4.7 Article

Multiproblem Surrogates: Transfer Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization of Computationally Expensive Problems

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TEVC.2017.2783441

关键词

Efficient global optimization (EGO); knowledge transfer; multiobjective optimization; multiproblem surrogates (MPSs)

资金

  1. Rolls-Royce@NTU Corporate Laboratory through the National Research Foundation, Singapore, under the Corp Lab@University Scheme
  2. Data Science and Artificial Intelligence Research Centre at the Nanyang Technological University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In most real-world settings, designs are often gradually adapted and improved over time. Consequently, there exists knowledge from distinct (but possibly related) design exercises, which have either been previously completed or are currently in-progress, that may be leveraged to enhance the optimization performance of a particular target optimization task of interest. Further, it is observed that modern day design cycles are typically distributed in nature, and consist of multiple teams working on associated ideas in tandem. In such environments, vast amounts of related information can become available at various stages of the search process corresponding to some ongoing target optimization exercise. Successfully exploiting this knowledge is expected to be of significant value in many practical settings, where solving an optimization problem from scratch may be exorbitantly costly or time consuming. Accordingly, in this paper, we propose an adaptive knowledge reuse framework for surrogate-assisted multiobjective optimization of computationally expensive problems, based on the novel idea of multiproblem surrogates. This idea provides the capability to acquire and spontaneously transfer learned models across problems, facilitating efficient global optimization. The efficacy of our proposition is demonstrated on a series of synthetic benchmark functions, as well as two practical case studies.

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