Advertisement

Monte Carlo integration with adaptive variance selection for improved stochastic efficient global optimization

  • Felipe CarraroEmail author
  • Rafael Holdorf Lopez
  • Leandro Fleck Fadel Miguel
  • André Jacomel Torii
Research Paper
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, the minimization of computational cost on evaluating multidimensional integrals is explored. More specifically, a method based on an adaptive scheme for error variance selection in Monte Carlo integration (MCI) is presented. It uses a stochastic efficient global optimization (sEGO) framework to guide the optimization search. The MCI is employed to approximate the integrals, because it provides the variance of the error in the integration. In the proposed approach, the variance of the integration error is included into a stochastic kriging framework by setting a target variance in the MCI. We show that the variance of the error of the MCI may be controlled by the designer and that its value strongly influences the computational cost and the exploration ability of the optimization process. Hence, we propose an adaptive scheme for automatic selection of the target variance during the sEGO search. The robustness and efficiency of the proposed adaptive approach were evaluated on global optimization stochastic benchmark functions as well as on a tuned mass damper design problem. The results showed that the proposed adaptive approach consistently outperformed the constant approach and a multi-start optimization method. Moreover, the use of MCI enabled the method application in problems with high number of stochastic dimensions. On the other hand, the main limitation of the method is inherited from sEGO coupled with the kriging metamodel: the efficiency of the approach is reduced when the number of design variables increases.

Keywords

Stochastic kriging Efficient global optimization Integral minimization Adaptive target variance Robust optimization 

Notes

Funding information

This study received financial support from the Brazilian research funding agencies CNPq and CAPES.

