# Reduced-Cost Constrained Modeling of Microwave and Antenna Components: Recent Advances

- 160 Downloads

## Abstract

Electromagnetic (EM) simulation models are ubiquitous in the design of microwave and antenna components. EM analysis is reliable but CPU intensive. In particular, multiple simulations entailed by parametric optimization or uncertainty quantification may considerably slow down the design processes. In order to address this problem, it is possible to employ fast metamodels. Here, the popular solution approaches are approximation surrogates, which are versatile and easily accessible. Notwithstanding, the major issue for conventional modeling methods is the curse of dimensionality. In the case of high-frequency components, an added difficulty are highly nonlinear outputs that need to be handled. A recently reported constrained modeling attempts to broaden the applicability of approximation surrogates by confining the surrogate model setup to a small subset of the parameter space. The said region contains the parameter vectors corresponding to high-quality designs w.r.t. the considered figures of interest, which allows for a dramatic reduction of the number of training samples needed to render reliable surrogates without formally restricting the parameter ranges. This paper reviews the recent techniques employing these concepts and provides real-world illustration examples of antenna and microwave structures.

## Keywords

Microwave engineering Antenna engineering Electromagnetic simulation Surrogate modeling Performance-driven modeling Kriging interpolation## 1 Introduction

Design of contemporary microwave and antenna components has been increasingly dependent on full-wave electromagnetic (EM) simulation tools. EM analysis permits reliable evaluation of arbitrary geometries and taking into account cross-couplings between system components, dielectric anisotropy, or the effects of installation fixtures and radomes. The growing involvement of EM simulation packages is especially pertinent to parameter tuning also referred to as design closure [1]. This is where the performance parameters of the structure at hand are enhanced subject to the assumed design constraints. It is most often achieved through numerical optimization, which entails significant computational expenses. Handling massive EM analyses is one of the major challenges pertaining to EM-based design processes even if local optimization is of concern. Solving tasks such as global optimization [2], uncertainty quantification or tolerance-aware design [3], may become computationally unmanageable when attempted directly at full-wave EM simulation level.

Reducing the CPU cost of EM-driven design has been the subject of extensive research. One possible option is the development of more efficient numerical algorithms, e.g., incorporation of adjoint sensitivities to speed up gradient-based procedures [4], or the employment of (local) surrogate models [5]. A notable example of the latter is space mapping [6]. Other approaches include response correction methods [7], feature-based optimization [8], or machine learning frameworks, often surrogate-assisted [9]. Another option is an overall replacement of the EM model by its faster surrogate, which permits a rapid execution of all types of simulation-based design procedures. Data-driven surrogates belong to the most popular ones due to their versatility [10]. They are constructed by approximating the data sampled from the original (here, EM) model with no physical insight required. Commonly used modeling techniques include polynomial regression [11], radial basis functions [12], kriging [13], support vector regression (SVR) [14], and polynomial chaos expansion (PCE) [15]. Available alternatives include, among others, hybridization of one of the aforementioned methods. One of these is PC kriging [16], in which polynomial chaos expansion surrogate becomes a trend function, whereas kriging interpolation is employed to account for the residuals.

Despite their merits and popularity, applicability of approximation models is limited by the curse of dimensionality. In the case of high-frequency structures, which often feature nonlinear responses, reliable data-driven surrogates can be constructed for systems described by up to four or five variables. Design utility of such models is of course questionable given the complexity of contemporary devices (both antennas and microwave). A range of methods have been developed to mitigate these problems, including high-dimensional model representation (HDMR) [17], feature-based modeling [18], orthogonal matching pursuit (OMP) [19], as well as variable-fidelity methods (Bayesian model fusion [20], co-kriging [21], or two-stage GPR [22]).

In [23], an alternative approach has been suggested, where the issue of high cost of training data acquisition is addressed by confining the surrogate model domain to a region that contains the designs that are of high quality with respect to the figures of interest relevant for the system at hand. The volume of such a region is dramatically smaller than the conventional box-constrained domain so that restricting the model validity (and, consequently, training data allocation) leads to significant computational savings. Determination of the constrained domain requires additional knowledge, normally in the form of the reference designs pre-optimized with respect to the chosen figures of interest of choice. Several variations of the constrained modeling have been reported, including rudimentary frameworks rendering surrogates that can handle a single operating condition [23], versions that allow accounting for supplementary figures of interest (e.g., substrate permittivity [24]), to techniques that permit arbitrary allocation of the reference designs [25]. The nested kriging of [26] also allows for straightforward uniform domain sampling and surrogate model optimization, which was not possible in the earlier versions.

