Robust Design using Pareto type optimization: A genetic algorithm with arithmetic crossover

In dual response systems (DRSs) optimization restrictions on the secondary response may rule out better conditions, since an acceptable value for the secondary response is usually unknown. In fact, process conditions that result in a smaller standard deviation are often preferable. Recently, several authors stated that the standard deviation of any performance property could be treated as a new property in its own right as far as Pareto optimizer was concerned. By doing this, there will be many alternative solutions (i.e., the trade-offs between the mean and standard deviation responses) of the DRS problem and Pareto optimization can explore them all. Such analysis is useful, and that is required in order to achieve an improved understanding of the problem before searching for a final optimal solution. In this paper, we again follow this new philosophy and solve the DRS problem by using a genetic algorithm with arithmetic crossover. The genetic algorithm is applied to the printing process problem for improving the quality of a printing process. Genetic algorithms, in contrast to the one-solution-at-a-time approach of most optimization algorithms, maintain a population of hundreds, or thousands, of solutions in speedy manner.

[1]  Douglas C. Montgomery,et al.  Optimization Problems and Methods in Quality Control and Improvement , 2000 .

[2]  In-Jun Jeong,et al.  Optimal Weighting of Bias and Variance in Dual Response Surface Optimization , 2005 .

[3]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  Nonlinear multiobjective optimization , 1998, International series in operations research and management science.

[4]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic and evolutionary algorithms come of age , 1994, CACM.

[5]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[6]  Dennis K. J. Lin,et al.  Dual Response Surface Optimization: A Fuzzy Modeling Approach , 1998 .

[7]  G. Geoffrey Vining,et al.  Combining Taguchi and Response Surface Philosophies: A Dual Response Approach , 1990 .

[8]  T. Yalcinoz,et al.  A Hopfield Neural Network Approach to the Dual Response Problem , 2005 .

[9]  Douglas C. Montgomery,et al.  A Nonlinear Programming Solution to the Dual Response Problem , 1993 .

[10]  George E. P. Box,et al.  Empirical Model‐Building and Response Surfaces , 1988 .

[11]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Genetic algorithms + data structures = evolution programs (2nd, extended ed.) , 1994 .

[12]  Alden H. Wright,et al.  Genetic Algorithms for Real Parameter Optimization , 1990, FOGA.

[13]  N. Doganaksoy,et al.  Joint Optimization of Mean and Standard Deviation Using Response Surface Methods , 2003 .

[14]  R. H. Myers,et al.  Response Surface Techniques for Dual Response Systems , 1973 .

[15]  Peter R. Nelson,et al.  Dual Response Optimization via Direct Function Minimization , 1996 .

[16]  Wanzhu Tu,et al.  Dual response surface optimization , 1995 .

[17]  Loon Ching Tang,et al.  A unified approach for dual response surface optimization , 2002 .

[18]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs , 1996, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.