Towards Efficient Multiobjective Optimization: Multiobjective statistical criterions

The use of Surrogate Based Optimization (SBO) is widely spread in engineering design to reduce the number of computational expensive simulations. However, “real-world” problems often consist of multiple, conflicting objectives leading to a set of equivalent solutions (the Pareto front). The objectives are often aggregated into a single cost function to reduce the computational cost, though a better approach is to use multiobjective optimization methods to directly identify a set of Pareto-optimal solutions, which can be used by the designer to make more efficient design decisions (instead of making those decisions upfront). Most of the work in multiobjective optimization is focused on MultiObjective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEAs). While MOEAs are well-suited to handle large, intractable design spaces, they typically require thousands of expensive simulations, which is prohibitively expensive for the problems under study. Therefore, the use of surrogate models in multiobjective optimization, denoted as MultiObjective Surrogate-Based Optimization (MOSBO), may prove to be even more worthwhile than SBO methods to expedite the optimization process. In this paper, the authors propose the Efficient Multiobjective Optimization (EMO) algorithm which uses Kriging models and multiobjective versions of the expected improvement and probability of improvement criterions to identify the Pareto front with a minimal number of expensive simulations. The EMO algorithm is applied on multiple standard benchmark problems and compared against the wellknown NSGA-II and SPEA2 multiobjective optimization methods with promising results.

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

[2]  Andy J. Keane,et al.  Statistical Improvement Criteria for Use in Multiobjective Design Optimization , 2006 .

[3]  Piet Demeester,et al.  A Surrogate Modeling and Adaptive Sampling Toolbox for Computer Based Design , 2010, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

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

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

[6]  Tomoyuki Hiroyasu,et al.  SPEA2+: Improving the Performance of the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm 2 , 2004, PPSN.

[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]  V. B. Melas,et al.  Design and Analysis of Simulation Experiments , 1995 .

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

[10]  Nicola Beume,et al.  SMS-EMOA: Multiobjective selection based on dominated hypervolume , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[11]  Dick den Hertog,et al.  Maximin Latin Hypercube Designs in Two Dimensions , 2007, Oper. Res..

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

[13]  Tobias Friedrich,et al.  An Efficient Algorithm for Computing Hypervolume Contributions , 2010, Evolutionary Computation.

[14]  Jan K. Sykulski,et al.  An Enhanced Probability of Improvement Utility Function for Locating Pareto Optimal Solutions , 2007 .

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

[16]  Joshua D. Knowles,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization on a Budget of 250 Evaluations , 2005, EMO.

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

[18]  Carl E. Rasmussen,et al.  Gaussian processes for machine learning , 2005, Adaptive computation and machine learning.

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

[20]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review , 2003, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[21]  Andy J. Keane,et al.  Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling - A Practical Guide , 2008 .

[22]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Scalable Test Problems for Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization , 2005, Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization.

[23]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A survey of the state of the art , 2011, Swarm Evol. Comput..

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

[25]  Hendrik Rogier,et al.  Surrogate-based infill optimization applied to electromagnetic problems , 2010 .

[26]  Jean Charles Gilbert,et al.  Numerical Optimization: Theoretical and Practical Aspects , 2003 .

[27]  Thomas J. Santner,et al.  Space-Filling Designs for Computer Experiments , 2003 .

[28]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  Expensive Multiobjective Optimization by MOEA/D With Gaussian Process Model , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[29]  Joseph De Brabanter LS-SVM regression modelling and its applications , 2004 .

[30]  António Gaspar-Cunha,et al.  A Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm Using Neural Networks to Approximate Fitness Evaluations , 2005, Int. J. Comput. Syst. Signals.

[31]  Jack P. C. Kleijnen Design and Analysis of Simulation Experiments , 2007 .

[32]  David W. Corne,et al.  Noisy Multiobjective Optimization on a Budget of 250 Evaluations , 2009, EMO.