This paper reviews the recent developments of the constrained modeling, focusing on three approaches: (i) modeling with structured reference design set [23, 24], (ii) triangulation-based modeling [25], as well as (iii) the nested kriging framework [26]. The presented methods are illustrated using real-world microwave and antenna structures, and benchmarked against conventional surrogate modeling methods. A generic formulation of the constrained modeling concept is also provided.

## 2 Surrogate Modeling with Domain Confinement

We start by formulating the constrained modeling concept. One of the most important components is the confined surrogate model domain. The fundamental criterion deciding upon the domain geometry is design optimality for the assumed design objectives.

### 2.1 Fundamental Concepts. Design Variables and Figures of Interest

*X*the parameter space for the design problem at hand. It is delimited by the lower and upper bounds on design variables

*≤*

**l***≤*

**x***, where*

**u***= [*

**x***x*

_{1}…

*x*

_{n}]

^{T},

*= [*

**l***l*

_{1}…

*l*

_{n}]

^{T},

*= [*

**u***u*

_{1}…

*u*

_{n}]

^{T}, or

*X*= [

*l*

_{1}

*u*

_{1}] × … × [

*l*

_{n}

*u*

_{n}]. The relevant figures of interest are

*f*

_{k},

*k*= 1, …,

*N*. Perhaps the most representative example of a performance figure is the operating frequency (or frequencies in the case of multi-band structures) [23]. Another example is the substrate permittivity [24]. The objective space

*F*is defined by the ranges \( f_{k.\hbox{min} } \le f_{k}^{(j)} \le f_{k.\hbox{max} } ,k = 1, \ldots ,N \), i.e.,

*F*= [

*f*

_{1.min}

*f*

_{1.max}] × … × [

*f*

_{N.min}

*f*

_{N.max}]. The design goals for a given target vector

*= [*

**f***f*

_{1}…

*f*

_{N}]

^{T}are encoded in an objective function

*U*(

*,*

**x***). The optimum design*

**f***U*

_{f}(

*) w.r.t.*

**f***, is*

**f**An illustration example follows: if *f*_{k} are operating frequencies of a multi-band antenna, *U*(·) may be defined as −min{*B*_{1}, …, *B*_{N}}, where *B*_{j} is the fractional bandwidth corresponding to *f*_{j}. Thus, minimization of *U*_{f}(* f*) leads to achieving the largest possible bandwidths.

*U*

_{f}(

*F*) ⊂

*X*is an

*N*-dimensional manifold (cf. Fig. 1), which determines the region of interest from the point of view of the figures

*f*

_{k}. It contains the designs that are of high quality w.r.t.

*f*

_{k}as specified by

*U*. Hence, the surrogate constructed in the vicinity of

*U*

_{f}(

*F*) is all one needs to carry out the design tasks where

*f*

_{k}are of concern. Focusing on

*U*

_{f}(

*F*) yields considerable savings in terms of training data acquisition as compared to building the model in

*X*. Yet, some problems arise: (i) how to identify

*U*

_{f}(

*F*), (ii) how to carry out design of experiments, and, (iii) how to employ the surrogate (e.g., for parametric optimization) given geometrical complexity of the domain. Sections 3 through 5 address these issues when discussing particular realizations of the constrained modeling concept.

### 2.2 Modeling Flow

## 3 Constrained Modeling with Predefined Reference Point Allocation

The initial versions of constrained modeling framework utilized (structurally) fixed set of reference points. The advantage of this approach was simpler implementation. The downside was limited flexibility. This section describes a specific technique designed to model narrowband antennas with two figures of interest: operating frequency, and relative permittivity of the dielectric substrate [24].

