4.5 Article

An Information-Theoretic Framework for Optimal Design: Analysis of Protocols for Estimating Soft Tissue Parameters in Biaxial Experiments

期刊

AXIOMS
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/axioms10020079

关键词

optimal design; soft tissue mechanics; mutual information; biaxial experiment; inverse problems; information theory

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council of the UK [EP/R010811/1, EP/P018912/1, EP/P018912/2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study proposes a new optimal design framework based on information-theoretic measures, tested on protocols for estimating hyperelastic model parameters in biaxial soft tissue experiments. Results indicate that lower angles have lower information content compared to higher angles, and fewer angles with appropriate combinations can lead to higher information gains.
A new framework for optimal design based on the information-theoretic measures of mutual information, conditional mutual information and their combination is proposed. The framework is tested on the analysis of protocols-a combination of angles along which strain measurements can be acquired-in a biaxial experiment of soft tissues for the estimation of hyperelastic constitutive model parameters. The proposed framework considers the information gain about the parameters from the experiment as the key criterion to be maximised, which can be directly used for optimal design. Information gain is computed through k-nearest neighbour algorithms applied to the joint samples of the parameters and measurements produced by the forward and observation models. For biaxial experiments, the results show that low angles have a relatively low information content compared to high angles. The results also show that a smaller number of angles with suitably chosen combinations can result in higher information gains when compared to a larger number of angles which are poorly combined. Finally, it is shown that the proposed framework is consistent with classical approaches, particularly D-optimal design.

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

4.5
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