Advertisement

Implementation of Stochastic Adaptive Search with Hit-and-Run as a Generator

  • Zelda B. Zabinsky
  • Graham R. Wood
Part of the Nonconvex Optimization and Its Applications book series (NOIA, volume 62)

Abstract

The Hit-and-Run algorithm iteratively generates a sequence of points in a set by taking steps of random length in randomly generated directions. Hit-and-Run is used as a sampling technique within a global optimization algorithm, as a generator in the context of simulated annealing. The ultimate goal is to approximate the desirable properties of stochastic adaptive search, in particular, the linear complexity of pure adaptive search. Such an algorithm is the Hit-and-Run version of simulated annealing with temperature equal to zero, called Improving Hit-and-Run because only points improving the objective function are accepted. The Hit-and-Run generator coupled with a Metropolis acceptance criterion is called Hide-and-Seek, and is motivated by theoretical results from adaptive search. Other variations of Hit-and-Run are also described here, as applied to global optimization.

Keywords

Simulated Annealing Global Optimization Feasible Region Coordinate Direction Global Optimization Problem 
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. Bélisle, C.J.P. (1992). Convergence theorems for a class of simulated annealing algorithms on R` t . Journal of Applied Probability, 29: 885–895.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bélisle, C.J.P. (2000). Slow Hit-and-Run sampling. Statistics êi Probability Letters, 47: 33–43.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bélisle, C.J.P., Romeijn, H.E., and Smith, R.L. (1993). Hit-and-Run algorithms for generating multivariate distributions. Mathematics of Operations Research, 18: 255–266.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berbee, H.C.P., Boender, C.G.E., Rinnooy Kan, A.H.G., Scheffer, C.L., Smith, R.L., and Telgen, J. (1987). Hit-and-Run algorithms for the identification of nonredundant linear inequalities. Mathematical Programming, 37: 184–207.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birge, J.R. and Smith, R.L. (1984). Random procedures for nonredundant constraint identification in stochastic linear programs. American Journal of Mathematical and Management Sciences, 4: 41–70.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Boneh, A. and Golan, A. (1979). Constraints’ redundancy and feasible region boundedness by random feasible point generator. EURO I II: Third European Congress on Operations Research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. Caron, R.J., Hlynka, M., and McDonald, J.F. (1992). On the best case performance of Hit-and-Run methods for detecting necessary constraints. Mathematical Programming, 54: 233–249.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, M.-H. and Schmeiser, B.W. (1996). General Hit-and-Run Monte Carlo sampling for evaluating multidimensional integrals. Operations Research Letters, 19: 161–169.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doob, J.L. (1953). Stochastic Processes. John Wiley and Sons, New York.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaufman, D.E. and Smith, R.L. (1998). Direction choice for accelerated convergence in Hit-and-Run sampling. Operations Research, 46 (1): 84–95.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kiatsupaibul, S., Smith, R.L., and Zabinsky, Z.B. (2001). A discrete hit-and-run algorithm for generating samples from general multivariate distributions. Technical report, Department of Industrial and Opera- tions Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  12. Knuth, D.E. (1969). The Art of Computer Programming, volume 2. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Kristinsdottir, B.P. (1997). Complexity Analysis of Random Search Al-gorithms. PhD thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
  14. Lovdsz, L. (1999). Hit-and-Run mixes fast. Mathematical Programming, 86: 443–461.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A., Rosenbluth, M., Teller, A., and Teller, E. (1953). Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines. Journal of Chemical Physics, 21: 1087–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Murty, K.G. (1983). Linear Programming. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Neogi, S. (1997). Design of Large Composite Structures using Global Optimization and Finite Element Analysis. PhD thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
  18. Neogi, S., Zabinsky, Z.B., and Tuttle, M.E. (1994). Optimal design of composites using mixed discrete and continuous variables. In Proceedings of the ASME Winter Annual Meeting volume 52; Symposium on Processing, Design and Performance of Composite Materials, pages 91–107.Google Scholar
  19. Patel, N.R., Smith, R.L., and Zabinsky, Z.B. (1988). Pure adaptive search in Monte Carlo optimization. Mathematical Programming, 43: 317–328.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Romeijn, H.E. and Smith, R.L. (1994a). Simulated annealing and adaptive search in global optimization. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences, 8: 571–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Romeijn, H.E. and Smith, R.L. (1994b). Simulated annealing for constrained global optimization. Journal of Global Optimization, 5: 101–126.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Romeijn, H.E., Zabinsky, Z.B., Graesser, D.L., and Neogi, S. (1999). A new reflection generator for simulated annealing in mixed-integer/continuous global optimization. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 101 (2): 403–427.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith, R.L. (1984). Efficient Monte Carlo procedures for generating points uniformly distributed over bounded regions. Operations Research, 32 (1296–1308).Google Scholar
  24. Zabinsky, Z.B. (1998). Stochastic methods for practical global optimization. Journal of Global Optimization, 13: 433–444.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zabinsky, Z.B., Graesser, D.L., Tuttle, M.E., and Kim, G.I. (1992). Global optimization of composite laminate using Improving Hit-and-Run. In Floudas, C.A. and Pardalos, P.M., editors, Recent Advances in Glo-bal Optimization, pages 343–365. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  26. Zabinsky, Z.B. and Smith, R.L. (1992). Pure adaptive search in global optimization. Mathematical Programming, 53: 323–338.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zabinsky, Z.B., Smith, R.L., McDonald, J.F., Romeijn, H.E., and Kaufman, D.E. (1993). Improving Hit-and-Run for global optimization. Journal of Global Optimization, 3: 171–192.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zabinsky, Z.B., Wood, G.R., Steel, M.A., and Baritompa, W.P. (1995). Pure adaptive search for finite global optimization. Mathematical Programming, 69 (443–448).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zelda B. Zabinsky
    • 1
  • Graham R. Wood
    • 2
  1. 1.Industrial EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Information Sciences and TechnologyMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations