Post by Felipe Chegury Viana on Jan 6, 2009 9:37:26 GMT -5
Dear all,
Here it is a reference on how to get the most from multiple surrogates using cross-validation:
F. A. C. Viana, R.T. Haftka, and V. Steffen Jr, "MULTIPLE SURROGATES: HOW CROSS-VALIDATION ERRORS CAN HELP US TO OBTAIN THE BEST PREDICTOR," Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2009 (DOI: 10.1007/s00158-008-0338-0).
Surrogate models are commonly used to replace expensive simulations of engineering problems. Frequently, a single surrogate is chosen based on past experience. This approach has generated a collection of papers comparing the performance of individual surrogates. Previous work has also shown that fitting multiple surrogates and picking one based on cross-validation errors (PRESS in particular) is a good strategy, and that cross-validation errors may also be used to create a weighted surrogate. In this paper, we discussed how PRESS (obtained either from the leave-one-out or from the k-fold strategies) is employed to estimate the RMS error, and whether to use the best PRESS solution or a weighted surrogate when a single surrogate is needed. We also studied the minimization of the integrated square error as a way to compute the weights of the weighted average surrogate. We found that it pays to generate a large set of different surrogates and then use PRESS as a criterion for selection. We found that (i) in general, PRESS is good for filtering out inaccurate surrogates; and (ii) with sufficient number of points, PRESS may identify the best surrogate of the set. Hence the use of cross-validation errors for choosing a surrogate and for calculating the weights of weighted surrogates becomes more attractive in high dimensions (when a large number of points is naturally required). However, it appears that the potential gains from using weighted surrogates diminish substantially in high dimensions. We also examined the utility of using all the surrogates for forming the weighted surrogates versus using a subset of the most accurate ones. This decision is shown to depend on the weighting scheme. Finally, we also found that PRESS as obtained through the k-fold strategy successfully estimates the RMSE.
You can find more about it online:
fchegury.googlepages.com
All the best,
Felipe Viana
Here it is a reference on how to get the most from multiple surrogates using cross-validation:
F. A. C. Viana, R.T. Haftka, and V. Steffen Jr, "MULTIPLE SURROGATES: HOW CROSS-VALIDATION ERRORS CAN HELP US TO OBTAIN THE BEST PREDICTOR," Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2009 (DOI: 10.1007/s00158-008-0338-0).
Surrogate models are commonly used to replace expensive simulations of engineering problems. Frequently, a single surrogate is chosen based on past experience. This approach has generated a collection of papers comparing the performance of individual surrogates. Previous work has also shown that fitting multiple surrogates and picking one based on cross-validation errors (PRESS in particular) is a good strategy, and that cross-validation errors may also be used to create a weighted surrogate. In this paper, we discussed how PRESS (obtained either from the leave-one-out or from the k-fold strategies) is employed to estimate the RMS error, and whether to use the best PRESS solution or a weighted surrogate when a single surrogate is needed. We also studied the minimization of the integrated square error as a way to compute the weights of the weighted average surrogate. We found that it pays to generate a large set of different surrogates and then use PRESS as a criterion for selection. We found that (i) in general, PRESS is good for filtering out inaccurate surrogates; and (ii) with sufficient number of points, PRESS may identify the best surrogate of the set. Hence the use of cross-validation errors for choosing a surrogate and for calculating the weights of weighted surrogates becomes more attractive in high dimensions (when a large number of points is naturally required). However, it appears that the potential gains from using weighted surrogates diminish substantially in high dimensions. We also examined the utility of using all the surrogates for forming the weighted surrogates versus using a subset of the most accurate ones. This decision is shown to depend on the weighting scheme. Finally, we also found that PRESS as obtained through the k-fold strategy successfully estimates the RMSE.
You can find more about it online:
fchegury.googlepages.com
All the best,
Felipe Viana