Multi-level Hybridized Optimization Methods Coupling Local Search Deterministic and Global Search Evolutionary Algorithms

  • Z. TangEmail author
  • X. Hu
  • J. Périaux
Original Paper


Efficient optimization methods coupling a stochastic evolutionary algorithm with a gradient based deterministic method are presented in this paper. Two kinds of hybridization are compared: one is a stochastic/deterministic alternate algorithm, the other is a stochastic/deterministic embedded algorithm. In the alternating algorithm, stochastic and deterministic optimizers are performed alternately as follows: some individuals are selected from the previous population, and sent to the deterministic algorithms for further optimization, then the improved individuals are inserted into the above population to form a new one for the stochastic algorithm. In the embedded hybridized algorithm, stochastic and deterministic optimization software are run in parallel and independently, the coupling between them is that the deterministic optimizer operates on a randomly selected individual (or the best individual) from the non evaluated population of the stochastic algorithm, then its outcome (new individual) is re-injected into the evaluated population. Moreover, a multilevel approximation (e.g. variable fidelity modeling, analysis and hierarchical approximated parameterization) is introduced in the algorithm, via a low fidelity modeling and rough parameterization to perform a search on large population at lower level, and a high fidelity modeling with detailed parameterization used at higher level. After a theoretical validation of the methods on mathematical test cases, the hybridized methods are successfully applied to the aerodynamic shape optimization of a fore-body of an hypersonic air breathing vehicle, providing both a significant acceleration in terms of parallel HPC performance and improved quality of the design.



This study was funded by National natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number NSFC-11772154).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.


  1. 1.
    Davidon WC (1959) Variable metric method for minimization. Argonne National Laboratory Research and Development, Report 5990Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosenbrock HH (1960) An automatic method for finding the greatest or least value of a function. Comput J 3:175–184MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spendley W, Hext GR, Himsworth FR (1962) Sequential application of simplex designs in optimisation and evolutionary operation. Technometrics 4:441–461MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Powell MJD (1964) An efficient method for finding the minimum of a function of several variables without calculating derivatives. Comput J 7:155–162MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colaco MJ, Dulikravich GS (2009) A survey of basic deterministic, heuristic and hybrid methods for single objective optimization and response surface generation. METTI IV C Thermal Measurements and Inverse Techniques, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, November 8–13Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nocedal J, Wright SJ (1999) Numerical optimization. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jameson A (1988) Aerodynamic design via control theory. J Sci Comput 3(3):233–260MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holland J (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. The University of Michigan, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beasley D, Bull DR, Martin R (1993) An overview of genetic algorithms: part 1, fundamentals. Univ Comput 15:58–69Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chan YY (1998) Applications of genetic algorithms to aerodynamic design. Can Aeronaut Space J 44(3):182–187MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Obayashi S, Takeguchi Y (1999) Mulitipoint aerodynamic design of supersonic wing planform using MOGA. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual conference of the computational fluid dynamics society of Canada, Halifax, pp 23–28, May 30–June 1Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rogalsky T, Derksen RW, Kocabiyic S (1999) An aerodynamic design technique for optimizing fan blade spacing. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual conference of the computational fluid dynamics society of Canada, Halifax, pp 29–34, May 30–June 1Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Price K, Storn R (1997) Differential evolution. Dr. Dobb’s J 22(4):18–24zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Price K, Storn R, Lampinen J (2005) Differential evolution—a practical approach to global optimization. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rogalsky T, Derksen RW, Kocabiyic S (1999) Differential evolution in aerodynamic optimization. In: Proceedings of the 46th annual conference of the Canadian aeronautics and space institute, Montreal, May 2–5 pp 29–36Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldberg DE, Voessner S (1999) Optimizing global-local search hybrids. In: The genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO 1999). Morgan Kaufmann, Orlando, USA, pp 222–228Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vicini A, Quagliarella D (1999) Airfoil and wing design through hybrid optimization strategies. AIAA J 37(5):634–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poloni C (1995) Hybrid GA for multi objective aerodynamic shape optimization. In: Genetic algorithms in engineering and computer science. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chiou J, Wang FS (1998) A hybrid method of differential evolution with application to optimal control problems of a bioprocess system. In: IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation proceeding, 1998, New York, NY, pp 627–632Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Masters T, Land W (1997) A new training algorithm for the general regression neural network. In: IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, computational cybernetics and simulation, 1997, vol 3, pp 1990–1994Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kampolis IC, Giannakoglou KC (2008) A multilevel approach to single- and multiobjective aerodynamic optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197:2963–2975CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    El-Mihoub TA, Hopgood AA, Nolle L, Battersby A (2006) Hybrid genetic algorithms: a review. Eng Lett 13(2):1–14Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muyl F, Dumas L, Herbert V (2004) Hybrid method for aerodynamic shape optimization in automotive industry. Comput Fluids 33:849–858CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yiu K, Liu Y, Teo K (2004) A hybrid descent method for global optimization. J Glob Optim 28(2):229–238MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee Y, Lee M (2002) Shape-based block layout approach to facility layout problems using hybrid genetic algorithm. Comput Ind Eng 42(2):237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Giannakoglou K, Pappou T, Giotis A, Koubogiannis D (2000) A parallel inverse-design algorithm in aeronautics based on genetic algorithms and the adjoint method. In: ECCOMAS 2000, Barcelona, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Poloni C, Giurgevich A, Onesti L, Pediroda V (2000) Hybridization of a multiobjective genetic algorithm, a neural network and a classical optimizer for a complex design problem in fluid dynamics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 186(2):403–420CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ishibuchi H, Yoshida T, Murata T (2003) Balance between genetic search and local search in memetic algorithms for multiobjective permutation flowshop scheduling. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 7(2):204–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee D, Gonzalez LF, Périaux J, Srinivas K, Oñate E (2011) Hybrid-game strategies for multi-objective design optimization in engineering. Comput Fluids 47:189–204MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chaparro BM, Thuillier S, Menezes LF, Manach PY, Fernandes JV (2008) Material parameters identification: gradient-based, genetic and hybrid optimization algorithms. Comput Mater Sci 44:339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Giannakoglou KC, Papadimitriou DI, Kampolis IC (2006) Aerodynamic shape design using evolutionary algorithms and new gradient-assisted metamodels. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 195:6312–6329CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kampolis IC, Giannakoglou KC (2011) Synergetic use of different evaluation, parameterization and search tools within a multilevel optimization platform. Appl Soft Comput 11:645–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Das S, Suganthan PN (2011) Differential evolution: a survey of the state-of-the-art. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 15(1):4–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wardi Y (1988) Stochastic algorithms with Armijo stepsizes for minimization of function. J Optim Theory Optim 59(2):307–323MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kampolis IC, Trompoukis XS, Asouti VG, Giannakoglou KC (2010) CFD-based analysis and two-level aerodynamic optimization on graphics processing units. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 199:712–722MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Asouti VG, Giannakoglou KC (2009) Aerodynamic optimization using a parallel asynchronous evolutionary algorithm controlled by strongly interacting demes. Eng Optim 41(3):241–257MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kampolis IC, Giannakoglou KC (2009) Distributed evolutionary algorithms with hierarchical evaluation. Eng Optim 41(11):1037–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Désidéri J, Janka A (2003) Hierarchical parameterization for multilevel evolutionary shape optimization with application to aerodynamics. In: Bugeda G, Desideri J, Periaux J, Schoenauer M, Winter G (eds) International congress on evolutionary methods for design, optimization and control with applications to industrial problems—EUROGEN 2003Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species. John Murray, Albemarle Street, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mühlenbein H, Schomisch M, Born J (1991) The parallel genetic algorithm as function optimizer. Parall Comput 17(6–7):619–632CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Land M (1998) Evolutionary algorithms with local search for combinatorial optimization. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tang ZL, Zhang LH (2016) Nash equilibrium and multi-criterion aerodynamic optimization. J Comput Phys 314:107 C126MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tang Z, Désidéri JA, Périaux J (2007) Multi-criteria aerodynamic shape-design optimization and inverse problems using control theory and Nash games. J Optim Theory Appl 135:599–622MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tang Z, Chen Y, Zhang L (2017) Natural laminar flow shape optimization in transonic regime with competitive Nash game strategy. Appl Math Model 48:534–547MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tang Z, Zhang L (2019) A new Nash optimization method based on alternate elitist information exchange for multi-objective aerodynamic shape design. Appl Math Model 68:244–266MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lee DS, Gonzalez LF, Périaux J, Srinivas K (2011) Efficient hybrid-game strategies coupled to evolutionary algorithms for robust multidisciplinary design optimization in aerospace engineering. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 15(2):133–150Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Désidéri JA (2009) Multiple-Gradient Descent Algorithm (MGDA). INRIA Research Report RR-6953
  49. 49.
    Désidéri JA (2012) Multiple-gradient descent algorithm (MGDA) for multiobjective optimization. Comptes rendus—Mathématique 350(5–6):313–C318MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zerbinati A, Désidéri JA, Duvigneau R (2011) Comparison between MGDA and PAES for Multi-objective optimization. INRIA Research Report RR-7667.
  51. 51.
    Désidéri JA (2012) MGDA II: A direct method for calculating a descent direction common to several criteria. INRIA Research Report RR-7422.

Copyright information

© CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Aerospace EngineeringNanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (NUAA)NanjingChina
  2. 2.International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE)Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Faculty of Information TechnologyUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations