Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1175–1181 | Cite as

Comparison study on the accuracy of metamodeling technique for non-convex functions



In order to increase the efficiency of design optimization, many efforts have been made on studying the metamodel techniques for effectively representing expensive and complex models. In this study, a comparison is conducted on the accuracy of several widely used meta-model techniques — moving least squares (MLS), Kriging, support vector regression (SVR) and radial basis functions (RBF) — which are able to approximate non-convex functions well. RMSE (root mean squared error) value is identified as a measure of the accuracy for this comparison. Each metamodel technique is used to approximate the six well-known mathematical functions and a resign of experiment (DOE) is generated by using the Latin hypercube design (LHD), which is also performed for each resulting metamodel. The results show that Kriging and MLS can create a more accurate metamodel than SVR and RBF with the mathematical functions tested.


Metamodel Moving least squares Kriging Radial basis function Support vector regression 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    R. H. Myers, and D. C. Montgomery, Response Surface Methodology -Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, (1995).MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. Jin, W. Chen and T. W. Simpson, Comparative studies of metamodeling techniques under multiple modeling criteria, Journal of the International Society for Structural and Multidisciplinary optimization, 23(1) (2001) 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    T. Krishnamurthy, Comparison of Response Surface Construction Methods for Derivative Estimation Using Moving Least Squares, Kriging and Radial Basis Functions, Proc. of 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA-2005-1821, (2005) 1–28.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Lanscater and K. Salkauskas, Curve and Surface Fitting: An Introduction, Academic Press, (1986).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    G. G. Maisurdze and D. L. Thompson, Interpolating Moving Least Squares Methods for Fitting Potential Energy Surfaces: Illustrative Approaches and Applications, Journal of physical chemistry. A, Molecules, spectroscopy, kinetics, environment & general theory, 107(37) (2003) 7118–7124.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Y. Shin, Y. Lee and J. Ryu, Sequential Approximate Optimization Using Kriging Metamodels, Transactions of the KSME, 29(9) (2005) 1199–1208.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Powell, Radial Basis Functions for Multivariable Interpolation: A review, Algorithms for Approximation (Mason, J. C. and Cox, M. G., eds.), Oxford University Press, (1987) 143–167.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    S. M. Clarke, H. Griebsch and T. W. Simpson, Analysis of Support Vector Regression For Approximation of Complex Engineering Analysis, ASME Journal, 127(6) (2005) 1077–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. D. McKay, R. J. Beckman and W. J. Conover, A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code, Technometrics 21(2) (1979) 239–245.CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
  11. [11]
    A. A. Giunta and L. T. Watson, A Comparison of Approximation Modeling Techniques: Polynomial Versus Interpolating Models, Proc. of 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis, AIAA-98-4758, (1998) 392–404Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringHanyang University Graduate schoolSeoulKorea
  2. 2.The Center of Innovative Design Optimization Technology (iDOT)Hanyang UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations