高分辨率风暴潮模型仿真方法的比较

IF 1.5 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Environmetrics Pub Date : 2023-02-14 DOI:10.1002/env.2796
Grant Hutchings, Bruno Sansó, James Gattiker, Devin Francom, Donatella Pasqualini
{"title":"高分辨率风暴潮模型仿真方法的比较","authors":"Grant Hutchings,&nbsp;Bruno Sansó,&nbsp;James Gattiker,&nbsp;Devin Francom,&nbsp;Donatella Pasqualini","doi":"10.1002/env.2796","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Realistic simulations of complex systems are fundamental for climate and environmental studies. Large computer systems are often not sufficient to run sophisticated computational models for large numbers of different input settings. Statistical surrogate models, or emulators, are key tools enabling fast exploration of the simulator input space. Gaussian processes have become standard for computer simulator emulation. However, they require careful implementation to scale appropriately, motivating alternative methods more recently introduced. We present a comparison study of surrogates of the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) simulator—the simulator of choice for government agencies—using four emulation approaches: BASS; BART; SEPIA; and RobustGaSP. SEPIA and RobustGaSP use Gaussian processes, BASS implements adaptive splines, and BART is based on ensembles of regression trees. We describe the four models and compare them in terms of computation time and predictive metrics. These surrogates use proven and distinct methodologies, are available through accessible software, and quantify prediction uncertainty. Our data cover millions of response values. We find that SEPIA and RobustGaSP provide exceptional predictive power, but cannot scale to emulate experiments as large as the one considered in this paper as effectively as BASS and BART.</p>","PeriodicalId":50512,"journal":{"name":"Environmetrics","volume":"34 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/env.2796","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing emulation methods for a high-resolution storm surge model\",\"authors\":\"Grant Hutchings,&nbsp;Bruno Sansó,&nbsp;James Gattiker,&nbsp;Devin Francom,&nbsp;Donatella Pasqualini\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/env.2796\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Realistic simulations of complex systems are fundamental for climate and environmental studies. Large computer systems are often not sufficient to run sophisticated computational models for large numbers of different input settings. Statistical surrogate models, or emulators, are key tools enabling fast exploration of the simulator input space. Gaussian processes have become standard for computer simulator emulation. However, they require careful implementation to scale appropriately, motivating alternative methods more recently introduced. We present a comparison study of surrogates of the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) simulator—the simulator of choice for government agencies—using four emulation approaches: BASS; BART; SEPIA; and RobustGaSP. SEPIA and RobustGaSP use Gaussian processes, BASS implements adaptive splines, and BART is based on ensembles of regression trees. We describe the four models and compare them in terms of computation time and predictive metrics. These surrogates use proven and distinct methodologies, are available through accessible software, and quantify prediction uncertainty. Our data cover millions of response values. We find that SEPIA and RobustGaSP provide exceptional predictive power, but cannot scale to emulate experiments as large as the one considered in this paper as effectively as BASS and BART.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50512,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmetrics\",\"volume\":\"34 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/env.2796\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/env.2796\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmetrics","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/env.2796","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

复杂系统的真实模拟是气候和环境研究的基础。大型计算机系统通常不足以为大量不同的输入设置运行复杂的计算模型。统计代理模型或模拟器是能够快速探索模拟器输入空间的关键工具。高斯过程已经成为计算机模拟器仿真的标准。然而,它们需要仔细实施才能适当扩大规模,从而激励最近引入的替代方法。我们使用四种模拟方法对飓风模拟器(政府机构选择的模拟器)中的海、湖和陆上浪涌的替代物进行了比较研究:BASS;巴特;棕褐色;和RobustGaSP。SEPIA和RobustGaSP使用高斯过程,BASS实现自适应样条,BART基于回归树的集合。我们描述了这四个模型,并从计算时间和预测指标的角度对它们进行了比较。这些替代品使用经过验证的独特方法,可通过可访问的软件获得,并量化预测的不确定性。我们的数据涵盖了数百万个响应值。我们发现SEPIA和RobustGaSP提供了非凡的预测能力,但无法像BASS和BART那样有效地模拟本文中所考虑的实验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparing emulation methods for a high-resolution storm surge model

Comparing emulation methods for a high-resolution storm surge model

Realistic simulations of complex systems are fundamental for climate and environmental studies. Large computer systems are often not sufficient to run sophisticated computational models for large numbers of different input settings. Statistical surrogate models, or emulators, are key tools enabling fast exploration of the simulator input space. Gaussian processes have become standard for computer simulator emulation. However, they require careful implementation to scale appropriately, motivating alternative methods more recently introduced. We present a comparison study of surrogates of the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) simulator—the simulator of choice for government agencies—using four emulation approaches: BASS; BART; SEPIA; and RobustGaSP. SEPIA and RobustGaSP use Gaussian processes, BASS implements adaptive splines, and BART is based on ensembles of regression trees. We describe the four models and compare them in terms of computation time and predictive metrics. These surrogates use proven and distinct methodologies, are available through accessible software, and quantify prediction uncertainty. Our data cover millions of response values. We find that SEPIA and RobustGaSP provide exceptional predictive power, but cannot scale to emulate experiments as large as the one considered in this paper as effectively as BASS and BART.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmetrics
Environmetrics 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
17.60%
发文量
67
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: Environmetrics, the official journal of The International Environmetrics Society (TIES), an Association of the International Statistical Institute, is devoted to the dissemination of high-quality quantitative research in the environmental sciences. The journal welcomes pertinent and innovative submissions from quantitative disciplines developing new statistical and mathematical techniques, methods, and theories that solve modern environmental problems. Articles must proffer substantive, new statistical or mathematical advances to answer important scientific questions in the environmental sciences, or must develop novel or enhanced statistical methodology with clear applications to environmental science. New methods should be illustrated with recent environmental data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信