Advertisement

Harmony Search Algorithm with Ensemble of Surrogate Models

  • Krithikaa Mohanarangam
  • Rammohan Mallipeddi
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 382)

Abstract

Recently, Harmony Search Algorithm (HSA) is gaining prominence in solving real-world optimization problems. Like most of the evolutionary algorithms, finding optimal solution to a given numerical problem using HSA involves several evaluations of the original function and is prohibitively expensive. This problem can be resolved by amalgamating HSA with surrogate models that approximate the output behavior of complex systems based on a limited set of computational expensive simulations. Though, the use of surrogate models can reduce the original functional evaluations, the optimization based on the surrogate model can lead to erroneous results. In addition, the computational effort needed to build a surrogate model to better approximate the actual function can be an overhead. In this paper, we present a novel method in which HSA is integrated with an ensemble of low quality surrogate models. The proposed algorithm is referred to as HSAES and is tested on a set of 10 bound-constrained problems and is compared with conventional HSA.

Keywords

Harmony search algorithm Surrogate modeling Ensemble Global optimization Polynomial regression model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Geem, Z.W., Kim, J.H., Loganathan, G.V.: A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. Simulation 76(2), 60–68 (2001). doi: 10.1177/003754970107600201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Geem, Z.W., Kim, J.H., Loganathan, G.V.: Harmony search optimization: application to pipe network design. Int. J. Model. Simul. 22(2), 125–133 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geem, Z.W., Tseng, C.L.: Engineering Applications of Harmony Search. In: GECCO Late Breaking Papers, pp. 169–173, July 2002Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geem, Z.W., Tseng, C.L.: New Methodology, Harmony Search, its Robustness. In: GECCO Late Breaking Papers, pp. 174–178, July 2002Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paik, K.R., Jeong, J.H., Kim, J.H.: Use of a harmony search for optimal design of coffer dam drainage pipes. J. KSCE 21(2-B), 119–128 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jin, Y.: A comprehensive survey of fitness approximation in evolutionary computation. Soft Computing 9(1), 3–12 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang, J., Sanderson, A.C.: DE-AEC: a differential evolution algorithm based on adaptive evolution control. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2007, pp. 3824–3830, September 2007Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Díaz-Manríquez, A., Toscano-Pulido, G., Gómez-Flores, W.: On the selection of surrogate models in evolutionary optimization algorithms. In: 2011 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), pp. 2155–2162, June 2011Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diao, R., Shen, Q.: Feature selection with harmony search. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics 42(6), 1509–1523 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Manjarres, D., Landa-Torres, I., Gil-Lopez, S., Del Ser, J., Bilbao, M.N., Salcedo-Sanz, S., Geem, Z.W.: A survey on applications of the harmony search algorithm. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 26(8), 1818–1831 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moh’d Alia, O., Mandava, R.: The variants of the harmony search algorithm: an overview. Artif. Intell. 36(1), 49–68 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Forrester, A.I., Keane, A.J.: Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 45(1), 50–79 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giunta, A.A., Watson, L.T., Koehler, J.: A comparison of approximation modeling techniques: polynomial versus interpolating models. AIAA paper, 98–4758 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Daberkow, D.D., Mavris, D.N.: New approaches to conceptual and preliminary aircraft design: A comparative assessment of a neural network formulation and a response surface methodology (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jin, R., Chen, W., Simpson, T.W.: Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 23(1), 1–13 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quinn, G.P., Keough, M.J.: Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of IT EngineeringKyungpook National UniversityDaeguSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations