Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
AI Research Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 77 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 52 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 30 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 31 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 91 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 178 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 385 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 38 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Accelerating model evaluations in uncertainty propagation on tensor grids using computational graph transformations (2309.06617v2)

Published 12 Sep 2023 in cs.CE

Abstract: Methods such as non-intrusive polynomial chaos (NIPC), and stochastic collocation are frequently used for uncertainty propagation problems. Particularly for low-dimensional problems, these methods often use a tensor-product grid for sampling the space of uncertain inputs. A limitation of this approach is that it encounters a significant challenge: the number of sample points grows exponentially with the increase of uncertain inputs. Current strategies to mitigate computational costs abandon the tensor structure of sampling points, with the aim of reducing their overall count. Contrastingly, our investigation reveals that preserving the tensor structure of sample points can offer distinct advantages in specific scenarios. Notably, by manipulating the computational graph of the targeted model, it is feasible to avoid redundant evaluations at the operation level to significantly reduce the model evaluation cost on tensor-grid inputs. This paper presents a pioneering method: Accelerated Model Evaluations on Tensor grids using Computational graph transformations (AMTC). The core premise of AMTC lies in the strategic modification of the computational graph of the target model to algorithmically remove the repeated evaluations on the operation level. We implemented the AMTC method within the compiler of a new modeling language called the Computational System Design Language (CSDL). We demonstrate the effectiveness of AMTC by using it with the full-grid NIPC method to solve four low-dimensional UQ problems involving an analytical piston model, a multidisciplinary unmanned aerial vehicle design model, a multi-point air taxi mission analysis model, and a single-disciplinary rotor model, respectively. For three of the four test problems, AMTC reduces the model evaluation cost by between 50% and 90%, making the full-grid NIPC the most efficacious method to use among the UQ methods implemented.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (41)
  1. “Communicating forecast uncertainty: Public perception of weather forecast uncertainty” In Meteorological Applications 17.2 Wiley Online Library, 2010, pp. 180–195 DOI: 10.1002/met.190
  2. “Cascading model uncertainty from medium range weather forecasts (10 days) through a rainfall-runoff model to flood inundation predictions within the European Flood Forecasting System (EFFS)” In Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 9.4, 2005, pp. 381–393 DOI: 10.5194/hess-9-381-2005
  3. “Analytical uncertainty quantification for modal frequencies with structural parameter uncertainty using a Gaussian process metamodel” In Engineering Structures 75 Elsevier, 2014, pp. 577–589 DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.06.028
  4. Zhen Hu, Sankaran Mahadevan and Dan Ao “Uncertainty aggregation and reduction in structure–material performance prediction” In Computational Mechanics 61.1 Springer, 2018, pp. 237–257 DOI: 10.1007/s00466-017-1448-6
  5. Leo WT Ng and Karen E Willcox “Monte Carlo information-reuse approach to aircraft conceptual design optimization under uncertainty” In Journal of Aircraft 53.2 American Institute of AeronauticsAstronautics, 2016, pp. 427–438 DOI: 10.2514/1.C033352
  6. “High-dimensional uncertainty quantification using graph-accelerated non-intrusive polynomial chaos and active subspace methods” In AIAA AVIATION 2023 Forum, 2023, pp. 4264 DOI: 10.2514/6.2023-4264
  7. Daejin Lim, Hyeongseok Kim and Kwanjung Yee “Uncertainty propagation in flight performance of multirotor with parametric and model uncertainties” In Aerospace Science and Technology 122 Elsevier, 2022, pp. 107398 DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2022.107398
  8. Jeffrey M Wooldridge “Applications of generalized method of moments estimation” In Journal of Economic perspectives 15.4 American Economic Association, 2001, pp. 87–100 DOI: 10.1257/jep.15.4.87
  9. KB Fragkos, EM Papoutsis-Kiachagias and KC Giannakoglou “pFOSM: An efficient algorithm for aerodynamic robust design based on continuous adjoint and matrix-vector products” In Computers & Fluids 181 Elsevier, 2019, pp. 57–66 DOI: 10.1016/j.compfluid.2019.01.016
  10. “Statistical evaluation of performance impact of manufacturing variability by an adjoint method” In Aerospace Science and Technology 77 Elsevier, 2018, pp. 471–484 DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2018.03.030
  11. Jiaqi Luo, Yao Zheng and Feng Liu “Optimal tolerance allocation in blade manufacturing by sensitivity-based performance impact evaluation” In Journal of Propulsion and Power 36.4 American Institute of AeronauticsAstronautics, 2020, pp. 632–638 DOI: 10.2514/1.B37718
  12. Benjamin Peherstorfer, Karen Willcox and Max Gunzburger “Optimal model management for multifidelity Monte Carlo estimation” In SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 38.5 SIAM, 2016, pp. A3163–A3194 DOI: 10.1137/15M1046472
  13. Benjamin Peherstorfer, Karen Willcox and Max Gunzburger “Survey of multifidelity methods in uncertainty propagation, inference, and optimization” In Siam Review 60.3 SIAM, 2018, pp. 550–591 DOI: 10.1137/16M1082469
  14. Armin Tabandeh, Gaofeng Jia and Paolo Gardoni “A review and assessment of importance sampling methods for reliability analysis” In Structural Safety 97 Elsevier, 2022, pp. 102216 DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2022.102216
