Premium
Reducing the computational cost of automatic calibration through model preemption
Author(s) -
Razavi Saman,
Tolson Bryan A.,
Matott L. Shawn,
Thomson Neil R.,
MacLean Angela,
Seglenieks Frank R.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
water resources research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.863
H-Index - 217
eISSN - 1944-7973
pISSN - 0043-1397
DOI - 10.1029/2009wr008957
Subject(s) - preemption , calibration , computer science , mathematical optimization , algorithm , glue , set (abstract data type) , mathematics , statistics , engineering , operating system , mechanical engineering , programming language
Computational budget is frequently a limiting factor in both uncertainty‐based (e.g., through generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE)) and optimization‐based (e.g., through least squares minimization) calibration of computationally intensive environmental simulation models. This study introduces and formalizes the concept of simulation model preemption during automatic calibration. The proposed “model preemption” method terminates a simulation model early to save computational budget if it is recognized through intermediate simulation model results that a given solution (model parameter set) is so poor that it will not benefit the search strategy. The methodology proposed here is referred to as deterministic model preemption because it leads to exactly the same calibration result as when deterministic preemption is not applied. As such, deterministic preemption–enabled calibration algorithms which make no approximations to the mathematical simulation model are a simple alternative to the increasingly common and more complex approach of metamodeling for computationally constrained model calibration. Despite its simplicity, the deterministic model preemption concept is a promising concept that has yet to be formalized in the environmental simulation model automatic calibration literature. The model preemption concept can be applied to a subset of uncertainty‐based and optimization‐based automatic calibration strategies using a variety of different objective functions. Results across multiple calibration case studies demonstrate actual preemption computational savings ranging from 14% to 49%, 34% to 59%, and 52% to 96% for the dynamically dimensioned search, particle swarm optimization, and GLUE automatic calibration methods, respectively.