In computational simulation, a high-fidelity (HF) model is generally more accurate than a low-fidelity (LF) model, while the latter is generally more computationally efficient than the former. To take advantages of both HF and LF models, a multi-fidelity surrogate model based on radial basis function (MFS-RBF) is developed in this paper by combining HF and LF models. To determine the scaling factor between HF and LF models, a correlation matrix is augmented by further integrating LF responses. The scaling factor and relevant basis function weights are then calculated by employing corresponding HF responses. MFS-RBF is compared with Co-Kriging model, multi-fidelity surrogate based on linear regression (LR-MFS) model, CoRBF model, and three single-fidelity surrogates. The impact of key factors, such as the cost ratio of LF to HF models and different combinations of HF and LF samples, is also investigated. The results show that (i) MFS-RBF presents a better accuracy and robustness than the three benchmark MFS models and single-fidelity surrogates in about 90% cases of this paper; (ii) MFS-RBF is less sensitive to the correlation between HF and LF models than the three MFS models; (iii) by fixing the total computational cost, the cost ratio of LF to HF models is suggested to be less than 0.2, and 10–80% of the total cost should be used for LF samples; (iv) the MFS-RBF model is able to save an average of 50 to 70% computational cost if HF and LF models are highly correlated.
Multi-fidelity surrogate Radial basis function Correlation Scaling factor Robustness
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51505061 and Grant U1608256).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Replication of results
The main codes and raw data corresponding to each figure are submitted as supplementary materials.
Acar E (2010) Various approaches for constructing an ensemble of metamodels using local measures. Struct Multidiscip Optim 42(6):879–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acar E, Rais-Rohani M (2009) Ensemble of metamodels with optimized weight factors. Struct Multidiscip Optim 37(3):279–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai X, Qiu H, Gao L, Shao X (2017a) Metamodeling for high dimensional design problems by multi-fidelity simulations. Struct Multidiscip Optim 56(1):151–166MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai X, Qiu H, Gao L, Wei L, Shao X (2017b) Adaptive radial-basis-function-based multifidelity metamodeling for expensive black-box problems. AIAA J 55(7):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durantin C, Rouxel J, Désidéri JA, Glière A (2017) Multifidelity surrogate modeling based on radial basis functions. Struct Multidiscip Optim 56(5):1061–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrester AIJ, Sóbester A, Keane AJ (2007) Multi-fidelity optimization via surrogate modelling. Proceedings of the royal society a: mathematical, physical and engineering sciences 463(2088):3251–3269MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
Forrester AIJ, Sóbester A, Keane AJ (2008) Engineering design via surrogate modelling: a practical guide. DBLP, TrierCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han ZH, Görtz S, Zimmermann R (2013) Improving variable-fidelity surrogate modeling via gradient-enhanced kriging and a generalized hybrid bridge function. Aerosp Sci Technol 25(1):177–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schonlau M, Welch WJ, Jones DR (1998) Global versus local search in constrained optimization of computer models. Lecture Notes-Monograph Series 34:11–25Google Scholar
Smola AJ, Schölkopf B (2004) A tutorial on support vector regression. Stat Comp 14(3): 199–222Google Scholar
Sun G, Li G, Gong Z, He G, Li Q (2011) Radial basis functional model for multi-objective sheet metal forming optimization. Eng Optim 43(12):1351–1366MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toal DJJ (2015) Some considerations regarding the use of multi-fidelity Kriging in the construction of surrogate models. Struct Multidiscip Optim 51(6): 1223–1245Google Scholar
Tyan M, Nguyen NV, Lee JW (2015) Improving variable-fidelity modelling by exploring global design space and radial basis function networks for aerofoil design. Eng Optim 47(7):885–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viana FAC, Simpson TW, Balabanov V, Toropov V (2014) Special section on multidisciplinary design optimization: metamodeling in multidisciplinary design optimization: how far have we really come? AIAA J 52(4):670–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang GG, Shan S (2006) Review of metamodeling techniques in support of engineering design optimization. ASME 2006 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. Am Soc Mech Eng 129(4):415–426Google Scholar
Zerpa LE, Queipo NV, Pintos S, Salager JL (2005) An optimization methodology of alkaline–surfactant–polymer flooding processes using field scale numerical simulation and multiple surrogates. J Pet Sci Eng 47(3):197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang Y, Kim NH, Park C, Haftka RT (2018) Multifidelity surrogate based on single linear regression. AIAA Journal, 56(12) 4944–4952Google Scholar
Zhou Q, Jiang P, Shao X, Hu J, Cao L, Wan L (2017a) A variable fidelity information fusion method based on radial basis function. Adv Eng Inform 32(C):26–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou Q, Wang Y, Choi SK, Jiang P, Shao X, Hu J (2017b) A sequential multi-fidelity metamodeling approach for data regression. Knowl-Based Syst 134:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar