Setting targets for surrogate-based optimization

In the context of surrogate-based optimization (SBO), most designers have still very little guidance on when to stop and how to use infill measures with target requirements (e.g., one-stage approach for goal seeking and optimization); the reason: optimum estimates independent of the surrogate and optimization strategy are seldom available. Hence, optimization cycles are typically stopped when resources run out (e.g., number of objective function evaluations/time) or convergence is perceived, and targets are empirically set which may affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the SBO approach. This work presents an approach for estimating the minimum (target) of the objective function using concepts from extreme order statistics which relies only on the training data (sample) outputs. It is assumed that the sample inputs are randomly distributed so the outputs can be considered a random variable, whose density function is bounded (a, b), with the minimum (a) as its lower bound. Specifically, an estimate of the minimum (a) is obtained by: (i) computing the bounds (using training data and the moment matching method) of a selected set of analytical density functions (catalog), and (ii) identifying the density function in the catalog with the best match to the sample outputs distribution and corresponding minimum estimate (a). The proposed approach makes no assumption about the nature of the objective functions, and can be used with any surrogate, and optimization strategy even with high dimensional problems. The effectiveness of the proposed approach was evaluated using a compact catalog of Generalized Beta density functions and well-known analytical optimization test functions, i.e., F2, Hartmann 6D, and Griewangk 10D and in the optimization of a field scale alkali-surfactant-polymer enhanced oil recovery process. The results revealed that: (a) the density function (from a catalog) with the best match to a function outputs distribution, was the same for both large and reduced samples, (b) the true optimum value was always within a 95% confidence interval of the estimated minimum distribution, and (c) the estimated minimum represents a significant improvement over the present best solution and an excellent approximation of the true optimum value.

[1]  Holger Rootzén,et al.  Extreme Values in Finance, Telecommunications, and the Environment , 2003 .

[2]  M. Sasena,et al.  Exploration of Metamodeling Sampling Criteria for Constrained Global Optimization , 2002 .

[3]  Nielen Stander,et al.  MDO OF AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLE FOR CRASHWORTHINESS AND NVH USING RESPONSE SURFACE METHODS , 2002 .

[4]  A. Owen.  Controlling correlations in latin hypercube samples , 1994 .

[5]  T Watson Layne,et al.  Multidisciplinary Optimization of a Supersonic Transport Using Design of Experiments Theory and Response Surface Modeling , 1997 .

[6]  Boxin Tang.  Orthogonal Array-Based Latin Hypercubes , 1993 .

[7]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Surrogate-based Analysis and Optimization , 2005 .

[8]  Donald R. Jones,et al.  A Taxonomy of Global Optimization Methods Based on Response Surfaces , 2001, J. Glob. Optim..

[9]  Eric P. Smith,et al.  An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values , 2002, Technometrics.

[10]  Salvador A. Pintos,et al.  Toward an optimal ensemble of kernel-based approximations with engineering applications , 2006 .

[11]  Daniel W. Apley,et al.  Understanding the Effects of Model Uncertainty in Robust Design With Computer Experiments , 2006 .

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

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

[14]  Hans-Martin Gutmann,et al.  A Radial Basis Function Method for Global Optimization , 2001, J. Glob. Optim..

[15]  Stephen J. Leary,et al.  Optimal orthogonal-array-based latin hypercubes , 2003 .

[16]  H. Cramér.  Mathematical methods of statistics , 1947 .

[17]  Bernard Grossman,et al.  MULTIFIDELITY RESPONSE SURFACE MODEL FOR HSCT WING BENDING MATERIAL WEIGHT , 1998 .

[18]  Hasan Kurtaran,et al.  Crashworthiness design optimization using successive response surface approximations , 2002 .

[19]  Salvador Pintos,et al.  An Optimization Methodology of Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer Flooding Processes Using Field Scale Numerical Simulation and Multiple Surrogates , 2005 .

[20]  Andy J. Keane,et al.  On the Design of Optimization Strategies Based on Global Response Surface Approximation Models , 2005, J. Glob. Optim..

[21]  Donald R. Jones,et al.  Global optimization of deceptive functions with sparse sampling , 2008 .

[22]  Kwok-Leung Tsui,et al.  A Minimum Bias Latin Hypercube Design , 2001 .

[23]  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.

[24]  Salvador Pintos,et al.  Global sensitivity analysis of Alkali–Surfactant–Polymer enhanced oil recovery processes , 2007 .

[25]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Assessing the value of another cycle in Gaussian process surrogate-based optimization , 2009 .

[26]  Kenny Q. Ye.  Orthogonal Column Latin Hypercubes and Their Application in Computer Experiments , 1998 .

[27]  Efrain Nava,et al.  A Geostatistical Perspective for the Surrogate-Based Integration of Variable Fidelity Models , 2010 .

[28]  E. Gumbel,et al.  Statistics of extremes , 1960 .

[29]  David Ginsbourger,et al.  A Multi-points Criterion for Deterministic Parallel Global Optimization based on Kriging , 2007 .

[30]  Salvador Pintos,et al.  Efficient global optimization for hydraulic fracturing treatment design , 2002 .

[31]  R. Iman,et al.  A distribution-free approach to inducing rank correlation among input variables , 1982 .

[32]  N. Zheng,et al.  Global Optimization of Stochastic Black-Box Systems via Sequential Kriging Meta-Models , 2006, J. Glob. Optim..

[33]  G. Gary Wang,et al.  Review of Metamodeling Techniques in Support of Engineering Design Optimization , 2007, DAC 2006.

[34]  Wolfgang Ponweiser,et al.  Clustered multiple generalized expected improvement: A novel infill sampling criterion for surrogate models , 2008, 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence).

[35]  T. Simpson,et al.  Comparative studies of metamodeling techniques under multiple modeling criteria , 2000 .

[36]  Salvador Pintos,et al.  Efficient Global Optimization For Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment Design , 2002 .

[37]  M. E. Johnson,et al.  Minimax and maximin distance designs , 1990 .

[38]  Salvador Pintos,et al.  Surrogate modeling-based optimization of SAGD processes , 2002 .

[39]  Andy J. Keane,et al.  Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization , 2009 .

[40]  Konstantinos G. Margaritis,et al.  On benchmarking functions for genetic algorithms , 2001, Int. J. Comput. Math..