Benefits and Application of Tree Structures in Gaussian Process Models to Optimize Magnetic Field Shaping Problems

Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 231)


Recent years have witnessed the development of powerful numerical methods to emulate realistic physical systems and their integration into the industrial product development process. Today, finite element simulations have become a standard tool to help with the design of technical products. However, when it comes to multivariate optimization, the computation power requirements of such tools can often not be met when working with classical algorithms. As a result, a lot of attention is currently given to the design of computer experiments approach. One goal of this work is the development of a sophisticated optimization process for simulation based models. Within many possible choices, Gaussian process models are most widely used as modeling approach for the simulation data. However, these models are strongly based on stationary assumptions that are often not satisfied in the underlying system. In this work, treed Gaussian process models are investigated for dealing with non-stationarities and compared to the usual modeling approach. The method is developed for and applied to the specific physical problem of the optimization of 1D magnetic linear position detection.


Gaussian process surrogates Non-stationarity Simulation data Tree models 



This work is part of the Competence Centre ASSIC, which is funded within the R&D Program COMET - Competence Centers for Excellent Technologies by the Federal Ministries of Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT), of Economics and Labor (BMWA). The funding program is managed on their behalf by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG), the Austrian provinces Carinthia and Styria provide additional funding.


  1. 1.
    Bursztyn, D., Steinberg, D.M.: Comparison of designs for computer experiments. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 136, 1103–1119 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Camacho, J.M., Sosa, V.: Alternative method to calculate the magnetic field of permanent magnets with azimuthal symmetry. Revista Mexicana de Fisica E 59, 8–17 (2013)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Currin, C., Mitchell, T.J., Morris, M.D., Ylvisaker, D.: Bayesian prediction of deterministic functions, with applications to the design and analysis of computer experments. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 86, 953–963 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dupuy, D., Helbert, C., Franco, J.: Dicedesign and diceeval: two r packages for design and analysis of computer experiments. J. Stat. Softw. 65(11), 1–38 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fang, K.-T. Li, R. Sudjianto A.: Design and Modeling for Computer Experiments. Chapman & Hall/CRC (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gramacy, R.B., Lee, H.K.H.: Bayesian treed gaussian process models with an application to computer modeling. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 103, 1119–1130 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson, S.G.: The nlopt nonlinear-optimization package. (2008). Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  8. 8.
    Jones, D.R., Perttunen, C.D., Stuckman, B.E.: Lipschitzian optimization without the lipschitz constant. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 79, 157–181 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ortner, M.: Improving magnetic linear position measurement by field shaping. In: Conference proceedings - The 9th International Conference on Sensing Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, Dec. 8–Dec. 10 2015Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paciorek, C.J.: Nonstationary Gaussian Processes for Regression and Spatial Modelling. Ph.D thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rasmussen, C.E., Williams, C.K.I.: Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. The MIT Press (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roustant, O., Ginsbourger, D., Deville, Y.: Dicekriging, diceoptim: two r packages for the analysis of computer experiments by kriging-based metamodeling and optimization. J. Stat. Softw. 51(1), 1–55 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sacks, J., Welch, W.J., Mitchell, T.J., Wynn, H.P.: Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat. Sci. 4, 409–435 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Santner, T.J., Williams, B.J., Notz, W.I.: Des. Anal. Comput. Exp. Springer, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simpson, T.W., Lin, D.K.J., Chen, W.: Sampling strategies for computer experiments: design and analysis. Int. J. Reliab. Appl. 2, 209–240 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Treutler, C.P.O.: Magnetic sensors for automotive applications. Sens. Actuators A 91, 2–6 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CTR Carinthian Tech Research AGVillachAustria
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsAlpen-Adria University of KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria

Personalised recommendations