Kriging-surrogate-based optimization considering expected hypervolume improvement in non-constrained many-objective test problems

This paper presents a comparison of the criteria for updating the Kriging surrogate models in surrogate-based non-constrained many-objective optimization: expected improvement (EI), expected hypervolume improvement (EHVI), and estimate (EST). EI has been conventionally used as the criterion considering the stochastic improvement of each objective function value individually, while EHVI has been proposed as the criterion considering the stochastic improvement of the front of nondominated solutions in multi-objective optimization. EST is the value of each objective function estimated non-stochastically by the Kriging model without considering its uncertainties. Numerical tests were conducted in the DTLZ test function problems (up to 8 objectives). It empirically showed that, in the DTLZ1 problem, EHVI has greater advantage of convergence and diversity to the true Pareto-optimal over EST and EI as the number of objective functions increases. The present results also suggested the expectation that the Kriging-surrogate-based optimization using EHVI may overcome the direct optimization without using the Kriging models when the number of objective functions becomes more than 10. In the DTLZ2 problem, however, EHVI achieved slower convergence to the true Paretooptimal front than EST and EI. It is due to the complexity of objective function space and the selection of additional sample points.

[1]  Lucas Bradstreet,et al.  Applying the WFG algorithm to calculate incremental hypervolumes , 2012, 2012 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[2]  Douglas C. Montgomery,et al.  Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments , 1995 .

[3]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  Objective Reduction in Many-Objective Optimization: Linear and Nonlinear Algorithms , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[4]  Shapour Azarm,et al.  A Kriging Metamodel Assisted Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm for Design Optimization , 2008 .

[5]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Data clustering: a review , 1999, CSUR.

[6]  Kiyoshi Tanaka,et al.  Adaptive ∈-ranking on MNK-Landscapes , 2009, 2009 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making(MCDM).

[7]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Scalable Test Problems for Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization , 2005, Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization.

[8]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[9]  Donald R. Jones,et al.  Efficient Global Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions , 1998, J. Glob. Optim..

[10]  Thomas J. Santner,et al.  The Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments , 2003, Springer Series in Statistics.

[11]  Richard J. Beckman,et al.  A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output From a Computer Code , 2000, Technometrics.

[12]  Heekuck Oh,et al.  Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition , 1993, Adv. Comput..

[13]  Thomas J. Santner,et al.  Design and analysis of computer experiments , 1998 .

[14]  Shigeru Obayashi,et al.  Practical Implementation of Robust Design Assisted by Response Surface Approximation and Visual Data-Mining , 2009 .

[15]  Kiyoshi Tanaka,et al.  Many-Objective Optimization by Space Partitioning and Adaptive epsilon-Ranking on MNK-Landscapes , 2009, EMO.

[16]  Shigeru Obayashi,et al.  Comparison of the criteria for updating Kriging response surface models in multi-objective optimization , 2012, 2012 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[17]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[18]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Particle swarm optimization , 1995, Swarm Intelligence.

[19]  Nicola Beume,et al.  On the Complexity of Computing the Hypervolume Indicator , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[20]  G. G. Wang,et al.  Adaptive Response Surface Method Using Inherited Latin Hypercube Design Points , 2003 .

[21]  Jay D. Martin,et al.  Computational Improvements to Estimating Kriging Metamodel Parameters , 2009 .

[22]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms - A Comparative Case Study , 1998, PPSN.

[23]  Mian Li,et al.  An Improved Kriging-Assisted Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm , 2011 .

[24]  Shapour Azarm,et al.  Reducible Uncertain Interval Design by Kriging Metamodel Assisted Multi-Objective Optimization , 2011 .

[25]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  MOEA/D: A Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[26]  Shigeru Obayashi,et al.  Optimization of Combustion Chamber for Diesel Engine Using Kriging Model , 2006 .

[27]  G. Gary Wang,et al.  Review of Metamodeling Techniques in Support of Engineering Design Optimization , 2007, DAC 2006.

[28]  Michael T. M. Emmerich,et al.  Hypervolume-based expected improvement: Monotonicity properties and exact computation , 2011, 2011 IEEE Congress of Evolutionary Computation (CEC).

[29]  Frank Neumann,et al.  Analyzing Hypervolume Indicator Based Algorithms , 2008, PPSN.