### 3.1 Constructing the Surrogate

Here, we assume two figures of interest, specifically, the antenna operating frequency *f* and the relative substrate permittivity *ε*_{r}. The goal is to construct the surrogate for *f*_{min} ≤ *f* ≤ *f*_{max}, and *ε*_{min} ≤ *ε*_{r} ≤ *ε*_{max}. The design that is optimum for particular values of *f* and *ε*_{r} will be denoted as *U*_{f}(*f*, *ε*_{r}).

*f*

^{*}∈ {

*f*

_{min},

*f*

_{0},

*f*

_{max}} and \( \varepsilon_{r}^{*} \) ∈ {

*ε*

_{min},

*ε*

_{r0},

*ε*

_{max}}, cf. Fig. 3.

**v**_{1}=

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{min},

*ε*

_{min}) −

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{0},

*ε*

_{r0}),

**v**_{2}=

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{min},

*ε*

_{r0}) −

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{0},

*ε*

_{r0}),

**v**_{3}=

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{min},

*ε*

_{max}) −

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{0},

*ε*

_{r0}),

**v**_{4}=

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{0},

*ε*

_{max}) −

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{0},

*ε*

_{r0}),

**v**_{5}=

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{max},

*ε*

_{max}) −

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{0},

*ε*

_{r0}),

**v**_{6}=

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{max},

*ε*

_{r0}) −

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{0},

*ε*

_{r0}),

**v**_{7}=

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{max},

*ε*

_{min}) −

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{0},

*ε*

_{r0}), and

**v**_{8}=

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{0},

*ε*

_{min}) −

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{0},

*ε*

_{r0}), see Fig. 3(a). Let

*M*be a manifold spanned by vectors [

**v**_{1},

**v**_{2}], [

**v**_{2},

**v**_{3}], …, [

**v**_{8},

**v**_{1}].

**v**_{9}=

**v**_{1}. Let

*be a point in the parameter space, and*

**z***P*

_{k}(

*) be its projection onto*

**z***M*

_{k}(cf. Fig 4(b)). We have

**v**_{k+1}that is orthogonal to

**v**_{k}. Consider

**v**_{k}and

**v**_{k+1}are of interest. These are given as \( \alpha = \bar{\alpha } - p_{k} \bar{\beta },\beta = \bar{\beta } \). Note that \( P_{k} (\varvec{z}) \) ∈

*M*

_{k}if and only if

*α*≥ 0,

*β*≥ 0, and

*α*+

*β*≤ 1.

**x**_{max}= max{

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{0},

*ε*

_{r0}) +

**v**_{1}, …,

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{0},

*ε*

_{r0}) +

**v**_{8}} and

**x**_{min}= min{

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{0},

*ε*

_{r0}) +

**v**_{1}, …,

*U*

_{f}(

*f*

_{0},

*ε*

_{r0}) +

**v**_{8}};

*=*

**dx**

**x**_{max}−

**x**_{min}is the range of variation of geometry parameters within

*M*. Using these, we can define the domain

*X*

_{S}by imposing the following conditions: a

*∈*

**y***X*

_{S}if

- 1.
is close to**y***M*in the sense that its orthogonal projection belongs to at least one*M*_{k}, i.e., we have \( K(\varvec{y}) = \{ k \in \{ 1, \ldots ,8\} :P_{k} (\varvec{y}) \in M_{k} \} \ne \varnothing \); - 2.
\( \hbox{min} \{ ||(\varvec{y} - P_{k} (\varvec{y}))//\varvec{dx}||:k \in K(\varvec{y})\} \le d_{\hbox{max} } \) (here, //stands for component-wise division);

*d*_{max}is a domain thickness parameter (typically, 0.1 ≤*d*_{max}≤ 0.2).

