The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computer model validation with functional output
Open accessAbstract
A key question in evaluation of computer models is Does the computer model adequately represent reality? A six-step process for computer model validation is set out in Bayarri et al. [Technometrics 49 (2007) 138–154] (and briefly summarized below), based on comparison of computer model runs with field data of the process being modeled. The methodology is particularly suited to treating the major issues associated with the validation process: quantifying multiple sources of error and uncertainty in computer models; combining multiple sources of information; and being able to adapt to different, but related scenarios. Two complications that frequently arise in practice are the need to deal with highly irregular functional data and the need to acknowledge and incorporate uncertainty in the inputs. We develop methodology to deal with both complications. A key part of the approach utilizes a wavelet representation of the functional data, applies a hierarchical version of the scalar validation methodology to the wavelet coefficients, and transforms back, to ultimately compare computer model output with field output. The generality of the methodology is only limited by the capability of a combination of computational tools and the appropriateness of decompositions of the sort (wavelets) employed here. The methods and analyses we present are illustrated with a test bed dynamic stress analysis for a particular engineering system.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bayesian calibration of computer models
Kennedy, M. C., & O'Hagan, A. (2001) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00294 · Cited by 4,222
Cited by
Choosing the Sample Size of a Computer Experiment: A Practical Guide
Loeppky, J. L., Sacks, J., & Welch, W. J. (2009) · Technometrics · doi:10.1198/tech.2009.08040 · Cited by 758
Self-citationParameter estimation for differential equations: a generalized smoothing approach
Ramsay, J. O., Hooker, G., Campbell, D., & Cao, J. (2007) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9868.2007.00610.x · Cited by 613
Bayesian emulation of complex multi-output and dynamic computer models
Conti, S., & O’Hagan, A. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference · doi:10.1016/j.jspi.2009.08.006 · Cited by 417
Random forests for global sensitivity analysis: A selective review
Antoniadis, A., Lambert-Lacroix, S., & Poggi, J.-M. (2021) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2020.107312 · Cited by 363
Tuning without over-tuning: parametric uncertainty quantification for the NEMO ocean model
Williamson, D. B., Blaker, A. T., & Sinha, B. (2017) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-10-1789-2017 · Cited by 75
Metadata
- Authors
- Bayarri, M. J., Walsh, D., Berger, J. O., Cafeo, J., Garcia-Donato, G., Liu, F., Palomo, J., Parthasarathy, R. J., Paulo, R., & Sacks, J.
- Venue
- The Annals of Statistics
- Publisher
- Institute of Mathematical Statistics
- Published
- 2007-10-01
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1874-1906
- ISSN
- 0090-5364 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2003884505
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Computer model validation with functional output. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1214/009053607000000163
- The paper
- Bayarri, M. J., Walsh, D., Berger, J. O., Cafeo, J., Garcia-Donato, G., Liu, F., Palomo, J., Parthasarathy, R. J., Paulo, R., & Sacks, J. (2007). Computer model validation with functional output. The Annals of Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1214/009053607000000163
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.