References

  1. Ankenman B, Nelson BL, Staum J (2010) Stochastic kriging for simulation metamodeling. Oper Res 58 (2):371–382MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bae HG, Park SH, Kwon JH (2012) Ego method for diffusing s-duct shape design. In: International conference on computation fluid dynamics, vol 7Google Scholar
  3. Beck AT, Kougioumtzoglou IA, dos Santos KRM (2014) Optimal performance-based design of non-linear stochastic dynamical rc structures subject to stationary wind excitation. Eng Struct 78:145–153Google Scholar
  4. Beck J, Dia BM, Espath LFR, Long Q, Tempone R (2018) Fast Bayesian experimental design: Laplace-based importance sampling for the expected information gain. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 334:523–553.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2018.01.053  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2018.01.053 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Bobby S, Spence SMJ, Kareem A (2016) Data-driven performance-based topology optimization of uncertain wind-excited tall buildings. Struct Multidiscip Optim 54(6):1379–1402.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1474-6  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1474-6 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Capiez-Lernout E, Soize C (2008) Robust design optimization in computational mechanics. Journal of Applied Mechanics Transactions ASME 75(2):021001–1–021001–11Google Scholar
  7. Chakraborty S, Roy BK (2011) Reliability based optimum design of tuned mass damper in seismic vibration control of structures with bounded uncertain parameters. Probab Eng Mech 26(2):215– 221Google Scholar
  8. Chaudhuri A, Haftka RT, Ifju P, Chang K, Tyler C, Schmitz T (2015) Experimental flapping wing optimization and uncertainty quantification using limited samples. Struct Multidiscip Optim 51(4):957–970. ISSN 1615-1488.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-014-1184-x Google Scholar
  9. Chen WF, Lui EM (2005) Handbook of structural engineering, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton. ISBN 9781420039931Google Scholar
  10. Chen X, Kim K-K (2014) Stochastic kriging with biased sample estimates. ACM Trans Model Comput Simul (TOMACS) 24(2):8MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen X, Ankenman BE, Nelson BL (2012) The effects of common random numbers on stochastic kriging metamodels. ACM Trans Model Comput Simul (TOMACS) 22(2):7MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen X, Ankenman BE, Nelson BL (2013) Enhancing stochastic kriging metamodels with gradient estimators. Oper Res 61(2):512–528MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Couckuyt I, Declercq F, Dhaene T, Rogier H, Knockaert L (2010) Surrogate-based infill optimization applied to electromagnetic problems. Int J RF Microwave Comput Aided Eng 20(5):492–501Google Scholar
  14. Cressie N (1993) Statistics for spatial data, vol 15. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG (2012) Pattern classification. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Duvigneau R, Chandrashekar P (2012) Kriging-based optimization applied to flow control. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 69(11):1701–1714Google Scholar
  17. Fadel Miguel Letícia F, Fadel MLF, Holdorf LR (2016) Failure probability minimization of buildings through passive friction dampers. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 25(17):869–885Google Scholar
  18. Forrester A, Sobester A, Keane A (2008) Engineering design via surrogate modelling: a practical guide. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  19. Gengembre E, Ladevie B, Fudym O, Thuillier A (2012) A kriging constrained efficient global optimization approach applied to low-energy building design problems. Inverse Prob Sci Eng 20(7):1101–1114Google Scholar
  20. Michael BG (2008) Multilevel monte carlo path simulation. Oper Res 56(3):607–617MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Goel T, Hafkta RT, Shyy W (2008) Comparing error estimation measures for polynomial and kriging approximation of noise-free functions. Struct Multidiscip Optim 38(5):429. ISSN 1615-1488.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-008-0290-z Google Scholar
  22. Gomes WJS, Beck AT, Lopez RH, Miguel LFF (2018) A probabilistic metric for comparing metaheuristic optimization algorithms. Struct Saf 70:59–70. ISSN 0167-4730Google Scholar
  23. Gramacy RB, Lee HKH (2010) Optimization under unknown constraints. In: Proceedings of the sixth Valencia international meeting. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Haftka RT, Villanueva D, Chaudhuri A (2016) Parallel surrogate-assisted global optimization with expensive functions – a survey. Struct Multidiscip Optim 54(1):3–13. ISSN 1615-1488.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1432-3  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1432-3 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Haji-Ali A-L, Nobile F, Tempone R (2016) Multi-index monte carlo: when sparsity meets sampling. Numer Math 132(4):767–806MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Hammersley JM, Handscomb DC (1964) General principles of the monte carlo method. In: Monte carlo methods. Springer , pp 50–75Google Scholar
  27. Hao P, Feng S, Zhang K, Li Z, Wang B, Li G (2018) Adaptive gradient-enhanced kriging model for variable-stiffness composite panels using isogeometric analysis. Struct Multidiscip Optim 58(1):1–16Google Scholar
