A Comparative Study on Artificial Neural Network and Radial Basis Function for Modelling Output Response from Computer Simulated Experiments

  • Anamai Na-udomEmail author
  • Jaratsri Rungrattanaubol
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1149)


Computer simulated experiments (CSE) have been widely used to investigate complex physical phenomena, particularly when physical experiments are not feasible due to limitations of experimental materials. The natures of CSE are time-consuming and the computer codes are expensive. Therefore, experimental designs and statistical models approaches play a major role in the context of CSE in order to develop the approximation model for use as a surrogate model. Many researchers have attempted to develop various predictive models to fit the output responses from CSE. The purpose of this paper is to compare the prediction accuracy of three models namely Kriging model (KRG), Radial basis function (RBF) model and Artificial neural network (ANN) model, respectively. These three models are constructed by using the optimal Latin hypercube designs (OLHD). The prediction accuracy of each model is validated though non-linear test problems ranging from 2 to 8 input variables and evaluated by the root mean squared of error (RMSE) values. The results show that RBF model performs well when small dimension of problem with small design run is considered while KRG model is the most accurate model when the design run is large. For larger dimensions of problem, KRG model is suitable for small design runs while ANN model performs superior over the other models when the design runs are large.


Artificial neural network Predictive model Radial basis functions Computer simulated experiments 


  1. 1.
    Fang, H., Horstemeyer, M.F.: Global response approximation with radial basis functions. Eng. Optim. 38(4), 407–424 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Simpson, T.W., Mauery, T.M., Korte, J.J., Mistree, F.: Kriging models for global approximation in simulation-based multidisciplinary design optimization. AIAA J. 39(12), 2233–2241 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sacks, J., Welch, W.J., Mitchell, T.J., Wynn, H.P.: Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat. Sci. 4(4), 409–435 (1989)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Welch, W.J., Buck, R.J., Sacks, J., Wynn, H.P., Mitchell, T.J., Morris, M.D.: Screening, predicting, and computer experiments. Technometrics 34(1), 15–25 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simpson, T.W., Lin, D.K.J., Chen, W.: Sampling strategies for computer experiments: design and analysis. Int. J. Reliab. Appl. 2(3), 209–240 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jin, R., Chen, W., Simpson, T.W.: Comparative studies of metamodeling techniques under multiple modeling criteria. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 23, 1–13 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hussian, M.F., Barton, R.R., Joshi, S.B.: Metamodeling: radial basis functions, versus polynomials. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 138, 142–154 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fang, K.T., Li, R., Sudjianto, A.: Design and Modeling for Computer Experiments. Chapman & Hall/CRC, London (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muller, A.A., Messac, A.: Metamodeling using extended radial basis functions: a comparative approach. Eng. Comput. 21, 203–217 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yosboonruang, N., Na-udom, A., Rungrattanaubol, J.: A comparative study on predicting accuracy of statistical models for modeling deterministic output responses. Thailand Stat. 11(1), 1–15 (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Na-udom, A., Rungrattanaubol, J.: A comparison of artificial neural network and Kriging model for predicting the deterministic output response. NU Sci. J. 10(1), 1–9 (2014)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vicario, G., Craparotta, G., Pistone, G.: Meta-models in computer experiments: Kriging versus Artificial Neural Networks. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 32(6), 2055–2065 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cressie, N.A.C.: Statistics for Spatial Data. Wiley, Hoboken (1993)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Na-udom, A., Rungrattanaubol, J.: Optimization of correlation parameter for Kriging approximation model. In: International Joint Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 159–164 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rippa, S.: An algorithm for selecting a good value for the parameter c in radial basis function interpolation. Adv. Comput. Math. 11, 193–210 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sibanda, W., Pretorius, P.: Artificial neural networks-a review of applications of neural networks in the modeling of HIV epidemic. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 44, 1–9 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Larose, D.T., Larose, C.D.: Discovering Knowledge in Data: An Introduction to Data Mining, 2nd edn. Wileys, Hoboken (2014)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hock, W., Schittkowski, K.: Test Examples for Nonlinear Programming Codes. Springer, Berlin (1981)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Na-udom, A., Rungrattanaubol, J.: Heuristic search algorithms for constructing optimal latin hypercube designs. In: Recent Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 463, no. 1, pp. 183–193 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, Faculty of ScienceNaresuan UniversityPhitsanulokThailand
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Information Technology, Faculty of ScienceNaresuan UniversityPhitsanulokThailand

Personalised recommendations