Publications

Abstract not provided.

The modern scientific process often involves the development of a predictive computational model. To improve its accuracy, a computational model can be calibrated to a set of experimental data. A variety of validation metrics can be used to quantify this process. Some of these metrics have direct physical interpretations and a history of use, while others, especially those for probabilistic data, are more difficult to interpret. In this work, a variety of validation metrics are used to quantify the accuracy of different calibration methods. Frequentist and Bayesian perspectives are used with both fixed effects and mixed-effects statistical models. Through a quantitative comparison of the resulting distributions, the most accurate calibration method can be selected. Two examples are included which compare the results of various validation metrics for different calibration methods. It is quantitatively shown that, in the presence of significant laboratory biases, a fixed effects calibration is significantly less accurate than a mixed-effects calibration. This is because the mixed-effects statistical model better characterizes the underlying parameter distributions than the fixed effects model. The results suggest that validation metrics can be used to select the most accurate calibration model for a particular empirical model with corresponding experimental data.

Abstract not provided.

A class of sequential multiscale models investigated in this study consists of discrete dislocation dynamics (DDD) simulations and continuum strain gradient plasticity (SGP) models to simulate the size effect in plastic deformation of metallic micropillars. The high-fidelity DDD explicitly simulates the microstructural (dislocation) interactions. These simulations account for the effect of dislocation densities and their spatial distributions on plastic deformation. The continuum SGP captures the size-dependent plasticity in micropillars using two length parameters. The main challenge in predictive DDD-SGP multiscale modeling is selecting the proper constitutive relations for the SGP model, which is necessitated by the uncertainty in computational prediction due to DDD's microstructural randomness. This contribution addresses these challenges using a Bayesian learning and model selection framework. A family of SGP models with different fidelities and complexities is constructed using various constitutive relation assumptions. The parameters of the SGP models are then learned from a set of training data furnished by the DDD simulations of micropillars. Bayesian learning allows the assessment of the credibility of plastic deformation prediction by characterizing the microstructural variability and the uncertainty in training data. Additionally, the family of the possible SGP models is subjected to a Bayesian model selection to pick the model that adequately explains the DDD training data. The framework proposed in this study enables learning the physics-based multiscale model from uncertain observational data and determining the optimal computational model for predicting complex physical phenomena, i.e., size effect in plastic deformation of micropillars.

Abstract not provided.

The Dakota toolkit provides a flexible and extensible interface between simulation codes and iterative analysis methods. Dakota contains algorithms for optimization with gradient and nongradient-based methods; uncertainty quantification with sampling, reliability, and stochastic expansion methods; parameter estimation with nonlinear least squares methods; and sensitivity/variance analysis with design of experiments and parameter study methods. These capabilities may be used on their own or as components within advanced strategies such as surrogate-based optimization, mixed integer nonlinear programming, or optimization under uncertainty. By employing object-oriented design to implement abstractions of the key components required for iterative systems analyses, the Dakota toolkit provides a flexible and extensible problem-solving environment for design and performance analysis of computational models on high performance computers. This report serves as a theoretical manual for selected algorithms implemented within the Dakota software. It is not intended as a comprehensive theoretical treatment, since a number of existing texts cover general optimization theory, statistical analysis, and other introductory topics. Rather, this manual is intended to summarize a set of Dakota-related research publications in the areas of surrogate-based optimization, uncertainty quantification, and optimization under uncertainty that provide the foundation for many of Dakota's iterative analysis capabilities.

The Dakota toolkit provides a flexible and extensible interface between simulation codes and iterative analysis methods. Dakota contains algorithms for optimization with gradient and nongradient-based methods; uncertainty quantification with sampling, reliability, and stochastic expansion methods; parameter estimation with nonlinear least squares methods; and sensitivity/variance analysis with design of experiments and parameter study methods. These capabilities may be used on their own or as components within advanced strategies such as surrogate-based optimization, mixed integer nonlinear programming, or optimization under uncertainty. By employing object-oriented design to implement abstractions of the key components required for iterative systems analyses, the Dakota toolkit provides a flexible and extensible problem-solving environment for design and performance analysis of computational models on high performance computers. This report serves as a user's manual for the Dakota software and provides capability overviews and procedures for software execution, as well as a variety of example studies.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Computational modeling and simulation are paramount to modern science. Computational models often replace physical experiments that are prohibitively expensive, dangerous, or occur at extreme scales. Thus, it is critical that these models accurately represent and can be used as replacements for reality. This paper provides an analysis of metrics that may be used to determine the validity of a computational model. While some metrics have a direct physical meaning and a long history of use, others, especially those that compare probabilistic data, are more difficult to interpret. Furthermore, the process of model validation is often application-specific, making the procedure itself challenging and the results difficult to defend. We therefore provide guidance and recommendations as to which validation metric to use, as well as how to use and decipher the results. An example is included that compares interpretations of various metrics and demonstrates the impact of model and experimental uncertainty on validation processes.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

This paper describes versions of OPAL, the Occam-Plausibility Algorithm (Farrell et al. in J Comput Phys 295:189–208, 2015) in which the use of Bayesian model plausibilities is replaced with information-theoretic methods, such as the Akaike information criterion and the Bayesian information criterion. Applications to complex systems of coarse-grained molecular models approximating atomistic models of polyethylene materials are described. All of these model selection methods take into account uncertainties in the model, the observational data, the model parameters, and the predicted quantities of interest. A comparison of the models chosen by Bayesian model selection criteria and those chosen by the information-theoretic criteria is given.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

The purpose of this document is to compare and contrast metrics that may be considered for use in validating computational models. Metrics suitable for use in one application, scenario, and/or quantity of interest may not be acceptable in another; these notes merely provide information that may be used as guidance in selecting a validation metric.

Abstract not provided.