Abstract
Surrogate models are commonly used to replace expensive simulations of engineering problems. Frequently, a single surrogate is chosen based on past experience. This approach has generated a collection of papers comparing the performance of individual surrogates. Previous work has also shown that fitting multiple surrogates and picking one based on cross-validation errors (PRESS in particular) is a good strategy, and that cross-validation errors may also be used to create a weighted surrogate. In this paper, we discussed how PRESS (obtained either from the leave-one-out or from the k-fold strategies) is employed to estimate the RMS error, and whether to use the best PRESS solution or a weighted surrogate when a single surrogate is needed. We also studied the minimization of the integrated square error as a way to compute the weights of the weighted average surrogate. We found that it pays to generate a large set of different surrogates and then use PRESS as a criterion for selection. We found that (1) in general, PRESS is good for filtering out inaccurate surrogates; and (2) with sufficient number of points, PRESS may identify the best surrogate of the set. Hence the use of cross-validation errors for choosing a surrogate and for calculating the weights of weighted surrogates becomes more attractive in high dimensions (when a large number of points is naturally required). However, it appears that the potential gains from using weighted surrogates diminish substantially in high dimensions. We also examined the utility of using all the surrogates for forming the weighted surrogates versus using a subset of the most accurate ones. This decision is shown to depend on the weighting scheme. Finally, we also found that PRESS as obtained through the k-fold strategy successfully estimates the RMSE.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acar E, Rais-Rohani M (2008) Ensemble of metamodels with optimized weight factors. In: 49th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials, Schaumburg, IL, AIAA 2008-1884
Bishop CM (1995) Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 364–371
Box GEP, Hunter WG, Hunter JS (1978) Statistics for experimenters. Wiley, New York
Cheng B, Titterington DM (1994) Neural networks: a review from a statistical perspective. Stat Sci 9:2–54
Cherkassky V, Ma Y (2004) Practical selection of SVM parameters and noise estimation for SVM regression. Neural Netw 17(1):113–126
Clarke SM, Griebsch JH, Simpson TW (2005) Analysis of support vector regression for approximation of complex engineering analyses. J Mech Des 127:1077–1087
Dixon LCW, Szegö GP (1978) Towards global optimization 2. North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Goel T, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Queipo NV (2007) Ensemble of surrogates. Struct Multidisc Optim 33:199–216
Gunn SR (1997) Support vector machines for classification and regression. Technical Report, Image Speech and Intelligent Systems Research Group, University of Southampton, UK
Jin R, Chen W, Simpson TW (2001) Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modeling criteria. Struct Multidisc Optim 23:1–13
Kohavi R (1995) A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 1137–1143
Lee J (2007) A novel three-phase trajectory informed search methodology for global optimization. J Glob Optim 38(1):61–77
Lin Y, Mistree F, Tsui K-L, Allen JK (2002) Metamodel validation with deterministic computer experiments. In: 9th AIAA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Atlanta, GA, AIAA, AIAA-2002-5425
Lophaven SN, Nielsen HB, Søndergaard J (2002) DACE—A MATLAB kriging toolbox. Technical Report IMM-TR-2002-12, Informatics and Mathematical Modelling. Technical University of Denmark
Mathworks Contributors (2004) MATLAB® The language of technical computing, version 7.0 Release 14, The MathWorks Inc.
Mckay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables from a computer code. Technometrics 21:239–245
Meckesheimer M, Barton RR, Simpson TW, Booker A (2002) Computationally inexpensive metamodel assessment strategies. AIAA J 40(10):2053–2060
Myers RH, Montgomery DC (1995) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. Wiley, New York
Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell TJ, Wynn HP (1989) Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci 4(4):409–435
Simpson TW, Peplinski J, Koch PN, Allen JK (1998) On the use of statistics in design and the implications for deterministic computer experiments. In: Proceedings of the design theory and methodology (DTM’97), Paper No. DETC97/DTM-3881. ASME
Smith M (1993) Neural networks for statistical modeling. Von Nostrand Reinhold, New York
Smola AJ, Scholkopf B (2004) A tutorial on support vector regression. Stat Comput 14:199–222
Venkataraman S, Haftka RT (2004) Structural optimization complexity: what has Moore’s law done for us? Struct Multidisc Optim 28:375–387
Viana FAC, Goel T (2007) SURROGATES ToolBox, http://fchegury.googlepages.com
Zerpa L, Queipo NV, Pintos S, Salager J (2005) An optimization methodology of alkaline–surfactant–polymer flooding processes using field scale numerical simulation and multiple surrogates. J Pet Sci Eng 47:197–208
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Viana, F.A.C., Haftka, R.T. & Steffen, V. Multiple surrogates: how cross-validation errors can help us to obtain the best predictor. Struct Multidisc Optim 39, 439–457 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-008-0338-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-008-0338-0