Advertisement

Computational Statistics

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 467–485 | Cite as

Local optimization of black-box functions with high or infinite-dimensional inputs: application to nuclear safety

  • Angelina Roche
Original Paper

Abstract

Black-box optimization problems when the input space is a high-dimensional space or a function space appear in more and more applications. In this context, the methods available for finite-dimensional data do not apply. The aim is then to propose a general method for optimization involving dimension reduction techniques. Different dimension reduction basis are considered (including data-driven basis). The methodology is illustrated on simulated functional data. The choice of the different parameters, in particular the dimension of the approximation space, is discussed. The method is finally applied to a problem of nuclear safety.

Keywords

Experimental design Response surface methods Black-box optimization Functional data analysis 

References

  1. Box GEP, Hunter JS (1957) Multi-factor experimental designs for exploring response surfaces. Ann Math Stat 28(1):195–241MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Brunel É, Mas A, Roche A (2016) Non-asymptotic adaptive prediction in functional linear models. J Multivariate Anal 143:208–232MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Cardot H, Ferraty F, Sarda P (1999) Functional linear model. Stat Probab Lett 45(1):11–22MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Cardot H, Sarda P (2010) Functional linear regression. In: Ferraty F, Romain Y (eds) Handbook of functional data analysis. Oxford University Press, pp 21–46Google Scholar
  5. Delaigle A, Hall P (2012) Methodology and theory for partial least squares applied to functional data. Ann Stat 40(1):322–352MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Draper NR, Guttman I (1988) An index of rotatability. Technometrics 30(1):105–111MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Draper NR, Lin DKJ (1990) Small response-surface designs. Technometrics 32(2):187–194MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Draper NR, Pukelsheim F (1990) Another look at rotatability. Technometrics 32(2):195–202MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Durantin C, Marzat J, Balesdent M (2016) Analysis of multi-objective Kriging-based methods for constrained global optimization. Comput Optim Appl 63(3):903–926MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Engl HW, Hanke M, Neubauer A (1996) Regularization of inverse problems, mathematics and its applications, vol 375. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, DordrechtCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Georgiou SD, Stylianou S, Aggarwal M (2014) A class of composite designs for response surface methodology. Comput Stat Data Anal 71:1124–1133MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gunst RF, Mason RL (2009) Fractional factorial design. WIREs Comput Stat 1(2):234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hall P (2011) Principal component analysis for functional data: methodology, theory, and discussion. In: The Oxford handbook of functional data analysis, pp 210–234. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Khuri AI (1988) A measure of rotatability for response-surface designs. Technometrics 30(1):95–104MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Khuri AI (2001) An overview of the use of generalized linear models in response surface methodology. In: Proceedings of the third world congress of nonlinear analysts, Part 3 (Catania, 2000), vol 47, pp 2023–2034 . No. 3Google Scholar
  16. Khuri AI, Mukhopadhyay S (2010) Response surface methodology. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat 2(2):128–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee SY, Zhang W, Song XY (2002) Estimating the covariance function with functional data. Br J Math Stat Psychol 55(2):247–261MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lenth RV (2009) Response-surface methods in R, using RSM. J Stat Softw 32(7):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu H, Xu S, Ma Y, Wang X (2015a) Global optimization of expensive black box functions using potential Lipschitz constants and response surfaces. J Glob Optim 63(2):229–251MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu Z, Li W, Yang M (2015b) Two general extension algorithms of latin hypercube sampling. Math Probl Eng pp Art. ID 450,492,9Google Scholar
  21. Morris MD (2000) A class of three-level experimental designs for response surface modeling. Technometrics 42(2):111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Müller HG, Stadtmüller U (2005) Generalized functional linear models. Ann Stat 33(2):774–805MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (2009) Response surface methodology. Process and product optimization using designed experiments, 3rd edn. Wiley series in probability and statistics. Wiley, HobokenzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Park SH, Lim JH, Baba Y (1993) A measure of rotatability for second order response surface designs. Ann Inst Stat Math 45(4):655–664MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Pázman A (1986) Foundations of optimum experimental design, mathematics and its applications (East European Series), vol 14. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht (Translated from the Czech)Google Scholar
  26. Preda C, Saporta G (2005) PLS regression on a stochastic process. Comput Stat Data Anal 48(1):149–158MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Qi X, Luo R (2015) Sparse principal component analysis in Hilbert space. Scand J Stat 42(1):270–289MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Queipo N, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Goel T, Vaidyanathan R, Tucker P (2005) Surrogate-based analysis and optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci 41(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ramsay J, Silverman B (2005) Functional data analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramsay JO, Dalzell CJ (1991) Some tools for functional data analysis. J R Stat Soc B Methods 53(3):539–572MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Rice JA, Silverman BW (1991) Estimating the mean and covariance structure nonparametrically when the data are curves. J R Stat Soc Ser B 53(1):233–243MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Simpson T, Poplinski J, Koch P, Allen J (2001) Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: survey and recommendations. Eng Comput 17(2):129–150CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Tang Y, Chen J, Wei J (2013) A surrogate-based particle swarm optimization algorithm for solving optimization problems with expensive black box functions. Eng Optim 45(5):557–576MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wold H (1975) Soft modelling by latent variables: the non-linear iterative partial least squares (NIPALS) approach. In: Perspectives in probability and statistics (papers in honour of M. S. Bartlett on the occasion of his 65th birthday), pp 117–142. Applied Probability Trust, University of Sheffield, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  35. Zou H, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2006) Sparse principal component analysis. J Comput Graph Stat 15(2):265–286MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Paris-Dauphine, PSL Research University, CNRS, UMR [7534], CEREMADEParis Cedex 16France

Personalised recommendations