A New Perspective for the Calibration of Computational Predictor Models
This paper presents a framework for calibrating computational models using data from several and possibly dissimilar validation experiments. The offset between model predictions and observations, which might be caused by measurement noise, model-form uncertainty, and numerical error, drives the process by which uncertainty in the models parameters is characterized. The resulting description of uncertainty along with the computational model constitute a predictor model. Two types of predictor models are studied: Interval Predictor Models (IPMs) and Random Predictor Models (RPMs). IPMs use sets to characterize uncertainty, whereas RPMs use random vectors. The propagation of a set through a model makes the response an interval valued function of the state, whereas the propagation of a random vector yields a random process. Optimization-based strategies for calculating both types of predictor models are proposed. Whereas the formulations used to calculate IPMs target solutions leading to the interval value function of minimal spread containing all observations, those for RPMs seek to maximize the models’ ability to reproduce the distribution of observations. Regarding RPMs, we choose a structure for the random vector (i.e., the assignment of probability to points in the parameter space) solely dependent on the prediction error. As such, the probabilistic description of uncertainty is not a subjective assignment of belief, nor is it expected to asymptotically converge to a fixed value, but instead it is a description of the model’s ability to reproduce the experimental data. This framework enables evaluating the spread and distribution of the predicted response of target applications depending on the same parameters beyond the validation domain (i.e., roll-up and extrapolation).