Pseudo Expected Improvement Matrix Criteria for Parallel Expensive Multi-objective Optimization

  • Dawei Zhan
  • Jiachang Qian
  • Jun Liu
  • Yuansheng Cheng
Conference paper

Abstract

Many engineering optimization problems involve multiple objectives which are sometimes computationally expensive. The multi-objective efficient global optimization (EGO) algorithm which uses a multi-objective expected improvement (EI) function as the infill criterion, is an efficient approach to solve these expensive multi-objective optimization problems. However, the state-of-the-art multi-objective EI criteria are very expensive to compute when the number of objectives is higher than two, thus are not practical to use in real-world problems. In the early work, the authors have proposed three cheap-to-calculate and yet efficient multi-objective EI matrix (EIM) criteria for the expensive multi-objective optimization. In this work, the three EIM criteria are extended for parallel computing to further accelerate the search process of the multi-objective EGO algorithm. The approach selects the first candidate at the maximum of an EIM criterion, and then multiplies the EIs in the EI matrix by the influence function of the first candidate to approximate the updated EIM function. The influence function is designed to simulate the effect that the first candidate will have on the landscape of each EI function. Then the second candidate can be selected at the maximum of the approximated EIM criterion. As the process goes on, a desired number of candidates can be generated in a single optimization iteration. The proposed parallel EIM (called pseudo EIM in this work) criteria have shown significant improvements over the single-point EIM criteria in terms of number of iterations on the selected test instances. The results indicate that the proposed pseudo EIM criteria can speed up the search process of the multi-objective EGO algorithm when parallel computing is available.

Keywords

Parallel computing Kriging model Expected improvement matrix Efficient global optimization Multi-objective optimization 

References

  1. 1.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6(2), 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang, Q.F., Li, H.: MOEA/D: a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 11(6), 712–731 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coello, C.C., Lamont, G.B., Van Veldhuizen, D.A.: Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Springer, New York (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simpson, T.W., Booker, A.J., Ghosh, D., Giunta, A.A., Koch, P.N., Yang, R.-J.: Approximation methods in multidisciplinary analysis and optimization: a panel discussion. Struct. Multi. Optim. 27(5), 302–313 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shan, S., Wang, G.G.: Survey of modeling and optimization strategies to solve high-dimensional design problems with computationally-expensive black-box functions. Struct. Multi. Optim. 41(2), 219–241 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Forrester, A., Sóbester, A., Keane, A.: Engineering design via surrogate modelling: a practical guide. Wiley, Hoboken (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Emmerich, M.T.M., Deutz, A.H., Klinkenberg, J.W.: Hypervolume-based expected improvement: monotonicity properties and exact computation. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Couckuyt, I., Deschrijver, D., Dhaene, T.: Fast calculation of multiobjective probability of improvement and expected improvement criteria for Pareto optimization. J. Glob. Optim. 60(3), 575–594 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bautista, D.C.: A sequential design for approximating the Pareto front using the expected Pareto improvement function. The Ohio State University, Columbus (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Svenson, J., Santner, T.: Multiobjective optimization of expensive-to-evaluate deterministic computer simulator models. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 94, 250–264 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones, D.R., Schonlau, M., Welch, W.J.: Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J. Global Optim. 13(4), 455–492 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones, D.R.: A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces. J. Global Optim. 21(4), 345–383 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhan, D., Cheng, Y., Liu, J.: Expected improvement matrix-based infill criteria for expensive multiobjective optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2017.2697503
  14. 14.
    Zhan, D., Qian, J., Cheng, Y.: Pseudo expected improvement criterion for parallel EGO algorithm. J. Global Optim. (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-016-0484-7
  15. 15.
    Deb, K., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Zitzler, E.: Scalable test problems for evolutionary multi-objective optimization, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory (TIK), ETH Zürich, TIK Report No. 112 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lophaven, S.N., Nielsen, H.B., Søndergaard, J.: Dace - a matlab kriging toolbox, version 2.0 (2002). http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/projects/dace/
  17. 17.
    Price, K., Rainer, M.S., Jouni, A.L.: Differential Evolution: A Practical Approach to Global Optimization. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dawei Zhan
    • 1
  • Jiachang Qian
    • 1
  • Jun Liu
    • 1
  • Yuansheng Cheng
    • 1
  1. 1.Huazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations