Preference incorporation to solve many-objective airfoil design problems

In this paper, we assess the convenience of applying a previously proposed interactive method to solve three aerodynamic airfoil shape optimization problems with 2, 3, and 6 objectives, respectively. The expensive simulations required to evaluate the objective functions makes these problems an excellent example in which the use of interactive methods is very advantageous. First, the search can be focused on the decision maker's region of interest, saving this way, valuable function evaluations. Second, the preference relation used in the interactive method helps to deal with a large number of objectives since it is able to rank incomparable nondominated solutions. The experimental evaluation reveals that in the three problems studied, the interactive method achieved a better final solution than a traditional a posteriori method with no preferences. Nevertheless, in the problem with 6 objectives, only 3 of them were improved. A possible explanation for this is that local optima become harder to overcome when the size of the region of interest is very small. Additional experiments confirmed that the convergence is deteriorated if very small regions of interest are used.

[1]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[2]  Eckart Zitzler,et al.  Indicator-Based Selection in Multiobjective Search , 2004, PPSN.

[3]  Xiaodong Li,et al.  Designing airfoils using a reference point based evolutionary many-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm , 2010, IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[4]  M. Drela XFOIL: An Analysis and Design System for Low Reynolds Number Airfoils , 1989 .

[5]  D. M. Somers,et al.  Design and experimental results for a flapped natural-laminar-flow airfoil for general aviation applications , 1981 .

[6]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Light beam search based multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms , 2007, 2007 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[7]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  Nonlinear multiobjective optimization , 1998, International series in operations research and management science.

[8]  G. W. Evans,et al.  An Overview of Techniques for Solving Multiobjective Mathematical Programs , 1984 .

[9]  Andrzej P. Wierzbicki,et al.  The Use of Reference Objectives in Multiobjective Optimization , 1979 .

[10]  K. Miettinen,et al.  Incorporating preference information in interactive reference point methods for multiobjective optimization , 2009 .

[11]  Jian-Bo Yang,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Support in Engineering Design , 1998 .

[12]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  Multiobjective optimization and multiple constraint handling with evolutionary algorithms. II. Application example , 1998, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[13]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multicriteria Optimization (2. ed.) , 2005 .

[14]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  A Preference-Based Evolutionary Algorithm for Multi-Objective Optimization , 2009, Evolutionary Computation.

[15]  Jaroslav Hájek,et al.  Aerodynamic optimization via multi-objective micro-genetic algorithm with range adaptation, knowledge-based reinitialization, crowding and epsilon-dominance , 2009, Adv. Eng. Softw..

[16]  H. Sobieczky Parametric Airfoils and Wings , 1999 .

[17]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  SPEA2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm , 2001 .