Scalarizing Functions in Bayesian Multiobjective Optimization

Scalarizing functions have been widely used to convert a multiobjective optimization problem into a single objective optimization problem. However, their use in solving (computationally) expensive multi- and many-objective optimization problems in Bayesian multiobjective optimization is scarce. Scalarizing functions can play a crucial role on the quality and number of evaluations required when doing the optimization. In this article, we study and review 15 different scalarizing functions in the framework of Bayesian multiobjective optimization and build Gaussian process models (as surrogates, metamodels or emulators) on them. We use expected improvement as infill criterion (or acquisition function) to update the models. In particular, we compare different scalarizing functions and analyze their performance on several benchmark problems with different number of objectives to be optimized. The review and experiments on different functions provide useful insights when using and selecting a scalarizing function when using a Bayesian multiobjective optimization method

A Bayesian approach to constrained single- and multi-objective optimization

This article addresses the problem of derivative-free (single- or multi-objective) optimization subject to multiple inequality constraints. Both the objective and constraint functions are assumed to be smooth, non-linear and expensive to evaluate. As a consequence, the number of evaluations that can be used to carry out the optimization is very limited, as in complex industrial design optimization problems. The method we propose to overcome this difficulty has its roots in both the Bayesian and the multi-objective optimization literatures. More specifically, an extended domination rule is used to handle objectives and constraints in a unified way, and a corresponding expected hyper-volume improvement sampling criterion is proposed. This new criterion is naturally adapted to the search of a feasible point when none is available, and reduces to existing Bayesian sampling criteria---the classical Expected Improvement (EI) criterion and some of its constrained/multi-objective extensions---as soon as at least one feasible point is available. The calculation and optimization of the criterion are performed using Sequential Monte Carlo techniques. In particular, an algorithm similar to the subset simulation method, which is well known in the field of structural reliability, is used to estimate the criterion. The method, which we call BMOO (for Bayesian Multi-Objective Optimization), is compared to state-of-the-art algorithms for single- and multi-objective constrained optimization

Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization Driven by Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs)

Recently, increasing works have proposed to drive evolutionary algorithms using machine learning models. Usually, the performance of such model based evolutionary algorithms is highly dependent on the training qualities of the adopted models. Since it usually requires a certain amount of data (i.e. the candidate solutions generated by the algorithms) for model training, the performance deteriorates rapidly with the increase of the problem scales, due to the curse of dimensionality. To address this issue, we propose a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm driven by the generative adversarial networks (GANs). At each generation of the proposed algorithm, the parent solutions are first classified into real and fake samples to train the GANs; then the offspring solutions are sampled by the trained GANs. Thanks to the powerful generative ability of the GANs, our proposed algorithm is capable of generating promising offspring solutions in high-dimensional decision space with limited training data. The proposed algorithm is tested on 10 benchmark problems with up to 200 decision variables. Experimental results on these test problems demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm

Fast calculation of multiobjective probability of improvement and expected improvement criteria for Pareto optimization

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 competitive 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 weighting and aggregating the costs 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, may prove to be even more worthwhile than SBO methods to expedite the optimization of computational expensive systems. In this paper, the authors propose the efficient multiobjective optimization (EMO) algorithm which uses Kriging models and multiobjective versions of the probability of improvement and expected improvement criteria 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 well-known NSGA-II, SPEA2 and SMS-EMOA multiobjective optimization methods

Differential evolution with an evolution path: a DEEP evolutionary algorithm

Utilizing cumulative correlation information already existing in an evolutionary process, this paper proposes a predictive approach to the reproduction mechanism of new individuals for differential evolution (DE) algorithms. DE uses a distributed model (DM) to generate new individuals, which is relatively explorative, whilst evolution strategy (ES) uses a centralized model (CM) to generate offspring, which through adaptation retains a convergence momentum. This paper adopts a key feature in the CM of a covariance matrix adaptation ES, the cumulatively learned evolution path (EP), to formulate a new evolutionary algorithm (EA) framework, termed DEEP, standing for DE with an EP. Without mechanistically combining two CM and DM based algorithms together, the DEEP framework offers advantages of both a DM and a CM and hence substantially enhances performance. Under this architecture, a self-adaptation mechanism can be built inherently in a DEEP algorithm, easing the task of predetermining algorithm control parameters. Two DEEP variants are developed and illustrated in the paper. Experiments on the CEC'13 test suites and two practical problems demonstrate that the DEEP algorithms offer promising results, compared with the original DEs and other relevant state-of-the-art EAs

Which Surrogate Works for Empirical Performance Modelling? A Case Study with Differential Evolution

It is not uncommon that meta-heuristic algorithms contain some intrinsic parameters, the optimal configuration of which is crucial for achieving their peak performance. However, evaluating the effectiveness of a configuration is expensive, as it involves many costly runs of the target algorithm. Perhaps surprisingly, it is possible to build a cheap-to-evaluate surrogate that models the algorithm's empirical performance as a function of its parameters. Such surrogates constitute an important building block for understanding algorithm performance, algorithm portfolio/selection, and the automatic algorithm configuration. In principle, many off-the-shelf machine learning techniques can be used to build surrogates. In this paper, we take the differential evolution (DE) as the baseline algorithm for proof-of-concept study. Regression models are trained to model the DE's empirical performance given a parameter configuration. In particular, we evaluate and compare four popular regression algorithms both in terms of how well they predict the empirical performance with respect to a particular parameter configuration, and also how well they approximate the parameter versus the empirical performance landscapes