4.7 Article

Modified screening-based Kriging method with cross validation and application to engineering design

期刊

APPLIED MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
卷 70, 期 -, 页码 626-642

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apm.2019.01.030

关键词

Metamodel; Surrogate model; Kriging; Cross validation

资金

  1. Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)
  2. Ministry of Trade Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea [20172010000830]
  3. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science and ICT [NRF-2015R1A2A1A10055060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, a basis screening Kriging method using cross validation error is proposed to alleviate computational burden of the dynamic Kriging while maintaining its accuracy. Metamodeling is widely used for design optimization of complex engineering applications where considerable computation time is required. The Kriging method is one of popular metamodeling methods due to its accuracy and efficiency. There have been many attempts to improve accuracy of the Kriging method, and the dynamic Kriging method using cross-validation error, which selects adequate basis functions to best describe the mean structure of a response using a genetic algorithm, achieves outstanding performance in terms of accuracy. However, despite its accuracy, the dynamic Kriging requires very large amounts of computation because of the genetic algorithm and no limitation for order of basis functions. In the proposed method, a basis function set is determined by screening each basis function instead of using the genetic algorithm, which has advantages in computation for high dimensional metamodels or repeated metamodel generation. Numerical studies with four mathematical examples and two engineering applications verify that the proposed basis screening Kriging significantly reduces computation time with similar accuracy as the dynamic Kriging. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据