skip to main content
10.5555/1162708.1163185acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswscConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Does more uniformly distributed sampling generally lead to more accurate prediction in computer experiments?

Published:04 December 2005Publication History

ABSTRACT

Sampling uniformity is one of the central issues for computer experiments or metamodeling. Is it generally true that more uniformly distributed sampling leads to more accurate prediction? A study was conducted to compare four designs for computer experiments, based on simulation tests and statistical analysis. Maximin Latin hypercube design (LHMm) nearly always generated more uniform sampling in two- and three- dimensional cases than does random sampling (Rd), Latin hypercube design (LHD), or Minimized centered L2 discrepancy Latin hypercube design (LHCL2). But often there was no significant difference among the means of the prediction errors by employing LHMm versus the other designs. Occasionally, even the opposite was seen. More uniform sampling did not generally lead to more accurate prediction unless sampling included extremely nonuniform cases, especially when the sample size was relatively small.

References

  1. Hickernell, F. J. K (1998): A generalized discrepancy and quadrature error bound, Mathematics of Computation, 67, 299--322. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Koehler, J. R., Owen, A. B. 1996: Computer experiments. In Ghosh, S. and Rao, C. R., editors, Handbook of Statistics, 13, 261--308. Elsevier Science, New York.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Liu, L., 2004: Employing simulation and optimizer to optimize experimental design and structural topology, dissertation, Systems Science Ph.D. Program, Portland State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Liu, L., 2005: Could enough samples be more important than better designs for computer experiments? 38th Annual Simulation Symposium, Spring Simulation Multiconference, San Diego, April 2--8, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Morris, M. D. and Mitchell, T. J., 1995, "Exploratory Designs for Computer Experiments," Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 43, 381--402.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Nielsen, H. B., Lophaven, S. N., and Søndergaard, J.: DACE: A MATLAB KrigingToolbox <http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~hbn/dace>Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Santner, T., Williams, B, and Notz, W. 2003: Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Does more uniformly distributed sampling generally lead to more accurate prediction in computer experiments?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      WSC '05: Proceedings of the 37th conference on Winter simulation
      December 2005
      2769 pages
      ISBN:0780395190

      Publisher

      Winter Simulation Conference

      Publication History

      • Published: 4 December 2005

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      WSC '05 Paper Acceptance Rate209of316submissions,66%Overall Acceptance Rate3,413of5,075submissions,67%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader