Comparison of the criteria for updating Kriging response surface models in multi-objective optimization

This paper compares the criteria for updating the Kriging response surface models in multi-objective optimization: expected improvement (EI), expected hypervolume improvement (EHVI), estimation (EST), and those combination (EHVI+EST). EI has been conventionally used as the criterion considering the stochastic improvement of each objective function value individually, while EHVI has been recently proposed as the criterion considering the stochastic improvement of the front of non-dominated solutions in multi-objective optimization. EST is the value of each objective function, which is estimated non-stochastically by the Kriging model without considering its uncertainties. Numerical experiments were implemented in the welded beam design problem, and empirically showed that, in a non-constrained case, EHVI keeps a balance between accurate and wide search for non-dominated solutions on the Kriging models in multi-objective optimization. In addition, the present experiments suggested future investigation into the techniques for handling uncertain constraints to enhance the capability of EHVI in a constrained case.

[1]  Carlos M. Fonseca,et al.  An Improved Dimension-Sweep Algorithm for the Hypervolume Indicator , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

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

[3]  Shigeru Obayashi,et al.  Multi-Objective Design Optimization for a Steam Turbine Stator Blade Using LES and GA , 2011 .

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

[5]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Statistical Experimentation Methods for Achieving Affordable Concurrent Systems Design , 1997 .

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

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

[8]  Shigeru Obayashi,et al.  Low-Boom and Low-Drag Optimization of the Twin Engine Version of Silent Supersonic Business Jet , 2008 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[16]  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.

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

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