  28. Huan X, Marzouk YM (2013) Simulation-based optimal bayesian experimental design for nonlinear systems. J Comput Phys 232(1):288–317MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Huang D, Allen TT, Notz WI, Zeng N (2006) Global optimization of stochastic black-box systems via sequential kriging meta-models. J Glob Optim 34(3):441–466MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Huang Z, Wang C, Chen J, Tian H (2011) Optimal design of aeroengine turbine disc based on kriging surrogate models. Comput Struct 89(1):27–37Google Scholar
  31. Forrester AIJ, Keane AJ, Bressloff NW (2006) Design and analysis of “noisy” computer experiments. AIAA J 44(10):2331–2339Google Scholar
  32. Jalali H, Nieuwenhuyse IV, Picheny V (2017) Comparison of kriging-based algorithms for simulation optimization with heterogeneous noise. Eur J Oper Res 261(1):279–301. ISSN 0377-2217.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.01.035 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones D (2001) A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces. J Glob Optim 21 (4):345–383.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1012771025575 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones DR, Schonlau M, William J (1998) Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J Glob Optim 13:455–492. ISSN 09255001.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008306431147 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Kalos MH, Whitlock PA (1986) Monte Carlo methods, volume 1: Basics Monte Carlo methods. Wiley, New York. ISBN 9780471898399zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Kamiński B (2015) A method for the updating of stochastic kriging metamodels. Eur J Oper Res 247 (3):859–866MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Kanai K (1957) Semi-empirical formula for the seismic characteristics of the ground. 35, 07Google Scholar
  38. Kanazaki M, Matsumo T, Maeda K, Kawazoe M (2015) Efficient global optimization applied to multi-objective design optimization of lift creating cylinder using plasma actuators. In: Proceedings of the 18th Asia Pacific symposium on intelligent and evolutionary systems, vol 1, pp 663–677Google Scholar
  39. Kleijnen JPC, Mehdad E (2016) Estimating the variance of the predictor in stochastic kriging. Simul Model Pract Theory 66:166–173Google Scholar
  40. Krige DG (1951) A statistical approach to some basic mine valuation problems on the Witwatersrand. J Chem Metall Min Soc S Afr 52(6):119–139.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3006914 Google Scholar
  41. Le Riche R, Haftka RT (2012) On global optimization articles in SMO. Struct Multidiscip Optim 46 (5):627–629. ISSN 1615-1488.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-012-0785-5  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-012-0785-5 Google Scholar
  42. Li J, Heap AD (2011) A review of comparative studies of spatial interpolation methods in environmental sciences: performance and impact factors. Eco Inform 6(3–4):228–241Google Scholar
  43. Locatelli M (1997) Bayesian algorithms for one-dimensional global optimization. J Glob Optim 10(1):57–76. ISSN 1573-2916.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008294716304 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Lopez RH, Miguel LFF, Beck AT (2015) Tuned mass dampers for passive control of structures under earthquake excitations. Springer, Berlin, pp 3814–3823. ISBN 978-3-642-35344-4.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_215 Google Scholar
  45. Lopez RH, Ritto TG, Sampaio R, Souza de Cursi JE (2014) A new algorithm for the robust optimization of rotor-bearing systems. Eng Optim 46(8):1123–1138.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2013.819095  https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2013.819095 Google Scholar
  46. Luersen MA, Le Riche R, Guyon F (2004) A constrained, globalized, and bounded Nelder–Mead method for engineering optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 27(1):43–54Google Scholar
  47. Luersen MA, Riche RL (2004) Globalized Nelder–Mead method for engineering optimization. Comput Struct 82(23):2251–2260Google Scholar
  48. Mantovani GZ, Miguel LFF, Lopez RH, Miguel LFF, Torii AJ (2017) Optimum design of multiple friction tuned mass dampers under seismic excitationsGoogle Scholar
  49. MATLAB (2015) MATLAB version 8.6.0.267246 (R2015b). The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  50. Melchers RE, Beck AT (2018) Structural reliability analysis and prediction. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Miguel LFF, Lopez RH, Torii AJ, Miguel LFF, Beck AT (2016) Robust design optimization of TMDs in vehicle–bridge coupled vibration problems. Eng Struct 126:703–711. ISSN 0141-0296Google Scholar
  52. Miguel LFF, Lopez RH , Miguel LFF (2013) A hybrid approach for damage detection of structures under operational conditions. J Sound Vib 332(18):4241–4260. ISSN 0022-460XGoogle Scholar
  53. Mohebbi M, Shakeri K, Ghanbarpour Y, Majzoub H (2013) Designing optimal multiple tuned mass dampers using genetic algorithms (GAs) for mitigating the seismic response of structures. J Vib Control 19(4):605–625Google Scholar
  54. Montgomery DC, Runger GC (2010) Applied statistics and probability for engineers. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Nelder JA, Mead R (1965) A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 7(4):308–313MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. Nhamage IA, Lopez RH, Miguel LFF (2016) An improved hybrid optimization algorithm for vibration based-damage detection. Adv Eng Softw 93:47–64. ISSN 0965-9978.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.12.003  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.12.003 Google Scholar
  57. Osborne MA, Garnett R, Roberts SJ (2009) Gaussian processes for global optimization. In: 3rd international conference on learning and intelligent optimization (LION3), pp 1–15Google Scholar