Note that *d*_{max} in the second condition determines the “perpendicular” size of *X*_{S}. The size of *X*_{S} is dramatically smaller (volume-wise) than the size of the hypercube containing the reference designs. The surrogate itself is constructed using kriging interpolation of the EM model response * R* based on the training data allocated in

*X*

_{S}[24]. The design of experiments is based on random sampling within the interval [

**x**_{min},

**x**_{max}] assuming uniform probability distribution. The samples allocated outside [

**x**_{min},

**x**_{max}] are rejected.

### 3.2 Case Study: Ring Slot Antenna

*= [*

**x***l*

_{f}

*l*

_{d}

*w*

_{d}

*r s s*

_{d}

*o g ε*

_{r}]

^{T};

*ε*

_{r}represents relative permittivity of the substrate. The feed line width

*w*

_{f}is computed for each

*ε*

_{r}to ensure 50 Ω input impedance. The EM is implemented in CST (~300,000 cells, simulation time 90 s). The goal is to construct the surrogate for the following ranged of the operating frequency and substrate permittivity:

*f*

_{min}= 2.5 GHz to

*f*

_{max}= 6.5 GHz, and

*ε*

_{min}= 2.0 to

*ε*

_{max}= 5.0. There are nine reference points generated by optimizing the antenna [28] for the pairs {

*f*

_{0},

*ε*

_{r}} with

*f*∈ {2.5, 4.5, 6.5} GHz and

*ε*

_{r}∈ {2.0, 3.5, 5.0}. The optimization objective is matching improvement at

*f*

_{0}.

*d*

_{max}= 0.2. Model validation was performed using the split-sample method with 100 test designs. The benchmark was kriging interpolation surrogate established in the original domain

*X*= [

**x**_{min},

**x**_{max}] using 1000 samples. The numerical results are gathered in Table 1, see also Fig. 6. Furthermore, Fig. 5(b) illustrates selected projections of the training data set for conventional (uniform) and proposed design of experiments. It can be observed that the accuracy improvement due to constrained sampling is considerable (by a factor of about 3.5). The constrained surrogate that exhibits the same predictive power as the corresponding conventional model can be obtained using around ten times less data samples.

Ring slot antenna: modeling results.

Design space sampling and surrogate modeling technique* | Average relative RMS error |
---|---|

Uniform sampling in the original space, | 7.3% |

Constrained sampling, | 7.8% |

Constrained sampling, | 5.5% |

Constrained sampling, | 3.3% |

Constrained sampling, | 2.1% |

## 4 Constrained Modeling Using Domain Triangulation

In [25], a generalization of the technique presented in Sect. 3 has been proposed, which is based on triangulation of the reference designs. This technique does not only allow for arbitrary distribution of the reference points but it also has no limitations in the number of figures of interest that can be handled.

### 4.1 Constructing the Surrogate

**x**^{(j)}are subject to Delaunay triangulation [29] to form simplexes

*S*

^{(k)},

*k*= 1, …,

*N*

_{S}, whose vertices are

*S*

^{(k)}= {

**x**^{(k.1)}, …,

**x**^{(k.N+1)}}, where

**x**^{(k.j)}∈ {

**x**^{(1)}, …,

**x**^{(N)}},

*j*= 1, …,

*N*+ 1 (cf. Fig. 7(a)).

*X*

_{S}is determined as a vicinity of the manifold

*M*defined as

*M*in the orthogonal complements of the subspaces containing

*S*

^{(k)}. Given a point

*, it is necessary to find the distance from it to*

**z***M*, which can be done by considering a projection

*P*

_{k}(

*) onto the affine subspace*

**z***H*

_{k}⊃

*S*

^{(k)}. We also define the simplex anchor

**x**^{(0)}=

**x**^{(k.1)}, and its spanning vectors

**v**^{(j)}=

**x**^{(k.j+1)}−

**x**^{(0)},

*j*= 1, …,

*N*(cf. Fig. 7(b)). The projection corresponds to the expansion coefficients w.r.t.

**v**^{(j)}[25]

**v**^{(j)}by orthogonalization (i.e., \( \bar{\varvec{v}}^{(1)} = \varvec{v}^{(1)} \), \( \bar{\varvec{v}}^{(2)} = \varvec{v}^{(2)} - a_{12} \varvec{v}^{(1)} \) where

*a*

_{12}=

**v**^{(1)T}

**v**^{(2)}(

**v**^{(1)T}

**v**^{(1)}, etc.). In general

*is a triangular matrix that contains coefficients obtained from the above orthogonalization procedure. The problem (7) is equivalent to*

**A***P*

_{k}(

*) ∈*

**z***hull*(

*S*

^{(k)}) (

*hull*() stands for the convex hull). For that, it is necessary to identify the expansion coefficients

