Reality gap
The difference between the real world and the simulations we use to model it
2024-02-21 — 2024-11-02
Wherein the Distance Between Simulator and World Is Treated as an Object of Study, Models Are Trained to Characterise Both Simulator Idiosyncrasies and Physical Measurements, and Metrics Are Proposed.
approximation
Bayes
feature construction
likelihood free
machine learning
measure
metrics
probability
sciml
statistics
time series
Somewhere between approximating simulators and calibrating simulators, inference using simulators, and parameter search, we might wonder about the gap between them and the reality they claim to model. This gap might be an object of interest in itself.
This is a page to think about training models which characterise both the simulator and the real world, and to think about how to measure the gap between them.
1 Incoming
2 References
Brehmer, Louppe, Pavez, et al. 2020. “Mining Gold from Implicit Models to Improve Likelihood-Free Inference.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Eghbalian, Pouragha, and Wan. 2023. “A Physics-Informed Deep Neural Network for Surrogate Modeling in Classical Elasto-Plasticity.” Computers and Geotechnics.
Higdon, Gattiker, Williams, et al. 2008. “Computer Model Calibration Using High-Dimensional Output.” Journal of the American Statistical Association.
Kennedy, and O’Hagan. 2001. “Bayesian Calibration of Computer Models.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology).
Koermer, Loda, Noble, et al. 2023. “Active Learning for Simulator Calibration.”
Kudela, and Matousek. 2022. “Recent Advances and Applications of Surrogate Models for Finite Element Method Computations: A Review.” Soft Computing.
Liang, Liu, Martin, et al. 2018. “A Deep Learning Approach to Estimate Stress Distribution: A Fast and Accurate Surrogate of Finite-Element Analysis.” Journal of The Royal Society Interface.
Li, Shu, and Farimani. 2023. “Scalable Transformer for PDE Surrogate Modeling.” In.
Masegosa. 2020. “Learning Under Model Misspecification: Applications to Variational and Ensemble Methods.” In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. NIPS’20.
Mora, Yousefpour, Hosseinmardi, et al. 2024. “Neural Networks with Kernel-Weighted Corrective Residuals for Solving Partial Differential Equations.” arXiv Preprint arXiv:2401.03492.
Plumlee. 2017. “Bayesian Calibration of Inexact Computer Models.” Journal of the American Statistical Association.
Salvato, Fenu, Medvet, et al. 2021. “Crossing the Reality Gap: A Survey on Sim-to-Real Transferability of Robot Controllers in Reinforcement Learning.” IEEE Access.
Samadian, Muhit, and Dawood. 2024. “Application of Data-Driven Surrogate Models in Structural Engineering: A Literature Review.” Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering.
Shukla, Oommen, Peyvan, et al. 2024. “Deep Neural Operators as Accurate Surrogates for Shape Optimization.” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence.
Snoek, Larochelle, and Adams. 2012. “Practical Bayesian Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms.” In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
Tapia, Khairallah, Matthews, et al. 2018. “Gaussian Process-Based Surrogate Modeling Framework for Process Planning in Laser Powder-Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing of 316L Stainless Steel.” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology.
Tremblay, Prakash, Acuna, et al. 2018. “Training Deep Networks with Synthetic Data: Bridging the Reality Gap by Domain Randomization.” In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW).
Vohra, Nath, Mahadevan, et al. 2020. “Fast Surrogate Modeling Using Dimensionality Reduction in Model Inputs and Field Output: Application to Additive Manufacturing.” Reliability Engineering & System Safety.
Zhu, Zabaras, Koutsourelakis, et al. 2019. “Physics-Constrained Deep Learning for High-Dimensional Surrogate Modeling and Uncertainty Quantification Without Labeled Data.” Journal of Computational Physics.