  58. Picheny V, Ginsbourger D (2014) Noisy kriging-based optimization methods: a unified implementation within the diceoptim package. Comput Stat Data Anal 71:1035–1053MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. Picheny V, Ginsbourger D, Richet Y, Caplin G (2013a) Quantile-based optimization of noisy computer experiments with tunable precision. Technometrics 55(1):2–13MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  60. Picheny V, Wagner T, Ginsbourger D (2013b) A benchmark of kriging-based infill criteria for noisy optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 48(3):607–626Google Scholar
  61. Plumlee M, Tuo R (2014) Building accurate emulators for stochastic simulations via quantile kriging. Technometrics 56(4):466– 473MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  62. Qu H, Fu MC (2014) Gradient extrapolated stochastic kriging. ACM Trans Model Comput Simul (TOMACS) 24(4):23MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. Ritto TG, Lopez RH, Sampaio R, Souza De Cursi JE (2011) Robust optimization of a flexible rotor-bearing system using the campbell diagram. Eng Optim 43(1):77–96MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  64. Rubinstein RY (2007) Simulation and the Monte Carlo method. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell TJ, Wynn HP (1989) Design and analysis of computer experiments. Statist Sci 4(4):409–423, 11.  https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177012413 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  66. Sakata S, Ashida F, Tanaka H (2011) Kriging-based convex subspace single linkage method with path-based clustering technique for approximation-based global optimization. Struct. Multidiscip Optim 44(3):393–408. ISSN 1615-1488.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-011-0643-x Google Scholar
  67. Scott W, Frazier P, Powell W (2011) The correlated knowledge gradient for simulation optimization of continuous parameters using gaussian process regression. SIAM J Optim 21(3):996–1026MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  68. Shen H, Hong LJ, Zhang X (2018) Enhancing stochastic kriging for queueing simulation with stylized models. IISE Transactions (just-accepted)Google Scholar
  69. Soize C, Capiez-Lernout E, Ohayon R (2008) Robust updating of uncertain computational models using experimental modal analysis. Mech Syst Signal Process 22(8):1774–1792Google Scholar
  70. Seymour MJS, Kareem A (2014) Performance-based design and optimization of uncertain wind-excited dynamic building systems. Eng Struct 78:133–144Google Scholar
  71. Staum J (2009) Better simulation metamodeling: The why, what, and how of stochastic kriging. IEEE, Austin, pp 119–133Google Scholar
  72. Tajimi H (1960) A statistical method of determining the maximum response of a building structure during an earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 2nd world conference on earthquake engineering. Tokyo, Japan, pp 781–797Google Scholar
  73. Theodossiou N, Latinopoulos P (2006) Evaluation and optimisation of groundwater observation networks using the kriging methodology. Environ Modell Softw 21(7):991–1000Google Scholar
  74. Torii AJ, Lopez RH, Luersen MA (2011) A local-restart coupled strategy for simultaneous sizing and geometry truss optimization. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 8:335–349. ISSN 1679-7825.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-78252011000300008 Google Scholar
  75. Ulaganathan S, Couckuyt I, Dhaene T, Laermans E, Degroote J (2014) On the use of gradients in kriging surrogate models. In: 2014 winter simulation conference (WSC). IEEE, pp 2692–2701Google Scholar
  76. Ur Rehman S, Langelaar M (2017) Adaptive efficient global optimization of systems with independent components. Struct Multidiscip Optim 55(4):1143–1157. ISSN 1615-1488.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-017-1663-y zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  77. Vazquez E, Villemonteix J, Sidorkiewicz M, Walter E (2008) Global optimization based on noisy evaluations: an empirical study of two statistical approaches. In: Journal of physics: conference series, vol 135. IOP Publishing, p 012100Google Scholar
  78. Villemonteix J, Vazquez E, Walter E (2009) An informational approach to the global optimization of expensive-to-evaluate functions. J Glob Optim 44(4):509MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  79. Wang K, Xi C, Yang F, Porter DW, Wu N (2014) A new stochastic kriging method for modeling multi-source exposure–response data in toxicology studies. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2(7):1581–1591Google Scholar
  80. Zhang Q, Xie W (2017) Asymmetric kriging emulator for stochastic simulation. In: Proceedings of the 2017 winter simulation conference. IEEE Press, p 137Google Scholar
  81. Zhu P, Zhang LW, Liew KM (2014) Geometrically nonlinear thermomechanical analysis of moderately thick functionally graded plates using a local petrov–galerkin approach with moving kriging interpolation. Compos Struct 107:298–314Google Scholar
  82. Zou L, Zhang X (2018) Stochastic kriging for inadequate simulation models. arXiv:1802.00677

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felipe Carraro
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rafael Holdorf Lopez
    • 1
  • Leandro Fleck Fadel Miguel
    • 1
  • André Jacomel Torii
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Optimization and Reliability in Engineering (CORE), Civil Engineering DepartmentFederal University of Santa CatarinaFlorianópolisBrazil
  2. 2.Center for Optimization and Reliability in Engineering (CORE), Civil Engineering DepartmentFederal University for Latin American IntegrationFoz do IguaçuBrazil

Personalised recommendations