*α*

^{(j)}of

*w.r.t. {*

**z**

**v**^{(j)}}. The latter can be obtained as \( [\alpha^{(1)} \; \ldots \;\alpha^{(N)} ]^{T} = \varvec{A}[\bar{\alpha }^{(1)} \; \ldots \;\bar{\alpha }^{(N)} ]^{T} \). It should be noted that \( P_{k} (\varvec{z}) \) ∈

*S*

^{(k)}if

- 1.
\( \alpha^{(j)} \ge 0\;\;{\text{for}}\;\;j = 1, \ldots ,N, \) and

- 2.
\( \alpha^{(1)} + \ldots + \alpha^{(N)} \le 1 \).

that is, if *P*_{k}(* z*) is a convex combination of the vectors

**v**^{(j)}.

*M*. Using these, the surrogate model domain

*X*

_{S}can be defined as in [24]. More specifically, a vector

*∈*

**y***X*

_{S}if

- 1.
\( K(\varvec{y}) = \{ k \in \{ 1, \ldots ,N_{S} \} :P_{k} (\varvec{y}) \in S^{(k)} \} \ne \varnothing \);

- 2.
\( \hbox{min} \{ ||(\varvec{y} - P_{k} (\varvec{y}))//\varvec{dx}||:k \in K(\varvec{y})\} \le d_{\hbox{max} } \) (//stands for component-wise division);

*d*_{max}is a user-defined parameter determining the domain thickness.

The major benefit of this definition is that *X*_{S} is considerable smaller than the original domain \( X = [{\mathbf{x}}_{\hbox{min} } ,{\mathbf{x}}_{\hbox{max} } ] \) volume-wise, thus the surrogate can be constructed using a reduced training set. Notwithstanding, the domain still contains the optimum designs (with respect to the selected performance figures) so that the surrogate retains its design utility. This is demonstrated in the next section by modeling a dual-band antenna over broad ranges of both geometry and material parameters.

### 4.2 Verification Case: Uniplanar Dipole Antenna

*ε*

_{r}= 3.5 and thickness

*h*= 0.762 mm. There are six adjustable variables

*= [*

**x***l*

_{1}

*l*

_{2}

*l*

_{3}

*w*

_{1}

*w*

_{2}

*w*

_{3}]

^{T}. Other parameters are fixed:

*l*

_{0}= 30,

*w*

_{0}= 3,

*s*

_{0}= 0.15 and

*o*= 5 are fixed (dimensions in mm). The computational model

*is simulated in CST Microwave Studio (~100,000 cells; simulation time 1 min).*

**R**We aim at constructing the surrogate within the following objective space: 2.0 GHz ≤ *f*_{1} ≤ 4.0 GHz (lower band), and 4.5 GHz ≤ *f*_{2} ≤ 6.5 GHz (upper band). Figure 8(b) shows the allocation of the reference designs. The latter have been generated using variable-fidelity feature-based optimization [28].

*d*

_{max}= 0.05 was employed. The numerical results are gathered in Table 2. Conventional kriging metamodel is used as a benchmark. The antenna reflection characteristics according to the surrogate and EM simulation have been shown in Fig. 9.

Modeling results and benchmarking for antenna of Fig. 8.

Number of training samples | Relative RMS error | |
---|---|---|

Conventional surrogate | Triangulation-based surrogate | |

100 | 17.2% | 4.6% |

200 | 12.7% | 3.5% |

400 | 9.3% | 2.8% |

800 | 6.9% | 2.6% |

1600 | 5.7% | 2.3% |

## 5 Modeling Using Nested Kriging

The nested kriging framework proposed in [26] employs two kriging metamodels. One of these models is used to establish the surrogate model domain by mapping the figure-of-interest space into the parameter space and to provide the first approximation of the region of interest. The major advantage of [26] is that design of experiments but also model optimization can be implemented in a convenient way.

### 5.1 Surrogate Model Construction

**s**_{I}(

*) transforms*

**f***F*into the parameter space

*X*. The model

**s**_{I}is set up using the training pairs {

**f**^{(j)},

**x**^{(j)}}

_{j=1,…,p}(see Fig. 10 for a graphical illustration).

*X*

_{S}is defined to contain the designs that are optimum w.r.t.

