Computationally efficient stochastic optimization using multiple realizations

Abstract The presented study is concerned with computationally efficient methods for solving stochastic optimization problems involving multiple equally probable realizations of uncertain parameters. A new and straightforward technique is introduced that is based on dynamically ordering the stack of realizations during the search procedure. The rationale is that a small number of critical realizations govern the output of a reliability-based objective function. By utilizing a problem, which is typical to designing a water supply well field, several variants of this “stack ordering” approach are tested. The results are statistically assessed, in terms of optimality and nominal reliability. This study demonstrates that the simple ordering of a given number of 500 realizations while applying an evolutionary search algorithm can save about half of the model runs without compromising the optimization procedure. More advanced variants of stack ordering can, if properly configured, save up to more than 97% of the computational effort that would be required if the entire number of realizations were considered. The findings herein are promising for similar problems of water management and reliability-based design in general, and particularly for non-convex problems that require heuristic search techniques.

[1]  Domenico Baù,et al.  Data-worth analysis for multiobjective optimal design of pump-and-treat remediation systems , 2007 .

[2]  Charles S. Sawyer,et al.  Mixed-Integer Chance-Constrained Models for Ground-Water Remediation , 1998 .

[3]  N. Chan Robustness of the multiple realization method for stochastic hydraulic aquifer management , 1993 .

[4]  Michael Finkel,et al.  Algorithmic funnel‐and‐gate system design optimization , 2007 .

[5]  Robert J. Vanderbei,et al.  Robust Optimization of Large-Scale Systems , 1995, Oper. Res..

[6]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Risk‐based in situ bioremediation design using a noisy genetic algorithm , 2000 .

[7]  Wolfgang Nowak,et al.  Uncertainty and data worth analysis for the hydraulic design of funnel‐and‐gate systems in heterogeneous aquifers , 2004 .

[8]  Marc F. P. Bierkens,et al.  Designing a monitoring network for detecting groundwater pollution with stochastic simulation and a cost model , 2006 .

[9]  Barbara S. Minsker,et al.  Quantifying the effects of uncertainty on optimal groundwater bioremediation policies , 1998 .

[10]  M. Hill,et al.  A Comparison of Solute‐Transport Solution Techniques and Their Effect on Sensitivity Analysis and Inverse Modeling Results , 2001, Ground water.

[11]  Andres Alcolea,et al.  Inverse problem in hydrogeology , 2005 .

[12]  Nikolaus Hansen,et al.  Completely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution Strategies , 2001, Evolutionary Computation.

[13]  Patrick M. Reed,et al.  Comparing state-of-the-art evolutionary multi-objective algorithms for long-term groundwater monitoring design , 2005 .

[14]  C. Zheng,et al.  An integrated global and local optimization approach for remediation system design , 1999 .

[15]  Alberto Guadagnini,et al.  Delineation of Source Protection Zones Using Statistical Methods , 2005 .

[16]  Jürgen Köngeter,et al.  Stochastic modelling and risk analysis of groundwater pollution using FORM coupled with automatic differentiation , 2006 .

[17]  J. Sykes,et al.  Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of the recharge boundary condition , 2006 .

[18]  Enrico Zio,et al.  Optimizing maintenance and repair policies via a combination of genetic algorithms and Monte Carlo simulation , 2000, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[19]  Teresa B. Culver,et al.  Robust optimization for total maximum daily load allocations , 2006 .

[20]  L. Feyen,et al.  Reliable groundwater management in hydroecologically sensitive areas , 2004 .

[21]  Charles V. Camp,et al.  STOCHASTIC APPROACH TO DELINEATING WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS , 1998 .

[22]  Amy B. Chan Hilton,et al.  Groundwater Remediation Design under Uncertainty Using Genetic Algorithms , 2005 .

[23]  Barbara J. Lence,et al.  Surface water quality management using a multiple‐realization chance constraint method , 1999 .

[24]  Richard C. Peralta,et al.  Optimal design of aquifer cleanup systems under uncertainty using a neural network and a genetic algorithm , 1999 .

[25]  Joel Massmann,et al.  Hydrogeological Decision Analysis: 1. A Framework , 1990 .

[26]  C. Deutsch,et al.  Ranking stochastic realizations for improved aquifer response uncertainty assessment , 1999 .

[27]  Harald Kunstmann,et al.  Conditional first‐order second‐moment method and its application to the quantification of uncertainty in groundwater modeling , 2002 .

[28]  Jianfeng Wu,et al.  A comparative study of Monte Carlo simple genetic algorithm and noisy genetic algorithm for cost-effective sampling network design under uncertainty , 2006 .

[29]  J. Jaime Gómez-Hernández,et al.  Impact of measurement errors in stochastic inverse conditional modelling by the self-calibrating approach , 2003 .

[30]  David W. Pollock,et al.  User's guide for MODPATH/MODPATH-PLOT, Version 3; a particle tracking post-processing package for MODFLOW, the U.S. Geological Survey finite-difference ground-water flow model , 1994 .

[31]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Designing a competent simple genetic algorithm for search and optimization , 2000 .

[32]  Cass T. Miller,et al.  Optimal design for problems involving flow and transport phenomena in saturated subsurface systems , 2002 .

[33]  Cass T. Miller,et al.  Optimal design for problems involving flow and transport phenomena in subsurface systems , 2001 .

[34]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Panos Papalambros a Survey of Structural Optimization in Mechanical Product Development , 2022 .

[35]  Henrik O. Madsen,et al.  Structural Reliability Methods , 1996 .

[36]  Michael Finkel,et al.  Contaminant mass discharge estimation in groundwater based on multi-level point measurements: a numerical evaluation of expected errors. , 2006, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[37]  Arlen W. Harbaugh,et al.  MODFLOW-2000, The U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Model - User Guide to Modularization Concepts and the Ground-Water Flow Process , 2000 .

[38]  Clayton V. Deutsch,et al.  GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and User's Guide , 1993 .

[39]  J. Eheart,et al.  Aquifer remediation design under uncertainty using a new chance constrained programming technique , 1993 .

[40]  P. Bayer,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms for the optimization of advective control of contaminated aquifer zones , 2004 .

[41]  Peter Bayer,et al.  Optimization of concentration control by evolution strategies: Formulation, application, and assessment of remedial solutions , 2007 .

[42]  Petros Koumoutsakos,et al.  Reducing the Time Complexity of the Derandomized Evolution Strategy with Covariance Matrix Adaptation (CMA-ES) , 2003, Evolutionary Computation.

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

[44]  Jesús Carrera,et al.  Using linear approximations to rank realizations in groundwater modeling: Application to worst case selection , 1994 .

[45]  George Kourakos,et al.  Optimal Groundwater Remediation Under Uncertainty Using Multi-objective Optimization , 2006 .

[46]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Optimal sampling in a noisy genetic algorithm for risk-based remediation design , 2001 .

[47]  Georg Teutsch,et al.  Combining Pump‐and‐Treat and Physical Barriers for Contaminant Plume Control , 2004, Ground water.

[48]  S. Gorelick,et al.  Reliable aquifer remediation in the presence of spatially variable hydraulic conductivity: From data to design , 1989 .

[49]  Enrico Zio,et al.  Genetic algorithms and Monte Carlo simulation for optimal plant design , 2000, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[50]  J. Eheart,et al.  Neural network-based screening for groundwater reclamation under uncertainty , 1993 .