Adaptive algorithms for history matching and uncertainty quantification

Numerical reservoir simulation models are the basis for many decisions in regard to predicting, optimising, and improving production performance of oil and gas reservoirs. History matching is required to calibrate models to the dynamic behaviour of the reservoir, due to the existence of uncertainty in model parameters. Finally a set of history matched models are used for reservoir performance prediction and economic and risk assessment of different development scenarios. Various algorithms are employed to search and sample parameter space in history matching and uncertainty quantification problems. The algorithm choice and implementation, as done through a number of control parameters, have a significant impact on effectiveness and efficiency of the algorithm and thus, the quality of results and the speed of the process. This thesis is concerned with investigation, development, and implementation of improved and adaptive algorithms for reservoir history matching and uncertainty quantification problems. A set of evolutionary algorithms are considered and applied to history matching. The shared characteristic of applied algorithms is adaptation by balancing exploration and exploitation of the search space, which can lead to improved convergence and diversity. This includes the use of estimation of distribution algorithms, which implicitly adapt their search mechanism to the characteristics of the problem. Hybridising them with genetic algorithms, multiobjective sorting algorithms, and real-coded, multi-model and multivariate Gaussian-based models can help these algorithms to adapt even more and improve their performance. Finally diversity measures are used to develop an explicit, adaptive algorithm and control the algorithm’s performance, based on the structure of the problem. Uncertainty quantification in a Bayesian framework can be carried out by resampling of the search space using Markov chain Monte-Carlo sampling algorithms. Common critiques of these are low efficiency and their need for control parameter tuning. A Metropolis-Hastings sampling algorithm with an adaptive multivariate Gaussian proposal distribution and a K-nearest neighbour approximation has been developed and applied

Regularized logistic regression and multi-objective variable selection for classifying MEG data

This paper addresses the question of maximizing classifier accuracy for classifying task-related mental activity from Magnetoencelophalography (MEG) data. We propose the use of different sources of information and introduce an automatic channel selection procedure. To determine an informative set of channels, our approach combines a variety of machine learning algorithms: feature subset selection methods, classifiers based on regularized logistic regression, information fusion, and multiobjective optimization based on probabilistic modeling of the search space. The experimental results show that our proposal is able to improve classification accuracy compared to approaches whose classifiers use only one type of MEG information or for which the set of channels is fixed a priori

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

Incorporating Memory and Learning Mechanisms Into Meta-RaPS

Due to the rapid increase of dimensions and complexity of real life problems, it has become more difficult to find optimal solutions using only exact mathematical methods. The need to find near-optimal solutions in an acceptable amount of time is a challenge when developing more sophisticated approaches. A proper answer to this challenge can be through the implementation of metaheuristic approaches. However, a more powerful answer might be reached by incorporating intelligence into metaheuristics. Meta-RaPS (Metaheuristic for Randomized Priority Search) is a metaheuristic that creates high quality solutions for discrete optimization problems. It is proposed that incorporating memory and learning mechanisms into Meta-RaPS, which is currently classified as a memoryless metaheuristic, can help the algorithm produce higher quality results. The proposed Meta-RaPS versions were created by taking different perspectives of learning. The first approach taken is Estimation of Distribution Algorithms (EDA), a stochastic learning technique that creates a probability distribution for each decision variable to generate new solutions. The second Meta-RaPS version was developed by utilizing a machine learning algorithm, Q Learning, which has been successfully applied to optimization problems whose output is a sequence of actions. In the third Meta-RaPS version, Path Relinking (PR) was implemented as a post-optimization method in which the new algorithm learns the good attributes by memorizing best solutions, and follows them to reach better solutions. The fourth proposed version of Meta-RaPS presented another form of learning with its ability to adaptively tune parameters. The efficiency of these approaches motivated us to redesign Meta-RaPS by removing the improvement phase and adding a more sophisticated Path Relinking method. The new Meta-RaPS could solve even the largest problems in much less time while keeping up the quality of its solutions. To evaluate their performance, all introduced versions were tested using the 0-1 Multidimensional Knapsack Problem (MKP). After comparing the proposed algorithms, Meta-RaPS PR and Meta-RaPS Q Learning appeared to be the algorithms with the best and worst performance, respectively. On the other hand, they could all show superior performance than other approaches to the 0-1 MKP in the literature

Innovative hybrid MOEA/AD variants for solving multi-objective combinatorial optimization problems