*f*

_{k},

*k*= 1, …,

*N*. The information obtained from the reference designs only permits for establishing an initial approximation of the optimum design set

*U*

_{f}(

*). As the domain should contain the entire*

**f***U*

_{f}(

*) (or a vast majority of it),*

**f**

**s**_{I}(

*F*) must be enlarged. This is realized by an orthogonal extension of

**s**_{I}(

*F*) towards its normal vectors. We denote by \( \left\{ {\varvec{v}_{n}^{(k)} (f)} \right\},\varvec{k} = 1, \ldots ,n - N \), an orthonormal basis of vectors normal to

**s**_{I}(

*F*) at

*, and define*

**f**

**x**_{max}= [

*x*

_{max.1}…

*x*

_{max.n}]

^{T},

**x**_{min}= [

*x*

_{min.1}…

*x*

_{min.n}]

^{T}, with \( x_{\hbox{max} .k} = \hbox{max} \left\{ {x_{k}^{(j)} ,j = 1, \ldots ,p} \right\} \), and \( x_{\hbox{min} .k} = \hbox{min} \left\{ {x_{k}^{(j)} ,j = 1, \ldots ,p} \right\} \). We also define

**x**_{d}=

**x**_{max}−

**x**_{min}(parameter variations within

**s**_{I}(

*F*)). Further, extension coefficients are defined as follows:

*d*

_{max}denotes the domain thickness. The coefficients

*α*

_{k}are used to delimit

*X*

_{S}(see also Fig. 10(b)) [26] by defining

The second-level surrogate is a kriging model rendered in *X*_{S} based on \( \{ \varvec{x}_{B}^{(k)} ,\varvec{R}(\varvec{x}_{B}^{(k)} )\}_{k = 1, \ldots ,NB} \), where * R* is the EM-simulation model of the structure of interest.

Note that the definition of *X*_{S} facilitates design of experiments which was a problem for both [23] and [25]. It is implemented using (13) and the mappings from the unit interval [0, 1]^{n} onto *X*_{S}. Let {**z**^{(k)}}, *k* = 1, …, *N*_{B}, where **z**^{(k)} = [*z*_{1}^{(k)} … *z*_{n}^{(k)}]^{T}, denote the set of uniformly distributed data points in [0, 1]^{n} (here, using LHS [31]). The mapping is realized in two stages. First, the function *h*_{1}.

*F*× [−1,1]

^{n−N}(× is a Cartesian product). Subsequently, a function

*h*

_{2}is defined as

*F*× [−1, 1]

^{n−N}onto

*X*

_{S}. Hence, uniformly distributed samples

**x**_{B}

^{(k)}in

*X*

_{S}are obtained as \( \varvec{x}_{B}^{(k)} = H(\varvec{z}^{(k)} ) = h_{2} (h_{1} (\varvec{z}^{(k)} )) \).

The surjective mapping *H* also allows for implementing surrogate model optimization in its domain *X*_{S}. In particular, the optimization process can be formally carried out in the primary domain *F* × [−1, 1]^{n−N}, whereas the mapping *H* can be employed to perform evaluation of the structure.

### 5.2 Verification Case: Miniaturized Impedance Transformer

*ε*

_{r}= 3.5 and thickness

*h*= 0.762 mm. The circuit employees compact microstrip resonant cells (CMRCs) shown in Fig. 11(a).

The adjustable variables are * x* = [

*l*

_{1.1}

*l*

_{1.2}

*w*

_{1.1}

*w*

_{1.2}

*w*

_{1.0}

*l*

_{2.1}

*l*

_{2.2}

*w*

_{2.1}

*w*

_{2.2}

*w*

_{2.0}

*l*

_{3.1}

*l*

_{3.2}

*w*

_{3.1}

*w*

_{3.2}

*w*

_{3.0}]

^{T}. The figure-of-interest space contains the operating bands [

*f*

_{1}

*f*

_{2}] with the following ranges: 1.5 GHz ≤

*f*

_{1}≤ 3.5 GHz, and 4.5 GHz ≤

*f*

_{2}≤ 6.5 GHz. Here, the optimum design is understood by minimization of the maximum reflection |

*S*

_{11}| within [

*f*

_{1}

*f*

_{2}] (which is a minimax problem). The allocation of the reference designs has been shown in Fig. 11(c).

*d*

_{max}= 0.05. The modeling error was calculated using the split-sample method with 100 random testing designs. The numerical results are shown in Table 3 (see also Fig. 12). The benchmark includes conventional kriging and RBF metamodels. It can be observed that the nested kriging framework enables two- or even three-fold reduction of the modeling error assuming the same training data set size. It should be emphasized that for this case the predictive power of all conventional surrogates is poor. The primary reason is a large number of geometry parameters and, consequently, a large volume of the conventional domain.

Modeling results and benchmarking for impedance matching transformer.

Number of training samples | Relative RMS error | ||
---|---|---|---|

Conventional models | Nested Kriging model | ||

Kriging | RBF | ||

50 | 49.1% | 56.2% | 17.3% |

100 | 31.1% | 33.0% | 13.9% |

200 | 25.9% | 27.5% | 10.3% |

400 | 20.4% | 23.1% | 7.4% |

800 | 15.7% | 16.8% | 6.1% |

## 6 Conclusions

This paper discussed the recent developments in constrained modeling of high-frequency structures. Domain confinement permits a reduction of the computational overhead related to training data acquisition. At the same time, reliable surrogates can be rendered without formally restricting the ranges of geometry and material parameters as well as the operating conditions. There were three specific realizations of this concept discussed in the work. The main differences between these were in analytical formulation of the surrogate model domain. The simplest technique, discussed in Sect. 3, requires structured allocation of the reference designs. The second method, the triangulation-based modeling of Sect. 4, is more flexible, allows for an arbitrary placement of the reference set, and it can directly handle arbitrary number of operating conditions. The downside is a non-trivial design of experiments. The nested kriging framework is the most comprehensive: the very formulation of the model domain incorporates the means to carry out uniform design of experiments as well as optimization of the surrogate. Notwithstanding, implementation of this approach is more involved. In general, surrogate modeling with domain confinement can be considered a viable workaround dimensionality and parameter range issues, both of which are the fundamental challenges of conventional methods. At the same time, the initial computational overhead required to generate the reference points is well justified when the surrogate is reused, for example, for the purpose of dimension scaling for various operating conditions.

## Notes

### Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Dassault Systemes, France, for making CST Microwave Studio available. This work was supported in part by the Icelandic Centre for Research (RANNIS) Grant 174573051 and by National Science Centre of Poland Grant 2017/27/B/ST7/00563.