  15. Irfan Kaymaz “Application of kriging method to structural reliability problems” In Structural safety 27.2 Elsevier, 2005, pp. 133–151 DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2004.09.001
  16. “A single-loop kriging surrogate modeling for time-dependent reliability analysis” In Journal of Mechanical Design 138.6 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2016, pp. 061406 DOI: 10.1115/1.4033428
  17. Markus P Rumpfkeil “Optimizations under uncertainty using gradients, Hessians, and surrogate models” In AIAA journal 51.2 American Institute of AeronauticsAstronautics, 2013, pp. 444–451 DOI: 10.2514/1.J051847
  18. Serhat Hosder, Robert Walters and Rafael Perez “A non-intrusive polynomial chaos method for uncertainty propagation in CFD simulations” In 44th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, 2006, pp. 891 DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-891
  19. Brandon A Jones, Alireza Doostan and George H Born “Nonlinear propagation of orbit uncertainty using non-intrusive polynomial chaos” In Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 36.2 American Institute of AeronauticsAstronautics, 2013, pp. 430–444 DOI: 10.2514/1.57599
  20. Vahid Keshavarzzadeh, Felipe Fernandez and Daniel A Tortorelli “Topology optimization under uncertainty via non-intrusive polynomial chaos expansion” In Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 318 Elsevier, 2017, pp. 120–147 DOI: 10.1016/j.cma.2017.01.019
  21. Dongbin Xiu and Jan S Hesthaven “High-order collocation methods for differential equations with random inputs” In SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 27.3 SIAM, 2005, pp. 1118–1139 DOI: 10.1137/040615201
  22. Ivo Babuška, Fabio Nobile and Raúl Tempone “A stochastic collocation method for elliptic partial differential equations with random input data” In SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 45.3 SIAM, 2007, pp. 1005–1034 DOI: 10.1137/050645142
  23. Norbert Wiener “The homogeneous chaos” In American Journal of Mathematics 60.4 JSTOR, 1938, pp. 897–936 DOI: 10.2307/2371268
  24. Dongbin Xiu and George Em Karniadakis “The Wiener–Askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations” In SIAM journal on scientific computing 24.2 SIAM, 2002, pp. 619–644 DOI: 10.1137/S1064827501387826
  25. Fabio Nobile, Raúl Tempone and Clayton G Webster “A sparse grid stochastic collocation method for partial differential equations with random input data” In SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 46.5 SIAM, 2008, pp. 2309–2345 DOI: 10.1137/060663660
  26. “Numerical integration using sparse grids” In Numerical algorithms 18.3-4 Springer, 1998, pp. 209–232 DOI: 10.1023/A:1019129717644
  27. Vahid Keshavarzzadeh, Robert M Kirby and Akil Narayan “Numerical integration in multiple dimensions with designed quadrature” In SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 40.4 SIAM, 2018, pp. A2033–A2061 DOI: 10.1137/17M1137875
  28. “Sparse polynomial chaos expansions and adaptive stochastic finite elements using a regression approach” In Comptes rendus mécanique 336.6 Elsevier, 2008, pp. 518–523 DOI: 10.1016/j.crme.2008.02.013
  29. Mishal Thapa, Sameer B Mulani and Robert W Walters “Adaptive weighted least-squares polynomial chaos expansion with basis adaptivity and sequential adaptive sampling” In Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 360 Elsevier, 2020, pp. 112759 DOI: 10.1016/j.cma.2019.112759
  30. Nora Lüthen, Stefano Marelli and Bruno Sudret “Sparse polynomial chaos expansions: Literature survey and benchmark” In SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 9.2 SIAM, 2021, pp. 593–649 DOI: 10.1137/20M1315774
  31. “Automatic Differentiation in Machine Learning: a Survey” In Journal of Machine Learning Research 18.153, 2018, pp. 1–43 URL: http://jmlr.org/papers/v18/17-468.html
  32. Mark Sperry, Kavish Kondap and John T Hwang “Automatic adjoint sensitivity analysis of models for large-scale multidisciplinary design optimization” In AIAA AVIATION 2023 Forum, 2023, pp. 3721 DOI: 10.2514/6.2023-3721
  33. Martín Abadi “TensorFlow: learning functions at scale” In Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGPLAN international conference on functional programming, 2016, pp. 1–1 DOI: 10.1145/2951913.2976746
  34. Arthur B Kahn “Topological sorting of large networks” In Communications of the ACM 5.11 ACM New York, NY, USA, 1962, pp. 558–562 DOI: 10.1145/368996.369025
  35. “A graph-based methodology for constructing computational models that automates adjoint-based sensitivity analysis” In Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, (under revision)
  36. Einat Neumann Ben-Ari and David M Steinberg “Modeling data from computer experiments: an empirical comparison of kriging with MARS and projection pursuit regression” In Quality Engineering 19.4 Taylor & Francis, 2007, pp. 327–338 DOI: 10.1080/08982110701580930
  37. “A Python surrogate modeling framework with derivatives” In Advances in Engineering Software, 2019, pp. 102662 DOI: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2019.03.005
  38. Bingran Wang, Nicholas C Orndorff and John T Hwang “Optimally tensor-structured quadrature rule for uncertainty quantification” In AIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum, 2023, pp. 0741 DOI: 10.2514/6.2023-0741
  39. “VTOL urban air mobility concept vehicles for technology development” In 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 2018, pp. 3847 DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-3847
  40. “Efficient uncertainty propagation through computational graph modification and automatic code generation” In AIAA AVIATION 2022 Forum, 2022, pp. 3997 DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3997
  41. Marius L Ruh and John T Hwang “Fast and Robust Computation of Optimal Rotor Designs Using Blade Element Momentum Theory” In AIAA Journal 61.9 American Institute of AeronauticsAstronautics, 2023, pp. 4096–4111 DOI: 10.2514/1.J062611
Citations (3)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 1 post and received 0 likes.