Advertisement

Hybrid meta-model-based global optimum pursuing method for expensive problems

  • Jichao GuEmail author
  • Heng Zhang
  • Xingu Zhong
Research Paper
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

In this work, a hybrid meta-model-based global optimum pursuing (HMGOP) method is proposed for the expensive practical problems. In this method, a so-called important region is constructed using several expensive points. Three representative meta-models will then be used in both the important region and remaining region. A strategy to leave enough space for the remaining region has also been proposed to avoid the undesired points due to the narrow remaining region. The search process in the whole design space will also be carried out to further demonstrate the global optimum. Through test by several two-dimensional (2D) functions, each of which having several local optima, the proposed method shows great ability to escape the trap of the local optima. Through test with six high-dimensional problems, the proposed HMGOP method shows excellent search accuracy, efficiency, and robustness. Then, the proposed HMGOP method is applied in a vehicle lightweight design with 30 design variables, achieving satisfied results.

Keywords

Hybrid meta-model Multiple set of initial points Global optimum pursuing Global optimization Expensive problems 

Notes

Funding information

This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant number 51505138.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Acar E, Rais-Rohani M (2009) Ensemble of metamodels with optimized weight factors. Struct Multidiscip Optim 37(3):279–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adorio EP (2005) MVF - multivariate test functions library in c for unconstrained global optimization. www.geocities.ws/eadorio/mvf.pdf
  3. Byrd RH, Schnabel RB, Shultz GA (1987) A trust region algorithm for nonlinearly constrained optimization. SIAM J Numer Anal 24(5):1152–1170MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cai Y, Zhang L, Gu J, Yue Y, Wang Y (2017) Multiple meta-models based design space differentiation method for expensive problems. Struct Multidiscip Optim.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-017-1854-6
  5. Cai Y, Zhang L, Gu J, Yue Y, Wang Y (2018) Multiple meta-models based design space differentiation method for expensive problems. Struct Multidiscip Optim 57(6):2249–2258MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Celis M, Dennis J, Tapia R (1985) A trust region strategy for nonlinear equality constrained optimization In: Boggs, P.T., Byrd, R.H., Schnabel, R.B., eds., Numerical optimization 1984, SIAM, Philadelphia, pp 71–82Google Scholar
  7. Clarke SM, Griebsch JH, Simpson TW (2005) Analysis of support vector regression for approximation of complex engineering analyses. Transactions of ASME, Journal of Mechanical Design 127(6):1077–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cressie N (1988) Spatial prediction and ordinary kriging. Math Geol 20(4):405–421MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cressie NAC (1993) Statistics for spatial data. Revised, John Wiley & Sons, New YorkzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dyn N, Levin D, Rippa S (1986) Numerical procedures for surface fitting of scattered data by radial basis functions. SIAM J Sci Stat Comput 7(2):639–659zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engelund WC, Douglas OS, Lepsch RA, McMillian MM, Unal R (1993) Aerodynamic configuration design using response surface methodology analysis. Paper presented at the AIAA, Aircraft Design, Systems and Operations Meeting; Aug. 11-13, 1993, Monterey, CA; United States Paper No. AIAA 93-3967,Google Scholar
  12. Fadel GM, Cimtalay S (1993) Automatic evaluation of move-limits in structural optimization. Structural Optimization 6(4):233–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fadel GM, Riley MF, Barthelemy JM (1990) Two point exponential approximation method for structural optimization. Structural Optimization 2(2):117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferreira W, Serpa A (2016) Ensemble of metamodels: the augmented least squares approach. Struct Multidiscip Optim 53(5):1–28MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferreira W, Serpa A (2018) Ensemble of metamodels: extensions of the least squares approach to efficient global optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 57(1):131–159MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forsberg J, Nilsson L (2005) On polynomial response surfaces and kriging for use in structural optimization of crashworthiness. Struct Multidiscip Optim 29:232–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedman JH (1991) Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann Stat 19(1):1–67MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gao FL, Bai YC, Lin C, Kim IY (2019) A time-space kriging-based sequential metamodeling approach for multi-objective crashworthiness optimization. Appl Math Model 69:378–404MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goel T, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Queipo NV (2007) Ensemble of surrogates. Struct Multidiscip Optim 33(3):199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gu J, Li GY, Dong Z (2012) Hybrid and adaptive meta-model-based global optimization. Eng Optim 44(1):87–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gu L (2001) A comparison of polynomial based regression models in vehicle safety analysis. Paper presented at the Proceedings 2001 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences-Design Automation Conference, ASME, Pittsburgh, PA, September 9-12, Paper No. DETC2001/DAC-21063. New York: ASME,Google Scholar
  22. Fang H, MH (2006) Global response approximation with radial basis functions. Eng Optim 38(4):407–424Google Scholar
  23. Hardy RL (1971) Multiquadratic equations of topography and other irregular surfaces. JGeophus Res 76(8):1905–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hedar A-R (2005) Test functions for unconstrained global optimization. http://www-optima.amp.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp/member/student/hedar/Hedar_files/TestGO_files/Page2904.htm
  25. Yin J, Ng SH, Ng KM (2011) Kriging metamodel with modified nugget-effect: the heteroscedastic variance case. Comput Ind Eng 61(3):760–777MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jie H, Wu Y, Ding J (2015) An adaptive metamodel-based global optimization algorithm for black-box type problems. Eng Optim 47(11):1459–1480MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jin R, Chen W, Simpson TW (2001) Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct Multidiscip Optim 23(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones DR, Schonlau M, Welch W (1998) Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J Glob Optim 13(4):455–492MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krige DG (1953) A statistical approach to some mine valuation and allied problems on the Witwatersrand. Master’s thesis, University of the WitwatersrandGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee J (2007) A novel three-phase trajectory informed search methodology for global optimization. J Glob Optim 2007(38):61–77MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lin C, Gao F, Bai Y (2018) An intelligent sampling approach for metamodel-based multi-objective optimization with guidance of the adaptive weighted-sum method. Struct Multidiscip Optim 57(3):1047–1060MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lophaven SN, Nielsen HB, Søndergaard J (2002) DACE - A Matlab kriging toolbox - version 2.0. Report IMM-REP-2002-12, Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  33. Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (2009) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. John Wiley& Sons, INC., Hoboken, New JerseyzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodriguez JF, Renaud JE, Watson LT (1998) Trust region augmented Lagrangian methods for sequential response surface approximation and optimization. J Mech Des 120(1):58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sacks J, Schiller SB, Welch W (1989a) Designs for computer experiments. Technometrics 31(1):41–47MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell TJ, Wynn HP (1989b) Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci 4(4):409–423MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shin YS, Grandhi RV (2001) A global structural optimization technique using an interval method. Struct Multidiscip Optim 22(5):351–363Google Scholar
  38. Simpson TW, Mauery TM, Korte JJ, Mistree F (1998) Comparison of response surface and kriging models for multidisciplinary design optimization. Paper presented at the in AIAA paper 98-4758. 7 th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and OptimizationGoogle Scholar
  39. Simpson TW, Peplinski JD, Koch PN, Allen JK (2001) Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: survey and recommendations. Eng Comput 17(2):129–150zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van Beers WCM, Kleijnen JPC (2003) Kriging for interpolation in random simulation. J Oper Res Soc 54(3):255–262Google Scholar
  41. Viana FAC, Haftka RT, Watson LT (2013) Efficient global optimization algorithm assisted by multiple surrogate techniques. J Glob Optim 56(2):669–689zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang GG (2003) Adaptive response surface method using inherited Latin hypercube design points. Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Mechanical Design 125(2):210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang GG, Dong Z, Aitchisonc P (2001) Adaptive response surface method - a global optimization scheme for approximation-based design problems. Eng Optim 33(6):707–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang GG, Shan S (2006) Review of metamodeling techniques in support of engineering design optimization. ASME J Mech Design 129(4):370–380.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2429697 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang GG, Simpson T (2004) Fuzzy clustering based hierarchical metamodeling for design space reduction and optimization. Eng Optim 36:313–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang H, Li E, Li GY, Zhong ZH (2008) A metamodel optimization methodology based on multi-level fuzzy clustering space reduction strategy and its applications. Comput Ind Eng 55(2):503–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang LQ, Shan S, Wang GG (2004) Mode-pursuing sampling method for global optimization on expensive black-box functions. Eng Optim 36(4):419–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wujek BA, Renaud JE (1998a) New adaptive move-limit management strategy for approximate optimization, Part1. AIAA J 36(10):1911–1921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wujek BA, Renaud JE (1998b) New adaptive move-limit management strategy for approximate optimization, Part2. AIAA J 36(10):1922–1934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xiong F, Chen W, Xiong Y, Yang S (2011) Weighted stochastic response surface method considering sample weights. Struct Multidiscip Optim 43(6):837–849.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-011-0621-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Younis A, Xu, R., Dong Z (2007) Approximated unimodal region elimination based global optimization method for engineering design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDET/CIE 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, September 4–7Google Scholar
  52. Zhang J, Chowdhury S, Messac A (2012) An adaptive hybrid surrogate model. Struct Multidiscip Optim 46(2):223–238.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-012-0764-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhou XJ, ZhongMa Y, Li XF (2011) Ensemble of surrogates with recursive arithmetic average. Struct Multidiscip Optim 44(5):651–671.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-011-0655-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Baoneng Motor R&D CenterGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations