Verification Methods for Surrogate Models

  • Ping JiangEmail author
  • Qi Zhou
  • Xinyu Shao
Part of the Springer Tracts in Mechanical Engineering book series (STME)


A surrogate model built based on a limited number of sample points will inevitably have large prediction uncertainty. Applying such imprecise surrogate models in design and optimization may lead to misleading predictions or optimal solutions located in unfeasible regions (Picheny in Improving accuracy and compensating for uncertainty in surrogate modeling. University of Florida, Gainesville, 2009). Therefore, verifying the accuracy of a surrogate model before using it can ensure the reliability of the design.


  1. Acar E (2010) Various approaches for constructing an ensemble of metamodels using local measures. Struct Multidiscip Optim 42:879–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acar E (2015) Effect of error metrics on optimum weight factor selection for ensemble of metamodels. Expert Syst Appl 42:2703–2709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acar E, Rais-Rohani M (2009) Ensemble of metamodels with optimized weight factors. Struct Multidiscip Optim 37:279–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arlot S, Celisse A (2010) A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection. Stat Surv 4:40–79MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett JP (1974) The coefficient of determination—some limitations. Am Stat 28:19–20zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhattacharyya B (2018) A critical appraisal of design of experiments for uncertainty quantification. Arch Comput Methods Eng 25:727–751MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boopathy K, Rumpfkeil MP (2014) Unified framework for training point selection and error estimation for surrogate models. AIAA J 53:215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borra S, Di Ciaccio A (2010) Measuring the prediction error. A comparison of cross-validation, bootstrap and covariance penalty methods. Comput Stat Data Anal 54:2976–2989MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breiman L (1996) Heuristics of instability and stabilization in model selection. Ann Stat 24:2350–2383MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burman P (1989) A comparative study of ordinary cross-validation, v-fold cross-validation and the repeated learning-testing methods. Biometrika 76:503–514MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chai T, Draxler RR (2014) Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)?–Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geosci Model Dev 7:1247–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Du Q, Faber V, Gunzburger M (1999) Centroidal Voronoi tessellations: applications and algorithms. SIAM Rev 41:637–676MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eason J, Cremaschi S (2014) Adaptive sequential sampling for surrogate model generation with artificial neural networks. Comput Chem Eng 68:220–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Efron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 1–26MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Efron B (1983) Estimating the error rate of a prediction rule: improvement on cross-validation. J Am Stat Assoc 78:316–331MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Efron B, Tibshirani R (1997) Improvements on cross-validation: the 632 + bootstrap method. J Am Stat Assoc 92:548–560MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993a) An introduction to the bootstrap. Number 57 in monographs on statistics and applied probability. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993b) An Introduction to the Bootstrap: monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability, vol 57. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York and LondonzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franses PH (2016) A note on the mean absolute scaled error. Int J Forecast 32:20–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fushiki T (2011) Estimation of prediction error by using K-fold cross-validation. Stat Comput 21:137–146MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goel T, Hafkta RT, Shyy W (2009) Comparing error estimation measures for polynomial and kriging approximation of noise-free functions. Struct Multidiscip Optim 38:429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goel T, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Queipo NV (2007) Ensemble of surrogates. Struct Multidiscip Optim 33:199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goel T, Stander N (2009) Comparing three error criteria for selecting radial basis function network topology. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198:2137–2150MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grafton RQ (2012) Coefficient of determination. A dictionary of climate change and the environment. Edward Elgar Publishing LimitedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gronau QF, Wagenmakers E-J (2018) Limitations of Bayesian leave-one-out cross-validation for model selection. Comput Brain Behav 1–11Google Scholar
  26. Hu J, Yang Y, Zhou Q, Jiang P, Shao X, Shu L, Zhang Y (2018) Comparative studies of error metrics in variable fidelity model uncertainty quantification. J Eng Des 29:512–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hyndman RJ, Koehler AB (2006) Another look at measures of forecast accuracy. Int J Forecast 22:679–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jin R, Chen W, Simpson TW (2001) Comparative studies of metamodeling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct Multidiscip Optim 23:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kohavi R (1995) A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. Montreal, Canada, Ijcai, pp 1137–1145Google Scholar
  30. Larson SC (1931) The shrinkage of the coefficient of multiple correlation. J Educ Psychol 22:45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li Y (2010) Root mean square error. In: Salkind NJ (ed) Encyclopedia of research design. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 1288–1289Google Scholar
  32. Li J, Heap AD (2011) A review of comparative studies of spatial interpolation methods in environmental sciences: performance and impact factors. Ecol Inform 6:228–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu H, Cai J, Ong Y-S (2017) An adaptive sampling approach for kriging metamodeling by maximizing expected prediction error. Comput Chem Eng 106:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu J, Han Z, Song W (2012) Comparison of infill sampling criteria in kriging-based aerodynamic optimization. In: 28th congress of the international council of the aeronautical sciences, pp 23–28Google Scholar
  35. Mao W, Xu J, Wang C, Dong L (2014) A fast and robust model selection algorithm for multi-input multi-output support vector machine. Neurocomputing 130:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meckesheimer M, Booker AJ, Barton RR, Simpson TW (2002) Computationally inexpensive metamodel assessment strategies. AIAA J 40:2053–2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mehmani A, Chowdhury S, Messac A (2015) Predictive quantification of surrogate model fidelity based on modal variations with sample density. Struct Multidiscip Optim 52:353–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller RG (1974) The jackknife-a review. Biometrika 61:1–15MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Nagelkerke NJ (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78:691–692MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nguyen HM, Couckuyt I, Knockaert L, Dhaene T, Gorissen D, Saeys Y (2011) An alternative approach to avoid overfitting for surrogate models. In: Proceedings of the winter simulation conference: winter simulation conference, pp 2765–2776Google Scholar
  41. Picheny V (2009) Improving accuracy and compensating for uncertainty in surrogate modeling. University of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  42. Queipo NV, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Goel T, Vaidyanathan R, Tucker PK (2005) Surrogate-based analysis and optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci 41:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Quenouille MH (1949) Approximate tests of correlation in time-series 3. In: Mathematical proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. Cambridge University Press, pp 483–484Google Scholar
  44. Renaud O, Victoria-Feser M-P (2010) A robust coefficient of determination for regression. J Stat Plan Inference 140:1852–1862MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rodriguez JD, Perez A, Lozano JA (2010) Sensitivity analysis of k-fold cross validation in prediction error estimation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 32:569–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Romero DA, Marin VE, Amon CH (2015) Error metrics and the sequential refinement of kriging metamodels. J Mech Des 137:011402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Salkind NJ (2010) Encyclopedia of research design. SageGoogle Scholar
  48. Sanchez E, Pintos S, Queipo NV (2008) Toward an optimal ensemble of kernel-based approximations with engineering applications. Struct Multidiscip Optim 36:247–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shao J (1993) Linear model selection by cross-validation. J Am Stat Assoc 88:486–494MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shao J (1996) Bootstrap model selection. J Am Stat Assoc 91:655–665MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shao J, Tu D (2012) The jackknife and bootstrap. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  52. Stone M (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J R Stat Soc. Series B (Methodological) 111–147MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Vehtari A, Gelman A, Gabry J (2017) Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Stat Comput 27:1413–1432MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Viana FA, Haftka RT, Steffen V (2009) Multiple surrogates: how cross-validation errors can help us to obtain the best predictor. Struct Multidiscip Optim 39:439–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wang Y, Liu Q (2006) Comparison of Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) in selection of stock–recruitment relationships. Fish Res 77:220–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Willmott CJ, Matsuura K (2005) Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Climate Res 30:79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yanagihara H, Tonda T, Matsumoto C (2006) Bias correction of cross-validation criterion based on Kullback-Leibler information under a general condition. J Multivar Anal 97:1965–1975MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yang Y (2007) Consistency of cross validation for comparing regression procedures. Ann Stat 35:2450–2473MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ye P, Pan G, Dong Z (2018) Ensemble of surrogate based global optimization methods using hierarchical design space reduction. Struct Multidiscip Optim 58:537–554MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhao D, Xue D (2010) A comparative study of metamodeling methods considering sample quality merits. Struct Multidiscip Optim 42:923–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhou Q, Shao X, Jiang P, Gao Z, Zhou H, Shu L (2016) An active learning variable-fidelity metamodelling approach based on ensemble of metamodels and objective-oriented sequential sampling. J Eng Des 27:205–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhou Q, Wang Y, Choi S-K, Jiang P, Shao X, Hu J (2017) A sequential multi-fidelity metamodeling approach for data regression. Knowl-Based Syst 134:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The State Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacturing Equipment and Technology, School of Mechanical Science and EngineeringHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.School of Aerospace EngineeringHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  3. 3.The State Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacturing Equipment and Technology, School of Mechanical Science and EngineeringHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations