Skip to main content

Analysis of multi-objective Kriging-based methods for constrained global optimization


Metamodeling, i.e., building surrogate models to expensive black-box functions, is an interesting way to reduce the computational burden for optimization purpose. Kriging is a popular metamodel based on Gaussian process theory, whose statistical properties have been exploited to build efficient global optimization algorithms. Single and multi-objective extensions have been proposed to deal with constrained optimization when the constraints are also evaluated numerically. This paper first compares these methods on a representative analytical benchmark. A new multi-objective approach is then proposed to also take into account the prediction accuracy of the constraints. A numerical evaluation is provided on the same analytical benchmark and a realistic aerospace case study.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12


  1. Krige, D.G.: A statistical approach to some basic mine valuation problems on the witwatersrand. J. Chem. Metall. Min. Soc. S. Afr. 52(6), 119–139 (1951)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Schonlau, M., Welch, W.J.: Global optimization with nonparametric function fitting. In: Proceedings of the ASA, Section on Physical and Engineering Sciences, pp. 183–186. (1996)

  3. Jones, D.R., Schonlau, M.J., Welch, W.J.: Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J. Glob. Optim. 13(4), 455–492 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Kushner, H.J.: A new method of locating the maximum point of an arbitrary multipeak curve in the presence of noise. J. Fluids Eng. 86(1), 97–106 (1964)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Kleijnen, J.P.C.: Kriging metamodeling in simulation: a review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 192(3), 707–716 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Picheny, V.: A stepwise uncertainty reduction approach to constrained global optimization. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Reykjavik, Iceland, pp. 787–795. (2014)

  7. Basudhar, A., Dribusch, C., Lacaze, S., Missoum, S.: Constrained efficient global optimization with support vector machines. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 46(2), 201–221 (2012)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Parr, J.M., Keane, A.J., Forrester, A.I.J., Holden, C.M.E.: Infill sampling criteria for surrogate-based optimization with constraint handling. Eng. Optim. 44(10), 1147–1166 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fletcher, R., Leyffer, S.: Nonlinear programming without a penalty function. Math. Program. 91(2), 239–269 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Audet, C., Dennis Jr, J.E.: A pattern search filter method for nonlinear programming without derivatives. SIAM J. Optim. 14(4), 980–1010 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Audet, C., Dennis Jr, J.E.: A progressive barrier for derivative-free nonlinear programming. SIAM J. Optim. 20(1), 445–472 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Le Digabel, S.: Algorithm 909: NOMAD: nonlinear optimization with the MADS algorithm. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 37(4), 44 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rasmussen, C.E., Williams, C.K.I.: Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. Springer, New York (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Vazquez, E.: Modélisation comportementale de systèmes non-linéaires multivariables par méthodes à noyaux et applications. PhD thesis, Université Paris Sud-Paris XI. (2005)

  15. Santner, T.J., Williams, B.J., Notz, W.: The Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments. Springer, Berlin (2003)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Hansen, N., Kern, S.: Evaluating the CMA evolution strategy on multimodal test functions. In: Parallel Problem Solving from Nature-PPSN VIII, pp. 282–291. Springer, New York (2004)

  17. Jones, D.R.: A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces. J. Glob. Optim. 21(4), 345–383 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Forrester, A.I.J., Sobester, A., Keane, A.J.: Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling: A Practical Guide. Wiley, Chichester (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Sasena, M.J.: Flexibility and efficiency enhancements for constrained global design optimization with Kriging approximations. PhD Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. (2002)

  20. Jones, D.R., Perttunen, C.D., Stuckman, B.E.: Lipschitzian optimization without the Lipschitz constant. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 79(1), 157–181 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Vazquez, E., Bect, J.: Convergence properties of the expected improvement algorithm with fixed mean and covariance functions. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 140(11), 3088–3095 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Sasena, M.J., Papalambros, P.Y., Goovaerts, P.: The use of surrogate modeling algorithms to exploit disparities in function computation time within simulation-based optimization. Constraints 2, 5 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Audet, C., Dennis Jr, J.E.: Mesh adaptive direct search algorithms for constrained optimization. SIAM J. Optim. 17(1), 188–217 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Hansen, N.: The CMA evolution strategy: a comparing review. In Towards a New Evolutionary Computation, pp. 75–102. Springer, New York (2006)

  25. Audet,C., Booker, A.J., Dennis Jr., J.E., Frank, P.D., Moore, D.W.: A surrogate-model-based method for constrained optimization. In: Proceedings of the 8th AIAA/NASA/USAF/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Long Beach, CA, USA. Paper No. AIAA-2000-4891 (2000)

  26. Parr, J.M., Forrester, A.I.J., Keane, A.J., Holden, C.M.E.: Enhancing infill sampling criteria for surrogate-based constrained optimization. J. Comput. Methods Sci. Eng. 12(1), 25–45 (2012)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Waldock, A., Corne, D.: Multiple objective optimisation applied to route planning. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Dublin, pp. 1827–1834. ACM (2011)

  28. Deb, K.: Multi-objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Wiley, Chichester (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Audet, C., Savard, G., Zghal, W.: A mesh adaptive direct search algorithm for multiobjective optimization. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 204(3), 545–556 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors are indebted to Sébastien Defoort (ONERA) for the definition of the booster benchmark model.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julien Marzat.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Durantin, C., Marzat, J. & Balesdent, M. Analysis of multi-objective Kriging-based methods for constrained global optimization. Comput Optim Appl 63, 903–926 (2016).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Black-box functions
  • Constrained global optimization
  • Kriging
  • Multi-objective optimization