Advertisement

Classifying Metamodeling Methods for Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization: First Results

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10173)

Abstract

In many practical optimization problems, evaluation of objectives and constraints often involve computationally expensive procedures. To handle such problems, a metamodel-assisted approach is usually used to complete an optimization run in a reasonable amount of time. A metamodel is an approximate mathematical model of an objective or a constrained function which is constructed with a handful of solutions evaluated exactly. However, when comes to solving multi-objective optimization problems involving numerous constraints, it may be too much to metamodel each and every objective and constrained function independently. The cumulative effect of errors from each metamodel may turn out to be detrimental for the accuracy of the overall optimization procedure. In this paper, we propose a taxonomy of various metamodeling methodologies for multi-objective optimization and provide a comparative study by discussing advantages and disadvantages of each method. The first results presented in this paper are obtained using the well-known Kriging metamodeling approach. Based on our proposed taxonomy and an extensive literature search, we also highlight new and promising methods for multi-objective metamodeling algorithms.

Keywords

Surrogate model Metamodel Evolutionary multi-objective optimization Kriging Taxonomy 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Authors acknowledge the Matlab Kriging code provided by Dr. Cem Tutum.

References

  1. 1.
    Cassioli, A., Schoen, F.: Global optimization of expensive black box problems with a known lower bound. J. Glob. Optim. 57(1), 177–190 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coelho, R.F., Lebon, J., Bouillard, P.: Hierarchical stochastic metamodels based on moving least squares and polynomial chaos expansion. Struct. Multi. Optim. 43, 707–729 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Das, I., Dennis, J.E.: Normal-boundary intersection: a new method for generating the Pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimization problems. SIAM J. Optim. 8(3), 631–657 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deb, K.: An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 186(2–4), 311–338 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deb, K.: Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Wiley, Chichester (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deb, K., Abouhawwash, M.: A optimality theory based proximity measure for set based multi-objective optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 20(4), 515–528 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6(2), 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deb, K., Datta, R.: A fast and accurate solution of constrained optimization problems using a hybrid bi-objective and penalty function approach. In: Proceedings of the IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (WCCI 2010), pp. 165–172 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deb, K., Jain, H.: An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point based non-dominated sorting approach, Part I: Solving problems with box constraints. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 18(4), 577–601 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Díaz-Manríquez, A., Toscano, G., Barron-Zambrano, J.H., Tello-Leal, E.: A review of surrogate assisted multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2016, 1–14 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horn, D., Wagner, T., Biermann, D., et al.: Model-based multi-objective optimization: taxonomy, multi-point proposal, toolbox and benchmark. In: Gaspar-Cunha, A., Henggeler Antunes, C., Coello, C.C. (eds.) EMO 2015. LNCS, vol. 9018, pp. 64–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-15934-8_5 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hussein, R., Deb, K.: A generative kriging surrogate model for constrained and unconstrained multi-objective optimization. In: Proceedings of GECCO 2016. ACM Press (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jin, Y.: A comprehensive survey of fitness approximation in evolutionary computation. Soft Comput. 9(1), 3–12 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones, D., Schonlau, M., Welch, W.: Effcient global optimization of expensive. J. Glob. Optim. 13, 455–492 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones, D.R.: A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces. J. Glob. Optim. 21(4), 345–383 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Knowles, J.: ParEGO: a hybrid algorithm with on-line landscape approximation for expensive multiobjective optimization problems. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 10(1), 50–66 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Le, M.N., Ong, Y.S., Menzel, S., et al.: Multi co-objective evolutionary optimization: cross surrogate augmentation for computationally expensive problems. In: Proceedings of CEC 2012, pp. 2871–2878. IEEE Press (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martínez, S.Z., Coello, C.A.C.: MOEA/D assisted by RBF networks for expensive multi-objective optimization problems. In: Proceedings of Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martínez-Frutos, J., Pérez, D.H.: Kriging-based infill sampling criterion for constraint handling in multi-objective optimization. J. Glob. Optim. 64, 97–115 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miettinen, K.: Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization. Kluwer, Boston (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Namura, N., Shimoyama, K., Obayashi, S.: Kriging surrogate model enhanced by coordinate transformation of design space based on eigenvalue decomposition. In: Gaspar-Cunha, A., Henggeler Antunes, C., Coello, C.C. (eds.) EMO 2015. LNCS, vol. 9018, pp. 321–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-15934-8_22 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Quintero, L.V.S., Montano, A.A., Coello, C.A.C.: A Review of techniques for handling expensive functions in evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In: Tenne, Y., Goh, C.-K. (eds.) Computational Intelligence in Expensive Optimization Problems. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shi, L., Rasheed, K.: A survey of fitness approximation methods applied in evolutionary algorithms. In: Tenne, Y., Goh, C.-K. (eds.) Computational Intelligence in Expensive Optimization Problems. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sreekanth, J., Datta, B.: Multi-objective management of saltwater intrusion in coastal aquifers using genetic programming and modular neural network based surrogate models. J. Hydrol. 393, 245–256 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steuer, R.E.: Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory Computation and Application. Wiley, New York (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tsoukalas, I., Makropoulos, C.: Multiobjective optimisation on a budget: exploring surrogate modelling for robust multi-reservoir rules generation under hydrological uncertainty. Environ. Model. Softw. 69, 396–413 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Verbeeck, D., Maes, F., De Grave, K., Blockeel, H.: Multi-Objective Optimization with Surrogate Trees. In: Proceedings of GECCO 2013, pp. 679–686. ACM Press (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang, Q., Li, H.: MOEA/D: A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 11(6), 712–731 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang, Y., Hu, S., Wu, J., Zhang, Y., Chen, L.: Multi-objective optimization of double suction centrifugal pump using kriging metamodels. Adv. Eng. Softw. 74, 16–26 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Information Technology LaboratoryCINVESTAV-TamaulipasVictoriaMexico

Personalised recommendations