Analysis of gene expression programming for approximation in engineering design

To reduce the computational cost of implementing computer-based simulations and analyses in engineering design, a variety of metamodeling techniques have been developed and used for the construction of metamodels. Metamodels, also called approximation models and surrogate models, can be used to make a replacement of the expensive simulation codes for design and optimization. In this paper, gene expression programming (GEP) algorithm in the evolutionary computing area is investigated as an alternative metamodeling technique to provide the approximation of a design space. The approximation performance of GEP is tested on some low-dimensional mathematical and engineering problems. A comparative study is conducted on GEP and three common metamodeling techniques in engineering design (i.e., response surface methodology (RSM), kriging and radial basis functions (RBF)) for the approximation of the low-dimensional design space. Multiple evaluation criteria are considered in the comparison: accuracy, robustness, transparency and efficiency. Two different sample sizes are adopted: small and large. Comparative results indicate that GEP can achieve the most accurate and robust approximation of a low-dimensional design space for small sample sets. For large sample sets, GEP also presents good prediction accuracy and high robustness. Moreover, the transparency of GEP is the best since it can provide clear function relationships and factor contributions by means of compact expressions. As a novel metamodeling technique, GEP shows great promise for metamodeling applications in a low-dimensional design space, especially when only a few sample points are selected and used for training.

[1]  Weimin Xiao,et al.  Evolving accurate and compact classification rules with gene expression programming , 2003, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[2]  Mark Kotanchek,et al.  Pareto-Front Exploitation in Symbolic Regression , 2005 .

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

[4]  M. D. McKay,et al.  A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code , 2000 .

[5]  Dong-Ho Lee,et al.  Application of Collaborative Optimization Using Response Surface Methodology to an Aircraft Wing Design , 2004 .

[6]  Mihai Oltean,et al.  Evolving Evolutionary Algorithms Using Multi Expression Programming , 2003, ECAL.

[7]  Sanjay B. Joshi,et al.  Metamodeling: Radial basis functions, versus polynomials , 2002, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  Ashraf F. Ashour,et al.  Empirical modelling of shear strength of RC deep beams by genetic programming , 2003 .

[9]  Rajkumar Roy,et al.  Advances in Soft Computing: Engineering Design and Manufacturing , 1998 .

[10]  Cândida Ferreira,et al.  Gene Expression Programming: A New Adaptive Algorithm for Solving Problems , 2001, Complex Syst..

[11]  Yun Shang,et al.  A Note on the Extended Rosenbrock Function , 2006 .

[12]  Vassili Toropov,et al.  APPROXIMATION MODEL BUILDING FOR DESIGN OPTIMIZATION USING GENETIC PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY , 1998 .

[13]  Rajkumar Roy,et al.  Advances in Soft Computing , 2018, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[14]  Prabhat Hajela,et al.  Neural networks in structural analysis and design - An overview , 1992 .

[15]  David J. J. Toal,et al.  Proper orthogonal decomposition & kriging strategies for design , 2009 .

[16]  Liang Gao,et al.  Evolving scheduling rules with gene expression programming for dynamic single-machine scheduling problems , 2010 .

[17]  J. Kleijnen Statistical tools for simulation practitioners , 1986 .

[18]  Bernard Yannou,et al.  Metamodeling of Combined Discrete/Continuous Responses , 2001 .

[19]  F. H. Branin Widely convergent method for finding multiple solutions of simultaneous nonlinear equations , 1972 .

[20]  J. Nazuno Haykin, Simon. Neural networks: A comprehensive foundation, Prentice Hall, Inc. Segunda Edición, 1999 , 2000 .

[21]  Willi-Hans Steeb,et al.  Gene Expression Programming And One-Dimensional Chaotic Maps , 2002 .

[22]  Dong Zhao,et al.  A comparative study of metamodeling methods considering sample quality merits , 2010 .

[23]  Willi-Hans Steeb,et al.  Computer Algebra With Symbolic C , 2008 .

[24]  Liang Gao,et al.  COMPARISON OF GENE EXPRESSION PROGRAMMING AND COMMON METAMODELING TECHNIQUES IN ENGINEERING DESIGN , 2011, DAC 2011.

[25]  Changjie Tang,et al.  Time Series Prediction Based on Gene Expression Programming , 2004, WAIM.

[26]  Byeongdo Kim,et al.  Comparison study on the accuracy of metamodeling technique for non-convex functions , 2009 .

[27]  J. Friedman Multivariate adaptive regression splines , 1990 .

[28]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Kriging Models for Global Approximation in Simulation-Based Multidisciplinary Design Optimization , 2001 .

[29]  T. Simpson,et al.  Analysis of support vector regression for approximation of complex engineering analyses , 2005, DAC 2003.

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

[31]  Hirotaka Nakayama,et al.  Simulation-Based Optimization Using Computational Intelligence , 2002 .

[32]  Kyung K. Choi,et al.  Reliability-Based Design Optimization Using Response Surface Method With Prediction Interval Estimation , 2008 .

[33]  L. A. Schmit,et al.  Structural synthesis - Its genesis and development , 1981 .

[34]  Cândida Ferreira,et al.  Function Finding and the Creation of Numerical Constants in Gene Expression Programming , 2003 .

[35]  Thiagarajan Krishnamurthy,et al.  Comparison of Response Surface Construction Methods for Derivative Estimation Using Moving Least Squares, Kriging and Radial Basis Functions , 2013 .

[36]  Abraham Kandel,et al.  Stochastic simulations of web search engines: RBF versus second-order regression models , 2004, Inf. Sci..

[37]  Achille Messac,et al.  Metamodeling using extended radial basis functions: a comparative approach , 2006, Engineering with Computers.

[38]  R. L. Hardy Multiquadric equations of topography and other irregular surfaces , 1971 .

[39]  T. Simpson,et al.  Use of Kriging Models to Approximate Deterministic Computer Models , 2005 .

[40]  Simon Haykin,et al.  Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation , 1998 .

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

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

[43]  Cândida Ferreira,et al.  Designing Neural Networks Using Gene Expression Programming , 2004, WSC.

[44]  Massimiliano Avalle,et al.  Design optimization by response surface methodology: application to crashworthiness design of vehicle structures , 2002 .