## References

- 1.Koziel, S., Unnsteinsson, S.D.: Expedited design closure of antennas by means of trust-region-based adaptive response scaling. IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett.
**17**(6), 1099–1103 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 2.Torun, H.M., Swaminathan, M.: High-dimensional global optimization method for high-frequency electronic design. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech.
**67**(6), 2128–2142 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 3.Hosder, S.: Stochastic response surfaces based on non-intrusive polynomial chaos for uncertainty quantification. Int. J. Num. Model. Num. Optim.
**3**(1/2), 117–139 (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar - 4.Ghassemi, M., Bakr, M., Sangary, N.: Antenna design exploiting adjoint sensitivity-based geometry evolution. IET Microw. Antennas Propag.
**7**(4), 268–276 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 5.Koziel, S., Bekasiewicz, A.: Reliable multistage optimization of antennas for multiple performance figures in highly dimensional parameter spaces. IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett.
**18**(7), 1522–1526 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 6.Bandler, J.W., Hailu, D.M., Madsen, K., Pedersen, F.: A space-mapping interpolating surrogate algorithm for highly optimized EM-based design of microwave devices. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech.
**52**(11), 2593–2600 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 7.Koziel, S., Leifsson, L.: Simulation-Driven Design by Knowledge-Based Response Correction Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30115-0CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 8.Koziel, S., Bekasiewicz, A.: Fast simulation-driven feature-based design optimization of compact dual-band microstrip branch-line coupler. Int. J. RF Microw. Comput. Aided Eng.
**26**(1), 13–20 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.Rasmussen, C.E., Williams, C.K.I.: Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 10.Gorissen, D., Dhaene, T., De Turck, F.: Evolutionary model type selection for global surrogate modeling. J. Mach. Learn. Res.
**10**, 2039–2078 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 11.Chávez-Hurtado, J.L., Rayas-Sánchez, J.E.: Polynomial-based surrogate modeling of RF and microwave circuits in frequency domain exploiting the multinomial theorem. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech.
**64**(12), 4371–4381 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 12.Kitayama, S., Arakawa, M., Yamazaki, K.: Sequential approximate optimization using radial basis function network for engineering optimization. Optim. Eng.
**12**(4), 535–557 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 13.Kleijnen, J.P.C.: Kriging metamodeling in simulation: a review. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**192**(3), 707–716 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 14.Angiulli, G., Cacciola, M., Versaci, M.: Microwave devices and antennas modelling by support vector regression machines. IEEE Trans. Magn.
**43**(4), 1589–1592 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 15.Du, J., Roblin, C.: Statistical modeling of disturbed antennas based on the polynomial chaos expansion. IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett.
**16**, 1843–1846 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 16.Schobi, R., Sudret, B., Wiart, J.: Polynomial-chaos-based kriging. Int. J. Uncertainty Quant.
**5**(2), 171–193 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 17.Liu, H., Hervas, J.R., Ong, Y.S., Cai, J., Wang, Y.: An adaptive RBF-HDMR modeling approach under limited computational budget. Struct. Multidisc. Optim.
**57**(3), 1–18 (2018)Google Scholar - 18.Koziel, S., Bekasiewicz, A.: Computationally feasible narrow-band antenna modeling using response features. Int. J. RF Microw. Comput. Aided Eng.
**27**(4), e21077 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 19.Tropp, J.A., Gilbert, A.C.: Signal recovery from random measurements via orthogonal matching pursuit. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory
**53**(12), 4655–4666 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 20.Wang, F., et al.: Bayesian model fusion: large-scale performance modeling of analog and mixed-signal circuits by reusing early-stage data. IEEE Trans. CAD Integr. Circuits Syst.
**35**(8), 1255–1268 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 21.Koziel, S., Ogurtsov, S., Couckuyt, I., Dhaene, T.: Variable-fidelity electromagnetic simulations and co-kriging for accurate modeling of antennas. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.
**61**(3), 1301–1308 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 22.Jacobs, J.P., Koziel, S.: Two-stage framework for efficient Gaussian process modeling of antenna input characteristics. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.
**62**(2), 706–713 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 23.Koziel, S.: Low-cost data-driven surrogate modeling of antenna structures by constrained sampling. IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett.
**16**, 461–464 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 24.Koziel, S., Bekasiewicz, A.: On reduced-cost design-oriented constrained surrogate modeling of antenna structures. IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett.
**16**, 1618–1621 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 25.Koziel, S., Sigurðsson, A.T.: Triangulation-based constrained surrogate modeling of antennas. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.
**66**(8), 4170–4179 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 26.Koziel, S., Pietrenko-Dabrowska, A.: Performance-based nested surrogate modeling of antenna input characteristics. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.
**67**(5), 2904–2912 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 27.Sim, C.Y.D., Chang, M.H., Chen, B.Y.: Microstrip-fed ring slot antenna design with wideband harmonic suppression. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.
**62**(9), 4828–4832 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 28.Koziel, S.: Fast simulation-driven antenna design using response-feature surrogates. Int. J. RF Microw. Comput. Aided Eng.
**25**(5), 394–402 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 29.Cheng, S.W., Dey, T., Shewchuk, J.: Delaunay Mesh Generation. Chapman and Hall, London (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 30.Chen, Y.C., Chen, S.Y., Hsu, P.: Dual-band slot dipole antenna fed by a coplanar waveguide. In: 2006 IEEE International Symposium Antennas and Propagation (ISAP) (2006)Google Scholar
- 31.Ai, M., Kong, X., Li, K.: A general theory for orthogonal array based Latin hypercube sampling. Statistica Sinica
**26**(2), 761–777 (2016)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 32.Koziel, S., Bekasiewicz, A.: Rapid simulation-driven multi-objective design optimization of decomposable compact microwave passives. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech.
**64**(8), 2454–2461 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar