Goals of Study
MCalibration supports many different optimization methods. This study examines the performance of the different methods.

Overview
- The different optimization methods are examined by studying 3 different test cases.
- The optimization methods are applied, one at a time, to each test case with the same initial parameters.
- The convergence properties are then extracted and compared.
Case 1: UHMWPE and BB-Model
Case 2: UHMWPE and TNV-Model
Case 3: Silicone Rubber and TNV Model
Summary
- The Automatic Extensive and the CMA-ES optimization methods are most robust in finding the global optimal material parameters.
- When using the Automatic Extensive method, selecting “Repeat the automatic optimization until no further improvements” often helps finding the optimal set of parameters.
- The CMA-ES method often works better if realistic upper and lower bounds are specified for the material parameters.
General Recommendations
- If you just want to run a very quick calibration use "Automatic (Quick)".
- If you want a reasonably accurate calibration, but are willing to sacrifice some accuracy for speed of the calibration, then select “Automatic (Extensive)”.
- If you want the most accurate calibration possible then use one of the following methods: “Automatic (Extensive)” and select “Repeat the automatic optimization until no further improvements", or use CMA-ES.