All Emulators are Wrong, Many are Useful, and Some are More Useful Than Others: A Reproducible Comparison of Computer Model Surrogates

Accurate and efficient surrogate modeling is essential for modern computational science, and there are a staggering number of emulation methods to choose from. With new methods being developed all the time, comparing the relative strengths and weaknesses of different methods remains a challenge due to inconsistent benchmarking practices and (sometimes) limited reproducibility and transparency. In this work, we present a large-scale, fully reproducible comparison of $29$ distinct emulators across $60$ canonical test functions and $40$ real emulation datasets. To facilitate rigorous, apples-to-apples comparisons, we introduce the R package \texttt{duqling}, which streamlines reproducible simulation studies using a consistent, simple syntax, and automatic internal scaling of inputs. This framework allows researchers to compare emulators in a unified environment and makes it possible to replicate or extend previous studies with minimal effort, even across different publications. Our results provide detailed empirical insight into the strengths and weaknesses of state-of-the-art emulators and offer guidance for both method developers and practitioners selecting a surrogate for new data. We discuss best practices for emulator comparison and highlight how \texttt{duqling} can accelerate research in emulator design and application.