4.7 Article

An adaptive sampling method for global sensitivity analysis based on least-squares support vector regression

期刊

RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY
卷 183, 期 -, 页码 323-340

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2018.11.015

关键词

Surrogate models; Least-squares support vector regression; Adaptive sampling method; Global sensitivity analysis

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [GRK 1462]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the field of engineering, surrogate models are commonly used for approximating the behavior of a physical phenomenon in order to reduce the computational costs. Generally, a surrogate model is created based on a set of training data, where a typical method for the statistical design is the Latin hypercube sampling (LHS). Even though a space-filling distribution of the training data is reached, the sampling process takes no information on the underlying behavior of the physical phenomenon into account and new data cannot be sampled in the same distribution if the approximation quality is not sufficient. Therefore, in this study we present a novel adaptive sampling method based on a specific surrogate model, the least-squares support vector regression. The adaptive sampling method generates training data based on the uncertainty in local prognosis capabilities of the surrogate model - areas of higher uncertainty require more sample data. The approach offers a cost efficient calculation due to the properties of the least-squares support vector regression. The opportunities of the adaptive sampling method are proven in comparison with the LHS on different analytical examples. Furthermore, the adaptive sampling method is applied to the calculation of global sensitivity values according to Sobol, where it shows faster convergence than the LHS method. With the applications in this paper it is shown that the presented adaptive sampling method improves the estimation of global sensitivity values, hence reducing the overall computational costs visibly.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据