006, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Seber, G. A. , and Wild, C. J. , 2003, Nonlinear Regression, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Kennedy, M. , and O’Hagan, A. , 2001, “ Bayesian Calibration of Computer Models,” J. R. Stat. Soc. B, 63(3), pp. 425–464. [CrossRef]
Campi, M. , Calafiore, G. , and Garatti, S. , 2009, “ Interval Predictor Models: Identification and Reliability,” Automatica, 45(2), pp. 382–392. [CrossRef]
Aubin, J. P. , and Cellina, A. , 1984, Differential Inclusions, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Aubin, J. P. , Lygeros, J. , Quincampoix, M. , Sastry, S. , and Seube, N. , 2002, “ Impulse Differential Inclusions: A Viability Approach to Hybrid Systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 47(1), pp. 2–20. [CrossRef]
Milanese, M. , and Novara, C. , 2004, “ Set-Membership Identification of Nonlinear Systems,” Automatica, 40(6), pp. 957–975. [CrossRef]
Milanese, M. , and Novara, C. , 2005, “ Set-Membership Prediction of Nonlinear Time Systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 50(11), pp. 1655–1669. [CrossRef]
Charnes, A. , Cooper, W. W. , and Symonds, G. H. , 1958, “ Cost Horizons and Certainty Equivalents: An Approach to Stochastic Programming of Heating Oil,” J. Inst. Oper. Res. Manage. Sci., 4(3), pp. 235–263.
Calafiore, G. , and Campi, M. C. , 2006, “ The Scenario Approach to Robust Control Design,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 51(1), pp. 742–753. [CrossRef]
Campi, M. C. , and Garatti, S. , 2008, “ The Exact Feasibility of Randomized Solutions of Uncertain Convex Programs,” SIAM J. Optim., 19(3), pp. 1211–1230. [CrossRef]
Campi, M. C. , and Garatti, S. , 2011, “ A Sampling-and-Discarding Approach to Chance-Constrained Optimization: Feasibility and Optimality,” J. Optim. Theory Appl., 148(1), pp. 257–280. [CrossRef]
Alamo, T. , Luque, A. , Rodriguez, D. , and Tempo, R. , 2012, “ Randomized Control Design Through Probabilistic Validation,” American Control Conference, Montreal, Canada, June 27–29, pp. 839–844.
Crespo, L. G. , Kenny, S. P. , and Giesy, D. P. , 2016, “ Application of Interval Predictor Models to Space Radiation Shielding,” AIAA Scitech 2016, pp. 1–35.
Crespo, L. G. , Kenny, S. P. , and Giesy, D. P. , 2016, “ A Comparison of Metamodeling Techniques Using Numerical Experiments,” AIAA Scitech 2016, pp. 1–35.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

IPM A: type-1 IPM for all N = 150 observations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

IPM B: type-1 IPM after the removal of five outliers

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

IPM C: type-2 IPM for λ = 145/150

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Empirical CDF Fρ(p¯̂, p¯̂) for IPM A, IPM B, and IPM C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Predicted intervals resulting from alternative metamodeling techniques

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In