Advertisement

Metamodel Assisted Multiobjective Optimisation Strategies and their Application in Airfoil Design

  • Michael Emmerich
  • Boris Naujoks

Abstract

In this paper various metamodel-assisted multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (M-MOEA) for optimisation with time-consuming function evaluations are proposed and studied. Gaussian field (Kriging) models fitted by results from previous evaluations are used in order to pre-screen candidate solutions and decide whether they should be rejected or evaluated precisely. The approximations provide upper and lower bound estimations for the true function values. Three different rejection principles are proposed, discussed and integrated into recent MOEA variants (NSGA-II and ∈-MOEA). Experimental studies on a theoretical test case and in airfoil design demonstrate the improvements in diversity of solutions and convergence to the pareto fronts that can be achieved by using metamodels for pre-screening.

Keywords

Search Space Pareto Front Multiobjective Optimisation Precise Evaluation Gaussian Field 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    K. Deb, M. Mohan, and S. Mishra. A fast multiobjective evolutionary algorithm for finding well-spread pareto-optimal solutions. Technical Report 2003002, KanGAL, Kanpur, India, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. A fast and elitist multi-bjective genetic algorithm nsga-ii. Technical Report 2000001, KanGAL, Kanpur, India, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Emmerich, A. Giotis, M. Özdemir, Th. Bäck, and K. Giannakoglou. Metamodel-Assisted Evolution Strategies. In J. J. Merelo Guervós, P. Adamidis, H.-G. Beyer, J. L. Fernández-Villacañas, and H.-P. Schwefel, editors, Parallel Problem Solving from Nature-PPSN VII, Proc. Seventh Int’l Conf., Granada, pages 361–371, Berlin, 2002. Springer.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. P. Giotis, K. C. Giannakoglou, and J. Périaux. A Reduced-Cost Multi-Objective Optimization Method Based On The Pareto Front Technique, Neural Networks And PVM. In Proc. European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering (ECCOMAS’00), (CD-ROM), Barcelona, 2000. Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Y. Jin. A comprehensive survey of fitness approximation in evolutionary computation. Soft Computing Journal (in press), 2003.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. K. Nain and K. Deb. Computationally effective search and optimization procedure using coarse to fine approximations. In Proc. of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation CEC 2003, Canberra, Australia, pages 2081-2088, 2003.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    B. Naujoks, L. Willmes, Th. Bäck, and W. Haase. Evaluating multi-criteria evolutionary algorithms for airfoil optimisation. In J. J. Merelo Guervós, P. Adamidis, H.-G. Beyer, J. L. Fernández-Villacañas, and H.-P. Schwefel, editors, Parallel Problem Solving from Nature-PPSN VII, Proc. Seventh Int’l Conf., Granada, pages 841–850, Berlin, 2002. Springer.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. Sacks, W. J. Welch, W. J. Mitchell, and H.-P. Wynn. Design and analysis of computer experiments. Statistical Science, 4:409–435, 1989.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Emmerich
    • 1
  • Boris Naujoks
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair for Systems Analysis, Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of DortmundDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations