Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Multivariate Gaussian process emulation for multifidelity computer models with high-dimensional spatial outputs

Cyrus S. McCrimmon, Pulong Ma

Abstract

Risk assessment of hurricane-driven storm surge relies on deterministic computer models that produce outputs over a large spatial domain. The surge models can often be run at a range of fidelity levels, with greater precision yielding more accurate simulations. Improved accuracy comes with a significant increase in computational expense, necessitating the development of an emulator which leverages information from the more plentiful low-fidelity outputs to provide fast and accurate predictions of high-fidelity simulations. To properly assess the risk of storm surge over a geographic region at aggregated spatial resolution, an emulator must account for spatial dependence between outputs yet remain computationally feasible for high-dimensional simulations. To address this challenge, we exploit the autoregressive cokriging framework to develop two cross-covariance structures to account for spatial dependence. One approach uses a separable covariance structure with a sparse Cholesky prior for the inverse of the cross-covariance matrix; the other involves a low-rank approximation via basis representations. We demonstrate their predictive performance in the storm surge application and a testbed example.

Multivariate Gaussian process emulation for multifidelity computer models with high-dimensional spatial outputs

Abstract

Risk assessment of hurricane-driven storm surge relies on deterministic computer models that produce outputs over a large spatial domain. The surge models can often be run at a range of fidelity levels, with greater precision yielding more accurate simulations. Improved accuracy comes with a significant increase in computational expense, necessitating the development of an emulator which leverages information from the more plentiful low-fidelity outputs to provide fast and accurate predictions of high-fidelity simulations. To properly assess the risk of storm surge over a geographic region at aggregated spatial resolution, an emulator must account for spatial dependence between outputs yet remain computationally feasible for high-dimensional simulations. To address this challenge, we exploit the autoregressive cokriging framework to develop two cross-covariance structures to account for spatial dependence. One approach uses a separable covariance structure with a sparse Cholesky prior for the inverse of the cross-covariance matrix; the other involves a low-rank approximation via basis representations. We demonstrate their predictive performance in the storm surge application and a testbed example.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 29 sections, 2 theorems, 50 equations, 13 figures, 5 tables.

Key Result

Proposition 2.1

The posterior distribution of $\boldsymbol \theta$ is where $\nu_t = n_{t} +\eta_{t} -q_{t}$, $\hat{\mathbf{V}}_{t,j} = (\mathbf{S}_{t,\mathcal{C}_{t,j}}^{\top}\mathbf{S}_{t,\mathcal{C}_{t,j}} + \tau_t^{-2}\mathbf{I})^{-1}$, $\hat{d}_{t,1} =(\mathbf{S}_{t,1}^{\top}\mathbf{S}_{t,1} + \lambda_{t})$, $\hat{d}_{t,t} = (\mathbf{S}_{t,j}^{\top} (\mathbf{I} -

Figures (13)

  • Figure 1: Graphical representation of two autoregressive cokriging models. Here $\Sigma_t(j,j)$ in the left panel is the $j$th diagonal element of the covariance matrix $\boldsymbol \Sigma_t$.
  • Figure 2: RMSPE as a function of number of principal components. The black line represents the results under the NONSEP cokriging model while the blue-dashed line represents the results based on NONSEP kriging model fit to the high-fidelity simulator only. The RMSPE was computed using the average posterior predictive weight.
  • Figure 3: Predictive comparison under SEP and NONSEP over one testing input: $\Delta P = 37.58, R_p = 29.37, V_f =7.96, \theta=70.42, B=1.38, \ell =(-82.25, 26.83)$. Panel (a) shows the difference between actual high-fidelity output and predicted output under the SEP model; Panel (b) shows the difference between high-fidelity output and predicted output under the NONSEP model. Panels (c) and (d) show the lengths of 95% equal-tail credible interval under the SEP and NONSEP models, respectively.
  • Figure 4: Spatial maps of RMSPE and principal component direction under the NONSEP model. Panels (a) and (b) show the RMSPE based on the first PC and first two PCs, respectively. Panel (c) shows the absolute value of the second principal component direction at fidelity level 2.
  • Figure S.1: Exploratory plots of the simulation in the testbed example. Panels (a) and (b) show the empirical mean for level-1 and level-2 outputs, respectively; panels (c) and (d) show the empirical variance of level-1 and level-2 outputs. Panels (e) and (f) show the residuals at fidelity level 1 and fidelity level 2 after subtracting the mean functions over the input setting $M=12.49, D=0.07, L= 2.03$ and $T=30$.
  • ...and 8 more figures

Theorems & Definitions (2)

  • Proposition 2.1
  • Proposition 2.2