Pareto-Based Multi-output Model Type Selection

In engineering design the use of approximation models (= surrogate models) has become standard practice for design space exploration, sensitivity analysis, visualization and optimization. Popular surrogate model types include neural networks, support vector machines, Kriging models, and splines. An engineering simulation typically involves multiple response variables that must be approximated. With many approximation methods available, the question of which method to use for which response consistently arises among engineers and domain experts. Traditionally, the different responses are modeled separately by independent models, possibly involving a comparison among model types. Instead, this paper proposes a multi-objective approach can benefit the domain expert since it enables automatic model type selection for each output on the fly without resorting to multiple runs. In effect the optimal model complexity and model type for each output is determined automatically. In addition a multi-objective approach gives information about output correlation and facilitates the generation of diverse ensembles. The merit of this approach is illustrated with a modeling problem from aerospace.

[1]  Loren Paul Rees,et al.  Performance Measures for Selection of Metamodels to be Used in Simulation Optimization , 2002, Decis. Sci..

[2]  Søren Nymand Lophaven,et al.  Aspects of the Matlab toolbox DACE , 2002 .

[3]  Dirk Gorissen,et al.  Automatic model type selection with heterogeneous evolution: An application to RF circuit block modeling , 2008, 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence).

[4]  Dirk Gorissen,et al.  Sequential modeling of a low noise amplifier with neural networks and active learning , 2009, Neural Computing and Applications.

[5]  Hugo Jair Escalante,et al.  Joint Conference on Neural Networks , Orlando , Florida , USA , August 12-17 , 2007 PSMS for Neural Networks on the IJCNN 2007 Agnostic vs Prior Knowledge Challenge , 2007 .

[7]  Joshua D. Knowles,et al.  ParEGO: a hybrid algorithm with on-line landscape approximation for expensive multiobjective optimization problems , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[8]  Bandu N. Pamadi,et al.  Aerodynamic Characteristics and Glide-Back Performance of Langley Glide-Back Booster , 2004 .

[9]  Hirotaka Nakayama,et al.  Meta-Modeling in Multiobjective Optimization , 2008, Multiobjective Optimization.

[10]  Andy J. Keane,et al.  Multi-Objective Optimization Using Surrogates , 2010 .

[11]  Hubert H. G. Savenije,et al.  Soft combination of local models in a multi-objective framework , 2007 .

[12]  Bernhard Sendhoff,et al.  Pareto-Based Multiobjective Machine Learning: An Overview and Case Studies , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[13]  Johan A. K. Suykens,et al.  Least Squares Support Vector Machines , 2002 .

[14]  Jonathan E. Fieldsend,et al.  Multiobjective Supervised Learning , 2008, Multiobjective Problem Solving from Nature.

[15]  Dirk Gorissen,et al.  Multiobjective global surrogate modeling, dealing with the 5-percent problem , 2010, Engineering with Computers.

[16]  LI X.RONG,et al.  Evaluation of estimation algorithms part I: incomprehensive measures of performance , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems.