Reducing function evaluations in Differential Evolution using rough approximation-based comparison

In this study, we propose to utilize a rough approximation model, which is an approximation model with low accuracy and without learning process, to reduce the number of function evaluations effectively. Although the approximation errors between the true function values and the approximation values estimated by the rough approximation model are not small, the rough model can estimate the order relation of two points with fair accuracy. In order to use this nature of the rough model, we propose estimated comparison which omits the function evaluations when the result of comparison can be judged by approximation values. The advantage of the estimated comparison method is shown by comparing the results obtained by differential evolution (DE) and DE with estimated comparison method in various types of benchmark functions.

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

[2]  Rainer Storn,et al.  Minimizing the real functions of the ICEC'96 contest by differential evolution , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  Petros Koumoutsakos,et al.  Accelerating evolutionary algorithms with Gaussian process fitness function models , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[4]  Tetsuyuki Takahama,et al.  Constrained Optimization by the ε Constrained Differential Evolution with Gradient-Based Mutation and Feasible Elites , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[5]  Tetsuyuki Takahama,et al.  Solving Nonlinear Constrained Optimization Problems by the ε Constrained Differential Evolution , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[6]  Yew-Soon Ong,et al.  Curse and Blessing of Uncertainty in Evolutionary Algorithm Using Approximation , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[7]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Comparison of Response Surface and Kriging Models in the Multidisciplinary Design of an Aerospike Nozzle , 1998 .

[8]  Frederico G. Guimarães,et al.  Local Learning and Search in Memetic Algorithms , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[9]  Bernhard Sendhoff,et al.  A framework for evolutionary optimization with approximate fitness functions , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[10]  Rainer Storn,et al.  Differential Evolution – A Simple and Efficient Heuristic for global Optimization over Continuous Spaces , 1997, J. Glob. Optim..

[11]  Bernhard Sendhoff,et al.  On Evolutionary Optimization with Approximate Fitness Functions , 2000, GECCO.

[12]  T. W. Layne,et al.  A Comparison of Approximation Modeling Techniques: Polynomial Versus Interpolating Models , 1998 .

[13]  Bernhard Sendhoff,et al.  Reducing Fitness Evaluations Using Clustering Techniques and Neural Network Ensembles , 2004, GECCO.

[14]  Timothy M. Mauery,et al.  COMPARISON OF RESPONSE SURFACE AND KRIGING MODELS FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY DESIGN OPTIMIZATION , 1998 .

[15]  T. Takahama,et al.  Reducing the Number of Function Evaluations in Differential Evolution by Estimated Comparison Method Using an Approximation Model with Low Accuracy , 2008 .

[16]  Wei Shyy,et al.  Response surface and neural network techniques for rocket engine injector optimization , 1999 .