Genetic Programming for Modeling Vibratory Finishing Process: Role of Experimental Designs and Fitness Functions

  • Akhil Garg
  • Kang Tai
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8298)


Manufacturers seek to improve efficiency of vibratory finishing process while meeting increasingly stringent cost and product requirements. To serve this purpose, mathematical models have been formulated using soft computing methods such as artificial neural network and genetic programming (GP). Among these methods, GP evolves model structure and its coefficients automatically. There is extensive literature on ways to improve the performance of GP but less attention has been paid to the selection of appropriate experimental designs and fitness functions. The evolution of fitter models depends on the experimental design used to sample the problem (system) domain, as well as on the appropriate fitness function used for improving the evolutionary search. This paper presents quantitative analysis of two experimental designs and four fitness functions used in GP for the modeling of vibratory finishing process. The results conclude that fitness function SRM and PRESS evolves GP models of higher generalization ability, which may then be deployed by experts for optimization of the finishing process.


vibratory finishing fitness function vibratory modeling GPTIPS experimental designs finishing modeling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Domblesky, J., Evans, R., Cariapa, V.: Material removal model for vibratory finishing. International Journal of Production Research 42, 1029–1041 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gillespie, L.: A quantitative approach to vibratory deburring effectiveness, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Technical paper MR 75-11 (1975)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brust, P.C.: Surface improvement by vibratory cascade finishing process. Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davidson, D.A.: Mechanical Surface Preparation - Mass Finishing Processes. Metal Finishing 1, 75 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang, S., Timsit, R.S., Spelt, J.K.: Experimental investigation of vibratory finishing of aluminum. Wear 243, 147–156 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hashimoto, F.: Modelling and optimization of vibratory finishing process. CIRP Annals Manufacturing Technology 45, 303–306 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sofronas, A., Taraman, S.: Model Development and Optimization Of Vibratory Finishing Process. Int. J. Prod. Res. 17, 23–31 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pande, S.S., Patel, S.M.: Investigations on vibratory burnishing process. International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research 24, 195–206 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garg, A., Tai, K.: A Hybrid Genetic Programming-Artificial Neural Network Approach for Modeling of Vibratory Finishing Process. In: International Proceedings of Computer Science and Information Technology, ICIIC 2011-International Conference on Information and Intelligent Computing, Hong Kong, November 25-26, vol. 18, pp. 14–19 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garg, A., Tai, K.: Comparison of regression analysis, Artificial Neural Network and genetic programming in Handling the multicollinearity problem. In: Proceedings of 2012 International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control (ICMIC 2012), Wuhan, China, June 24-26, pp. 353–358. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garg, A., Tai, K.: Review of genetic programming in modeling of machining processes. In: Proceedings of 2012 International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control (ICMIC 2012), Wuhan, China, June 24-26, pp. 653–658. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garg, A., Tai, K.: Comparison of statistical and machine learning methods in modelling of data with multicollinearity. Int. J. Modelling, Identification and Control 18(4), 295–312 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garg, A., Tai, K.: Selection of a Robust Experimental Design for the Effective Modeling of the Nonlinear Systems using Genetic Programming. In: Proceedings of 2013 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence and Data mining (CIDM), Singapore, April 16-19, pp. 293–298 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garg, A., Bhalerao, Y., Tai, K.: Review of Empirical Modeling Techniques for Modeling of Turning Process. International Journal of Modelling, Identification and Control 20(2), 121–129 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garg, A., Rachmawati, L., Tai, K.: Classification-Driven Model Selection Approach of Genetic Programming in Modelling of Turning Process. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (in press, 2013), doi:10.1007/s00170-013-5103-xGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garg, A., Savalani, M.M., Tai, K.: State-of-the-Art in Empirical Modelling of Rapid Prototyping Processes. Rapid Prototyping Journal (in press, 2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garg, A., Sriram, S., Tai, K.: Empirical Analysis of Model Selection Criteria for Genetic Programming in Modeling of Time Series System. In: Proceedings of 2013 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence for Financial Engineering & Economics (CIFEr), Singapore, April 16-19, pp. 84–88 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garg, A., Tai, K., Lee, C.H., Savalani, M.M.: A Hybrid M5-Genetic Programming Approach for Ensuring Greater Trustworthiness of Prediction Ability In Modelling of FDM Process. Journal Of Intelligent Manufacturing (in press, 2013), doi:10.1007/s10845-013-0734-1Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Can, B., Heavey, C.: Comparison of experimental designs for simulation-based symbolic regression of manufacturing systems. Computers & Industrial Engineering 61, 447–462 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Akaike, H.: A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 716–723 (1974)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barron, A.R.: Predicted squared error: a criterion for automatic model selection. Self-Organizing Methods in Modeling 54, 87–103 (1984)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miller, A.J.: Subset selection in regression. CRC Press, Florida (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moody, J.: Prediction risk and architecture selection for neural networks. Nato Asi Series F Computer and Systems Sciences, vol. 136, p. 147 (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rust, R.T., et al.: Model selection criteria: An investigation of relative accuracy, posterior probabilities, and combinations of criteria. Management Science 41, 322–333 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schwarz, G.: Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics 6(2), 461–464 (1978)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vapnik, V.N.: Statistical learning theory. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., USA (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Croarkin, C., Tobias, P.: NIST/SEMATECH e-handbook of statistical methods. NIST/SEMATECH (July 2006),
  28. 28.
    Harris, C.M., Hoffman, K.L., Yarrow, L.A.: Using integer programming techniques for the solution of an experimental design problem. Annals of Operations Research 58, 243–260 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yildiz, G., Eski, O.: An artificial neural network based simulation metamodeling approach for dual resource constrained assembly line. In: Kollias, S.D., Stafylopatis, A., Duch, W., Oja, E. (eds.) ICANN 2006. LNCS, vol. 4132, pp. 1002–1011. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koza, J.R.: Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hinchliffe, M., Hiden, H., Mckay, B., Willis, M., Tham, M., Barton, G.: Modelling chemical process systems using a multi-gene genetic programming algorithm. Late breaking paper, GP 1996, Stanford, USA, pp. 28–31 (1996)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hiden, H.G.: Data-Based Modelling using Genetic Programming. PhD Thesis, Dept. Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Newcastle, UK (1998)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Searson, D.P., Leahy, D.E., Willis, M.J.: GPTIPS: an open source genetic programming toolbox for multigene symbolic regression. In: Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, pp. 77–80. Citeseer (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Garg, A., Vijayaraghavan, V., Mahapatra, S.S., Tai, K., Wong, C.H.: Performance evaluation of microbial fuel cell by artificial intelligence methods. Expert Systems with Applications (2013),

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akhil Garg
    • 1
  • Kang Tai
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations