Evolutionary optimization with hierarchical surrogates

Abstract The use of surrogate models provides an effective means for evolutionary algorithms (EAs) to reduce the number of fitness evaluations when handling computationally expensive problems. To build surrogate models, a modeling technique (e.g. ANN, SVM, RBF, etc.) needs to be decided first. Previous studies have shown that the choice of modeling technique can highly affect the performance of the surrogate model-assisted evolutionary search. However, one modeling technique might perform differently on different problem landscapes. Without any prior knowledge about the optimization problem to solve, it is very hard to decide which modeling technique to use. To address this issue, in this paper, we propose a novel modeling technique selection strategy in the framework of memetic algorithm (MA). The proposed strategy employs a hierarchical structure of surrogate models and can automatically choose a modeling technique from a pre-specified set of modeling techniques during the optimization process. A mathematic analysis is given to show the effectiveness of the proposed method. Moreover, experimental studies are conducted to compare the proposed method with two other modeling technique selection methods as well as three state-of-the-art optimization algorithms. Experimental results on the used benchmark test functions demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method.

[1]  A. Keane,et al.  Evolutionary Optimization of Computationally Expensive Problems via Surrogate Modeling , 2003 .

[2]  Kok Wai Wong,et al.  Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Optimization Frameworks for High-Fidelity Engineering Design Problems , 2005 .

[3]  Narayan S. Rau,et al.  Constrained Nonlinear Optimization , 2003 .

[4]  Masoud Rais-Rohani,et al.  Ensemble of Metamodels with Optimized Weight Factors , 2008 .

[5]  Bernhard Sendhoff,et al.  Generalizing Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Computation , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[6]  Salvador Pintos,et al.  An Optimization Methodology of Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer Flooding Processes Using Field Scale Numerical Simulation and Multiple Surrogates , 2004 .

[7]  R. Haftka,et al.  Ensemble of surrogates , 2007 .

[8]  Kwang-Yong Kim,et al.  Multiple surrogate modeling for axial compressor blade shape optimization , 2008 .

[9]  Yaochu Jin,et al.  A comprehensive survey of fitness approximation in evolutionary computation , 2005, Soft Comput..

[10]  Dan Simon,et al.  Biogeography-Based Optimization , 2022 .

[11]  Yoram Singer,et al.  An Efficient Boosting Algorithm for Combining Preferences by , 2013 .

[12]  Yoel Tenne,et al.  Metamodel accuracy assessment in evolutionary optimization , 2008, 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence).

[13]  Michèle Sebag,et al.  Comparison-Based Optimizers Need Comparison-Based Surrogates , 2010, PPSN.

[14]  Hitoshi Iba,et al.  The Memetic Tree-based Genetic Algorithm and its application to Portfolio Optimization , 2009, Memetic Comput..

[15]  Pablo Moscato,et al.  A Gentle Introduction to Memetic Algorithms , 2003, Handbook of Metaheuristics.

[16]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  A survey on handling computationally expensive multiobjective optimization problems with evolutionary algorithms , 2017, Soft Computing.

[17]  Konstantinos G. Margaritis,et al.  On benchmarking functions for genetic algorithms , 2001, Int. J. Comput. Math..

[18]  Craig T. Lawrence,et al.  A Computationally Efficient Feasible Sequential Quadratic Programming Algorithm , 2000, SIAM J. Optim..

[19]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms in Drug Design , 2005, Natural Computing.

[20]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Surrogate-based Analysis and Optimization , 2005 .

[21]  Colin G. Johnson,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Visual Art and Music , 2002, Leonardo.

[22]  Søren Nymand Lophaven,et al.  DACE - A Matlab Kriging Toolbox , 2002 .

[23]  Jing J. Liang,et al.  Problem Definitions and Evaluation Criteria for the CEC 2005 Special Session on Real-Parameter Optimization , 2005 .

[24]  Pablo Moscato,et al.  On Evolution, Search, Optimization, Genetic Algorithms and Martial Arts : Towards Memetic Algorithms , 1989 .

[25]  Thomas Philip Runarsson Ordinal Regression in Evolutionary Computation , 2006, PPSN.

[26]  Yoel Tenne,et al.  A Versatile Surrogate-Assisted Memetic Algorithm for Optimization of Computationally Expensive Functions and its Engineering Applications , 2008 .

[27]  Bernhard Sendhoff,et al.  Evolution by Adapting Surrogates , 2013, Evolutionary Computation.

[28]  Felipe A. C. Viana,et al.  Multiple surrogates for prediction and optimization , 2011 .

[29]  X. Yao,et al.  Combining landscape approximation and local search in global optimization , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406).

[30]  Ruhul A. Sarker,et al.  Memetic algorithms for solving job-shop scheduling problems , 2009, Memetic Comput..

[31]  Yuhui Shi,et al.  Hybrid Sampling Evolution Strategy for Solving Single Objective Bound Constrained Problems , 2018, 2018 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC).

[32]  Ponnuthurai N. Suganthan,et al.  An improved differential evolution algorithm using efficient adapted surrogate model for numerical optimization , 2018, Inf. Sci..

[33]  Jorge Nocedal,et al.  Algorithm 778: L-BFGS-B: Fortran subroutines for large-scale bound-constrained optimization , 1997, TOMS.

[34]  T. Simpson,et al.  Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria , 2001 .

[35]  Robert A. Jacobs,et al.  Hierarchical Mixtures of Experts and the EM Algorithm , 1993, Neural Computation.