4.7 Article

A Kriging-Assisted Multi-Objective Constrained Global Optimization Method for Expensive Black-Box Functions †

期刊

MATHEMATICS
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/math9020149

关键词

multi-objective constrained optimization; surrogate model; kriging; black-box function

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51775472]
  2. National Mathematics Tian Yuan Special Foundation [11926408]
  3. Science and & Technology Innovation Talents in Universities of Henan Province [21HASTIT027]
  4. Henan Excellent Youth Fund Project [202300414360346]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study introduces a kriging-assisted multi-objective constrained global optimization method that can generate multiple sampling points at a time and generate the Pareto frontier set through multi-objective optimization, further screening out more promising and valuable sampling points.
The kriging optimization method that can only obtain one sampling point per cycle has encountered a bottleneck in practical engineering applications. How to find a suitable optimization method to generate multiple sampling points at a time while improving the accuracy of convergence and reducing the number of expensive evaluations has been a wide concern. For this reason, a kriging-assisted multi-objective constrained global optimization (KMCGO) method has been proposed. The sample data obtained from the expensive function evaluation is first used to construct or update the kriging model in each cycle. Then, kriging-based estimated target, RMSE (root mean square error), and feasibility probability are used to form three objectives, which are optimized to generate the Pareto frontier set through multi-objective optimization. Finally, the sample data from the Pareto frontier set is further screened to obtain more promising and valuable sampling points. The test results of five benchmark functions, four design problems, and a fuel economy simulation optimization prove the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据