Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison between Newton and response-surface methods

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A supporting-point placement scheme is presented that is used for calculating function derivatives by the method of differences as well as a quadratic response-surface approximation. The placement scheme unifies the Newton (NM) and response-surface (RSM) methods in the limiting case when the point-set distance parameter for the RSM is chosen as small as that for obtaining the derivatives needed by the NM. Two new RSM minimization strategies with and without line searches are presented. The numerical performance of the algorithms is studied by using well-known test functions and the paths through the two-dimensional variables space are plotted for easier interpretation of the performance results. The results are compared with results of numerical experiments found in the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brent, R.P. 1973: Algorithms for Minimization without Derivatives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

  2. Canfield, R.A. 2002: Multi-Point Cubic Surrogate Functions for Sequential Approximate Optimization. AIAA Paper 2002-5575

  3. Cauchy, A. 1847: Method generale pour la resolution des systemes d’equations simultanees. Comput Rend Acad Sci25, 536–538

    Google Scholar 

  4. Davidon, W.C. 1959: Variable Metric Method for Minimization. AEC Res Dev RepANL-599

  5. Eason, E.D.; Fenton, R.G. 1974: A Comparison of Numerical Optimization Methods for Engineering Design. J Eng Ind Trans ASME96(1), 196–200

  6. Fletcher, R.; Powell, M.J.D. 1963: A Rapidly Convergent Descent Method for Minimization. Comput J6, 163

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fletcher, R.; Reeves, C.M. 1964: Function Minimization by Conjugate Gradients. Comput J7(5), 149–154

    Google Scholar 

  8. McKay, M.D.; Bechmann, R.J.; Conover, W.J. 1979: A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code. Technometrics21(2), 239–245

    Google Scholar 

  9. Powell, M.J.D. 1964: An Efficient Method for Finding the Minimum of a Function of Several Variables without Calculating Derivatives. Comput J7, 155–162

    Google Scholar 

  10. Reklaitis, G.V.; Ravindran, A.; Ragsdell, K.M. 1983: Engineering Optimization. New Jersey: Wiley Interscience

  11. Spendley, W.; Hext, G.R.; Himsworth, F.R. 1962: Sequential Application of Simplex Designs in Optimization and Evolutionary Operation, Technometrics4, 441–461

    Google Scholar 

  12. Vanderplaats, G.N. 1984: Numerical Optimization Techniques for Engineering Design. New York: McGraw-Hill

  13. Venter, G. 1998: Non-Dimensional Response Surfaces for Structural Optimization with Uncertainty. Dissertation, University of Florida

  14. Wang, G.G. 2003: Adaptive response Surface Method Using Inherited Latin Hypercube Design Points. J Mech Des125, 210–220

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G.R. Kress.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kress, G., Ermanni, P. Comparison between Newton and response-surface methods. Struct Multidisc Optim 30, 368–380 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0458-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0458-0

Keywords

Navigation