Hyper-Differential Sensitivity Analysis With Respect to Model Discrepancy
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Differential sensitivity analysis is indispensable in fitting parameters, understanding uncertainty, and forecasting the results of both thought and lab experiments. Although there are many methods currently available for performing differential sensitivity analysis of biological models, it can be difficult to determine which method is best suited for a particular model. In this paper, we explain a variety of differential sensitivity methods and assess their value in some typical biological models. First, we explain the mathematical basis for three numerical methods: adjoint sensitivity analysis, complex perturbation sensitivity analysis, and forward mode sensitivity analysis. We then carry out four instructive case studies. (a) The CARRGO model for tumor-immune interaction highlights the additional information that differential sensitivity analysis provides beyond traditional naive sensitivity methods, (b) the deterministic SIR model demonstrates the value of using second-order sensitivity in refining model predictions, (c) the stochastic SIR model shows how differential sensitivity can be attacked in stochastic modeling, and (d) a discrete birth-death-migration model illustrates how the complex perturbation method of differential sensitivity can be generalized to a broader range of biological models. Finally, we compare the speed, accuracy, and ease of use of these methods. We find that forward mode automatic differentiation has the quickest computational time, while the complex perturbation method is the simplest to implement and the most generalizable.
Here, we present a framework for calibration of parameters in elastoplastic constitutive models that is based on the use of automatic differentiation (AD). The model calibration problem is posed as a partial differential equation-constrained optimization problem where a finite element (FE) model of the coupled equilibrium equation and constitutive model evolution equations serves as the constraint. The objective function quantifies the mismatch between the displacement predicted by the FE model and full-field digital image correlation data, and the optimization problem is solved using gradient-based optimization algorithms. Forward and adjoint sensitivities are used to compute the gradient at considerably less cost than its calculation from finite difference approximations. Through the use of AD, we need only to write the constraints in terms of AD objects, where all of the derivatives required for the forward and inverse problems are obtained by appropriately seeding and evaluating these quantities. We present three numerical examples that verify the correctness of the gradient, demonstrate the AD approach's parallel computation capabilities via application to a large-scale FE model, and highlight the formulation's ease of extensibility to other classes of constitutive models.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.