Orientador : Aurora Trinidad Ramirez PozoCoorientador : Roberto SantanaTese (doutorado) - Universidade Federal do Paraná, Setor de Ciências Exatas, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Informática. Defesa: Curitiba, 16/12/2016Inclui referências : f. 103-116Resumo: Muitos problemas do mundo real podem ser representados como um problema de otimização combinatória. Muitas vezes, estes problemas são caracterizados pelo grande número de variáveis e pela presença de múltiplos objetivos a serem otimizados ao mesmo tempo. Muitas vezes estes problemas são difíceis de serem resolvidos de forma ótima. Suas resoluções tem sido considerada um desafio nas últimas décadas. Os algoritimos metaheurísticos visam encontrar uma aproximação aceitável do ótimo em um tempo computacional razoável. Os algoritmos metaheurísticos continuam sendo um foco de pesquisa científica, recebendo uma atenção crescente pela comunidade. Uma das têndencias neste cenário é a arbordagem híbrida, na qual diferentes métodos e conceitos são combinados objetivando propor metaheurísticas mais eficientes. Nesta tese, nós propomos algoritmos metaheurísticos híbridos para a solução de problemas combinatoriais multiobjetivo. Os principais ingredientes das nossas propostas são: (i) o algoritmo evolutivo multiobjetivo baseado em decomposição (MOEA/D framework), (ii) a otimização por colônias de formigas e (iii) e os algoritmos de estimação de distribuição. Em nossos frameworks, além dos operadores genéticos tradicionais, podemos instanciar diferentes modelos como mecanismo de reprodução dos algoritmos. Além disso, nós introduzimos alguns componentes nos frameworks objetivando balancear a convergência e a diversidade durante a busca. Nossos esforços foram direcionados para a resolução de problemas considerados difíceis na literatura. São eles: a programação quadrática binária sem restrições multiobjetivo, o problema de programação flow-shop permutacional multiobjetivo, e também os problemas caracterizados como deceptivos. Por meio de estudos experimentais, mostramos que as abordagens propostas são capazes de superar os resultados do estado-da-arte em grande parte dos casos considerados. Mostramos que as diretrizes do MOEA/D hibridizadas com outras metaheurísticas é uma estratégia promissora para a solução de problemas combinatoriais multiobjetivo. Palavras-chave: metaheuristicas, otimização multiobjetivo, problemas combinatoriais, MOEA/D, otimização por colônia de formigas, algoritmos de estimação de distribuição, programação quadrática binária sem restrições multiobjetivo, problema de programação flow-shop permutacional multiobjetivo, abordagens híbridas.Abstract: Several real-world problems can be stated as a combinatorial optimization problem. Very often, they are characterized by the large number of variables and the presence of multiple conflicting objectives to be optimized at the same time. These kind of problems are, usually, hard to be solved optimally, and their solutions have been considered a challenge for a long time. Metaheuristic algorithms aim at finding an acceptable approximation to the optimal solution in a reasonable computational time. The research on metaheuristics remains an attractive area and receives growing attention. One of the trends in this scenario are the hybrid approaches, in which different methods and concepts are combined aiming to propose more efficient approaches. In this thesis, we have proposed hybrid metaheuristic algorithms for solving multi-objective combinatorial optimization problems. Our proposals are based on (i) the multi-objective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition (MOEA/D framework), (ii) the bio-inspired metaheuristic ant colony optimization, and (iii) the probabilistic models from the estimation of distribution algorithms. Our algorithms are considered MOEA/D variants. In our MOEA/D variants, besides the traditional genetic operators, we can instantiate different models as the variation step (reproduction). Moreover, we include some design modifications into the frameworks to control the convergence and the diversity during their search (evolution). We have addressed some important problems from the literature, e.g., the multi-objective unconstrained binary quadratic programming, the multiobjective permutation flowshop scheduling problem, and the problems characterized by deception. As a result, we show that our proposed frameworks are able to solve these problems efficiently by outperforming the state-of-the-art approaches in most of the cases considered. We show that the MOEA/D guidelines hybridized to other metaheuristic components and concepts is a powerful strategy for solving multi-objective combinatorial optimization problems. Keywords: meta-heuristics, multi-objective optimization, combinatorial problems, MOEA/D, ant colony optimization, estimation of distribution algorithms, unconstrained binary quadratic programming, permutation flowshop scheduling problem, hybrid approaches

BGSU Graduate College 2000-2002 Catalog

Bowling Green State University graduate catalog for 2000-2002.https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/catalogs/1010/thumbnail.jp

1997-1999, University of Memphis bulletin

University of Memphis bulletin containing the graduate catalog for 1997-1999.https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/speccoll-ua-pub-bulletins/1421/thumbnail.jp

1999-2001, University of Memphis bulletin

University of Memphis bulletin containing the graduate catalog for 1999-2001.https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/speccoll-ua-pub-bulletins/1422/thumbnail.jp

Zorizko instantzia uniformeak sortzen al dira optimizazio konbinatorioan?

Konputazio ebolutiboan, algoritmoek optimizazio-problemen gainean duten errendimendua ebaluatzeko, ohikoa izaten da problema horien hainbat instantzia erabiltzea. Batzuetan, problema errealen instantziak eskuragarri daude, eta beraz, esperimentaziorako instantzien multzoa hortik osatzen da. Tamalez, orokorrean, ez da hori gertatzen: instantziak eskuratzeko zailtasunak direla tarteko, ikerlariek instantzia artifizialak sortu behar izaten dituzte. Lan honetan, instantzia artifizialak uniformeki zoriz sortzearen inguruko aspektu batzuk izango ditugu aztergai. Zehazki, bibliografian horrenbestetan onetsi den ideia bati erreparatuko diogu: Instantzien parametroen espazioan zein helburu-funtzioen espazioan uniformeki zoriz lagintzea baliokideak dira. Exekutatu ditugun esperimentuen arabera, baliokidetasuna kasu batzuetan ez dela betetzen frogatuko dugu, eta beraz, sortzen diren instantziek espero diren ezaugarriak ez dituztela erakutsiko dugu.; In evolutionary computation, it is common practice to use sets of instances as test-beds for evaluating and comparing the performance of new optimisation algo-rithms. In some cases, real-world instances are available, and, thus, they are used to constitute the experimental benchmark. Unfortunately, this is not the general case. Due to the difficulties for obtaining real-world instances, or because the optimisation problems defined in the literature are not exactly as those defined in the industry, practition-ers are forced to create artificial instances. In this paper, we study some aspects related to the random generation of artificial instances. Particularly, we elaborate on the as-sumption that states that sampling uniformly at random in the space of parameters is equivalent to sampling uniformly at random in the space of functions. Illustrated with some experiments, we prove that for some type of algorithms this assumption does not hold