Simon Olofsson

Simon Olofsson, Lukas Hebing, Sebastian Niedenführ et al.

Model discrimination identifies a mathematical model that usefully explains and predicts a given system's behaviour. Researchers will often have several models, i.e. hypotheses, about an underlying system mechanism, but insufficient experimental data to discriminate between the models, i.e. discard inaccurate models. Given rival mathematical models and an initial experimental data set, optimal design of experiments suggests maximally informative experimental observations that maximise a design criterion weighted by prediction uncertainty. The model uncertainty requires gradients, which may not be readily available for black-box models. This paper (i) proposes a new design criterion using the Jensen-Rényi divergence, and (ii) develops a novel method replacing black-box models with Gaussian process surrogates. Using the surrogates, we marginalise out the model parameters with approximate inference. Results show these contributions working well for both classical and new test instances. We also (iii) introduce and discuss GPdoemd, the open-source implementation of the Gaussian process surrogate method.

Simon Olofsson, Eduardo S. Schultz, Adel Mhamdi et al.

Diverse domains of science and engineering use parameterised mechanistic models. Engineers and scientists can often hypothesise several rival models to explain a specific process or phenomenon. Consider a model discrimination setting where we wish to find the best mechanistic, dynamic model candidate and the best model parameter estimates. Typically, several rival mechanistic models can explain the available data, so design of dynamic experiments for model discrimination helps optimally collect additional data by finding experimental settings that maximise model prediction divergence. We argue there are two main approaches in the literature for solving the optimal design problem: (i) the analytical approach, using linear and Gaussian approximations to find closed-form expressions for the design objective, and (ii) the data-driven approach, which often relies on computationally intensive Monte Carlo techniques. Olofsson et al. (ICML 35, 2018) introduced Gaussian process (GP) surrogate models to hybridise the analytical and data-driven approaches, which allowed for computationally efficient design of experiments for discriminating between black-box models. In this study, we demonstrate that we can extend existing methods for optimal design of dynamic experiments to incorporate a wider range of problem uncertainty. We also extend the Olofsson et al. (2018) method of using GP surrogate models for discriminating between dynamic black-box models. We evaluate our approach on a well-known case study from literature, and explore the consequences of using GP surrogates to approximate gradient-based methods.

Simon Olofsson, Marc Peter Deisenroth, Ruth Misener

Healthcare companies must submit pharmaceutical drugs or medical devices to regulatory bodies before marketing new technology. Regulatory bodies frequently require transparent and interpretable computational modelling to justify a new healthcare technology, but researchers may have several competing models for a biological system and too little data to discriminate between the models. In design of experiments for model discrimination, the goal is to design maximally informative physical experiments in order to discriminate between rival predictive models. Prior work has focused either on analytical approaches, which cannot manage all functions, or on data-driven approaches, which may have computational difficulties or lack interpretable marginal predictive distributions. We develop a methodology introducing Gaussian process surrogates in lieu of the original mechanistic models. We thereby extend existing design and model discrimination methods developed for analytical models to cases of non-analytical models in a computationally efficient manner.