Genetic and Swarm Algorithms for Optimizing the Control of Building HVAC Systems Using Real Data: A Comparative Study.

Buildings consume a considerable amount of electrical energy, the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system being the most demanding. Saving energy and maintaining comfort still challenge scientists as they conflict. The control of HVAC systems can be improved by modeling their behavior, which is nonlinear, complex, and dynamic and works in uncertain contexts. Scientific literature shows that Soft Computing techniques require fewer computing resources but at the expense of some controlled accuracy loss. Metaheuristics-search-based algorithms show positive results, although further research will be necessary to resolve new challenging multi-objective optimization problems. This article compares the performance of selected genetic and swarmintelligence- based algorithms with the aim of discerning their capabilities in the field of smart buildings. MOGA, NSGA-II/III, OMOPSO, SMPSO, and Random Search, as benchmarking, are compared in hypervolume, generational distance, ε-indicator, and execution time. Real data from the Building Management System of Teatro Real de Madrid have been used to train a data model used for the multiple objective calculations. The novelty brought by the analysis of the different proposed dynamic optimization algorithms in the transient time of an HVAC system also includes the addition, to the conventional optimization objectives of comfort and energy efficiency, of the coefficient of performance, and of the rate of change in ambient temperature, aiming to extend the equipment lifecycle and minimize the overshooting effect when passing to the steady state. The optimization works impressively well in energy savings, although the results must be balanced with other real considerations, such as realistic constraints on chillers’ operational capacity. The intuitive visualization of the performance of the two families of algorithms in a real multi-HVAC system increases the novelty of this proposal.post-print888 K

Improving the efficiency of Bayesian Network Based EDAs and their application in Bioinformatics

Estimation of distribution algorithms (EDAs) is a relatively new trend of stochastic optimizers which have received a lot of attention during last decade. In each generation, EDAs build probabilistic models of promising solutions of an optimization problem to guide the search process. New sets of solutions are obtained by sampling the corresponding probability distributions. Using this approach, EDAs are able to provide the user a set of models that reveals the dependencies between variables of the optimization problems while solving them. In order to solve a complex problem, it is necessary to use a probabilistic model which is able to capture the dependencies. Bayesian networks are usually used for modeling multiple dependencies between variables. Learning Bayesian networks, especially for large problems with high degree of dependencies among their variables is highly computationally expensive which makes it the bottleneck of EDAs. Therefore introducing efficient Bayesian learning algorithms in EDAs seems necessary in order to use them for large problems. In this dissertation, after comparing several Bayesian network learning algorithms, we propose an algorithm, called CMSS-BOA, which uses a recently introduced heuristic called max-min parent children (MMPC) in order to constrain the model search space. This algorithm does not consider a fixed and small upper bound on the order of interaction between variables and is able solve problems with large numbers of variables efficiently. We compare the efficiency of CMSS-BOA with the standard Bayesian network based EDA for solving several benchmark problems and finally we use it to build a predictor for predicting the glycation sites in mammalian proteins

Particle swarm optimization with sequential niche technique for dynamic finite element model updating

Peer reviewedPostprin

A Field Guide to Genetic Programming

xiv, 233 p. : il. ; 23 cm.Libro ElectrónicoA Field Guide to Genetic Programming (ISBN 978-1-4092-0073-4) is an introduction to genetic programming (GP). GP is a systematic, domain-independent method for getting computers to solve problems automatically starting from a high-level statement of what needs to be done. Using ideas from natural evolution, GP starts from an ooze of random computer programs, and progressively refines them through processes of mutation and sexual recombination, until solutions emerge. All this without the user having to know or specify the form or structure of solutions in advance. GP has generated a plethora of human-competitive results and applications, including novel scientific discoveries and patentable inventions. The authorsIntroduction -- Representation, initialisation and operators in Tree-based GP -- Getting ready to run genetic programming -- Example genetic programming run -- Alternative initialisations and operators in Tree-based GP -- Modular, grammatical and developmental Tree-based GP -- Linear and graph genetic programming -- Probalistic genetic programming -- Multi-objective genetic programming -- Fast and distributed genetic programming -- GP theory and its applications -- Applications -- Troubleshooting GP -- Conclusions.Contents xi 1 Introduction 1.1 Genetic Programming in a Nutshell 1.2 Getting Started 1.3 Prerequisites 1.4 Overview of this Field Guide I Basics 2 Representation, Initialisation and GP 2.1 Representation 2.2 Initialising the Population 2.3 Selection 2.4 Recombination and Mutation Operators in Tree-based 3 Getting Ready to Run Genetic Programming 19 3.1 Step 1: Terminal Set 19 3.2 Step 2: Function Set 20 3.2.1 Closure 21 3.2.2 Sufficiency 23 3.2.3 Evolving Structures other than Programs 23 3.3 Step 3: Fitness Function 24 3.4 Step 4: GP Parameters 26 3.5 Step 5: Termination and solution designation 27 4 Example Genetic Programming Run 4.1 Preparatory Steps 29 4.2 Step-by-Step Sample Run 31 4.2.1 Initialisation 31 4.2.2 Fitness Evaluation Selection, Crossover and Mutation Termination and Solution Designation Advanced Genetic Programming 5 Alternative Initialisations and Operators in 5.1 Constructing the Initial Population 5.1.1 Uniform Initialisation 5.1.2 Initialisation may Affect Bloat 5.1.3 Seeding 5.2 GP Mutation 5.2.1 Is Mutation Necessary? 5.2.2 Mutation Cookbook 5.3 GP Crossover 5.4 Other Techniques 32 5.5 Tree-based GP 39 6 Modular, Grammatical and Developmental Tree-based GP 47 6.1 Evolving Modular and Hierarchical Structures 47 6.1.1 Automatically Defined Functions 48 6.1.2 Program Architecture and Architecture-Altering 50 6.2 Constraining Structures 51 6.2.1 Enforcing Particular Structures 52 6.2.2 Strongly Typed GP 52 6.2.3 Grammar-based Constraints 53 6.2.4 Constraints and Bias 55 6.3 Developmental Genetic Programming 57 6.4 Strongly Typed Autoconstructive GP with PushGP 59 7 Linear and Graph Genetic Programming 61 7.1 Linear Genetic Programming 61 7.1.1 Motivations 61 7.1.2 Linear GP Representations 62 7.1.3 Linear GP Operators 64 7.2 Graph-Based Genetic Programming 65 7.2.1 Parallel Distributed GP (PDGP) 65 7.2.2 PADO 67 7.2.3 Cartesian GP 67 7.2.4 Evolving Parallel Programs using Indirect Encodings 68 8 Probabilistic Genetic Programming 8.1 Estimation of Distribution Algorithms 69 8.2 Pure EDA GP 71 8.3 Mixing Grammars and Probabilities 74 9 Multi-objective Genetic Programming 75 9.1 Combining Multiple Objectives into a Scalar Fitness Function 75 9.2 Keeping the Objectives Separate 76 9.2.1 Multi-objective Bloat and Complexity Control 77 9.2.2 Other Objectives 78 9.2.3 Non-Pareto Criteria 80 9.3 Multiple Objectives via Dynamic and Staged Fitness Functions 80 9.4 Multi-objective Optimisation via Operator Bias 81 10 Fast and Distributed Genetic Programming 83 10.1 Reducing Fitness Evaluations/Increasing their Effectiveness 83 10.2 Reducing Cost of Fitness with Caches 86 10.3 Parallel and Distributed GP are Not Equivalent 88 10.4 Running GP on Parallel Hardware 89 10.4.1 Master–slave GP 89 10.4.2 GP Running on GPUs 90 10.4.3 GP on FPGAs 92 10.4.4 Sub-machine-code GP 93 10.5 Geographically Distributed GP 93 11 GP Theory and its Applications 97 11.1 Mathematical Models 98 11.2 Search Spaces 99 11.3 Bloat 101 11.3.1 Bloat in Theory 101 11.3.2 Bloat Control in Practice 104 III Practical Genetic Programming 12 Applications 12.1 Where GP has Done Well 12.2 Curve Fitting, Data Modelling and Symbolic Regression 12.3 Human Competitive Results – the Humies 12.4 Image and Signal Processing 12.5 Financial Trading, Time Series, and Economic Modelling 12.6 Industrial Process Control 12.7 Medicine, Biology and Bioinformatics 12.8 GP to Create Searchers and Solvers – Hyper-heuristics xiii 12.9 Entertainment and Computer Games 127 12.10The Arts 127 12.11Compression 128 13 Troubleshooting GP 13.1 Is there a Bug in the Code? 13.2 Can you Trust your Results? 13.3 There are No Silver Bullets 13.4 Small Changes can have Big Effects 13.5 Big Changes can have No Effect 13.6 Study your Populations 13.7 Encourage Diversity 13.8 Embrace Approximation 13.9 Control Bloat 13.10 Checkpoint Results 13.11 Report Well 13.12 Convince your Customers 14 Conclusions Tricks of the Trade A Resources A.1 Key Books A.2 Key Journals A.3 Key International Meetings A.4 GP Implementations A.5 On-Line Resources 145 B TinyGP 151 B.1 Overview of TinyGP 151 B.2 Input Data Files for TinyGP 153 B.3 Source Code 154 B.4 Compiling and Running TinyGP 162 Bibliography 167 Inde

Parallel surrogate-assisted global optimization with expensive functions – a survey

Surrogate assisted global optimization is gaining popularity. Similarly, modern advances in computing power increasingly rely on parallelization rather than faster processors. This paper examines some of the methods used to take advantage of parallelization in surrogate based global optimization. A key issue focused on in this review is how different algorithms balance exploration and exploitation. Most of the papers surveyed are adaptive samplers that employ Gaussian Process or Kriging surrogates. These allow sophisticated approaches for balancing exploration and exploitation and even allow to develop algorithms with calculable rate of convergence as function of the number of parallel processors. In addition to optimization based on adaptive sampling, surrogate assisted parallel evolutionary algorithms are also surveyed. Beyond a review of the present state of the art, the paper also argues that methods that provide easy parallelization, like multiple parallel runs, or methods that rely on population of designs for diversity deserve more attention.United States. Dept. of Energy (National Nuclear Security Administration. Advanced Simulation and Computing Program. Cooperative Agreement under the Predictive Academic Alliance Program. DE-NA0002378

Exploring parameter spaces with artificial intelligence and machine learning black-box optimisation algorithms

Constraining Beyond the Standard Model theories usually involves scanning highly multi-dimensional parameter spaces and check observable predictions against experimental bounds and theoretical constraints. Such task is often timely and computationally expensive, especially when the model is severely constrained and thus leading to very low random sampling efficiency. In this work we tackled this challenge using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning search algorithms used for Black-Box optimisation problems. Using the cMSSM and the pMSSM parameter spaces, we consider both the Higgs mass and the Dark Matter Relic Density constraints to study their sampling efficiency and parameter space coverage. We find our methodology to produce orders of magnitude improvement of sampling efficiency whilst reasonably covering the parameter space.We thank José Santiago Pérez and Jorge Romão for the careful reading of the paper draft and for the useful discussions. This work is supported by FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P. under project CERN/FIS-PAR/0024/2019. FAS is also supported by FCT under the research grant with reference UI/BD/153105/2022. The computational work was partially done using the resources made available by RNCA and INCD under project CPCA/A1/401197/2021info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Symbolic Regression as Feature Engineering Method for Machine and Deep Learning Regression Tasks

In the realm of machine and deep learning regression tasks, the role of effective feature engineering (FE) is pivotal in enhancing model performance. Traditional approaches of FE often rely on domain expertise to manually design features for machine learning models. In the context of deep learning models, the FE is embedded in the neural network's architecture, making it hard for interpretation. In this study, we propose to integrate symbolic regression (SR) as an FE process before a machine learning model to improve its performance. We show, through extensive experimentation on synthetic and real-world physics-related datasets, that the incorporation of SR-derived features significantly enhances the predictive capabilities of both machine and deep learning regression models with 34-86% root mean square error (RMSE) improvement in synthetic datasets and 4-11.5% improvement in real-world datasets. In addition, as a realistic use-case, we show the proposed method improves the machine learning performance in predicting superconducting critical temperatures based on Eliashberg theory by more than 20% in terms of RMSE. These results outline the potential of SR as an FE component in data-driven models