An interactive surrogate-based method for computationally expensive multiobjective optimisation

References

• Arias-Montano, A., Coello Coello, C.A. & Mezura-Montes, E. (2012). Multi-objective airfoil shape optimization using a multiple-surrogate approach. Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Audet, C. (2014). A survey on direct search methods for blackbox optimization and their applications. In P. M. Pardalos & T. M. Rassias (Eds.), Mathematics without boundaries (pp. 31–56). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chih, M. (2013). A more accurate second-order polynomial metamodel using a pseudorandom number assignment strategy. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64(2), 198–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das, I., & Dennis, J. (1998). Normal-boundary intersection: A new method for generating the Pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimization problems. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 8(3), 631–657.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deb, K., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., & Zitzler, E. (2002). Scalable multi-objective optimization test problems. In Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (Vol. 1, pp. 825–830). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Dengiz, B., Alabas-Uslu, C., & Dengiz, O. (2009). Optimization of manufacturing systems using a neural network metamodel with a new training approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(9), 1191–1197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drela, M. (1989). Xfoil: An analysis and design system for low Reynolds number aerodynamics.
   Google Scholar
• Giunta, A., Watson, L. T., & Koehler, J. (1998). A comparison of approximation modeling techniques: Polynomial versus interpolating models. In Proceedings of 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization (Vol. 1, pp. 392–404). St. Louis, MO.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Hartikainen, M., & Lovison, A. (2015). Paint-SiCon: constructing consistent parametric representations of Pareto sets in nonconvex multiobjective optimization. Journal of Global Optimization, 62(2), 243–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartikainen, M., Miettinen, K., & Wiecek, M. M. (2012). PAINT: Pareto front interpolation for nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Computational Optimization and Applications, 52(3), 845–867.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helton, J. C., Johnson, J. D., Sallaberry, C. J., & Storlie, C. B. (2006). Survey of sampling based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 91(10–11), 1175–1209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurrion, D. R. (2000). A sequential method for the development of visual interactive meta-simulation models using neural networks. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(6), 712–719.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin, R., Chen, W., & Simpson, T. W. (2001). Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 23(1), 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces. Journal of Global Optimization, 21(4), 345–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, D. R., Perttunen, C. D., & Stuckman, B. E. (1993). Lipschitzian optimization without the Lipschitz constant. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 79(1), 157–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitayama, S., Srirat, J., Arakawa, M., & Yamazaki, K. (2013). Sequential approximate multi-objective optimization using radial basis function network. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 48(3), 501–515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleijnen, C. J. P., & van Beers, M. W. C. (2013). Monotonicity-preserving bootstrapped kriging metamodels for expensive simulations. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64(5), 708–717.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larichev, O. I. (1992). Cognitive validity in design of decision-aiding techniques. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 1(3), 127–138.
   Google Scholar
• Mehdad, E., & Kleijnen, C. J. P. (2015). Classic Kriging versus Kriging with bootstrapping or conditional simulation: classic Kriging’s robust condence intervals and optimization. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66(11), 1804–1814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messac, A., & Mullur, A. A. (2008). A computationally efficient metamodeling approach for expensive multiobjective optimization. Optimization and Engineering, 9(1), 37–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miettinen, K. (1999). Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Miettinen, K. (2008). Introduction to multiobjective optimization: Noninteractive approaches. In J. Branke , K. Deb, K. Miettinen, & R. Slowinski (Eds.), Multiobjective Optimization: Interactive and evolutionary approaches (pp. 1–26). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Miettinen, K., Ruiz, F., & Wierzbicki, A. P. (2008). Introduction to multiobjective optimization: Interactive approaches. In J. Branke, K. Deb, K. Miettinen, & R. Slowinski (Eds.), Multiobjective optimization: Interactive and evolutionary approaches (pp. 27–57). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Muller, J., & Shoemaker, C. A. (2014). Inuence of ensemble surrogate models and sampling strategy on the solution quality of algorithms for computationally expensive black-box global optimization problems. Journal of Global Optimization, 60(2), 123–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muller, J., Shoemaker, C. A., & Piche, R. (2013). SO-MI: A surrogate model algorithm for computationally expensive nonlinear mixed-integer black-box global optimization problems. Computers & Operations Research, 40(5), 1383–1400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, T., Yum, B., Hung, Y., Jeong, Y.-S., & Jeong, K. M. (2016). Robust kriging models in computer experiments. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 67(4), 644–653.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regis, R. G., & Shoemaker, C. A. (2012). Combining radial basis function surrogates and dynamic coordinate search in high-dimensional expensive black-box optimization. Engineering Optimization, 45(5), 529–555.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reis dos Santos, I. M., & Reis dos Santos, M. P. (2011). Construction and validation of distribution-based regression simulation metamodels. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(7), 1376–1384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz, A. B., Sindhya, K., Miettinen, K., Ruiz, F., & Luque, M. (2015). E-NAUTILUS: A decision support system for complex multiobjective optimization problems based on the nautilus method. European Journal of Operational Research, 246(1), 218–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaumann, E., Balling, R., & Day, K. (1998). Genetic algorithms with multiple objectives. Proceedings of 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization (Vol. 3, pp. 2114–2123). St. Louis, MO.
   Google Scholar
• Tabatabaei, M., Hakanen, J., Hartikainen, M., Miettinen, K., & Sindhya, K. (2015). A survey on handling computationally expensive multiobjective optimization problems using surrogates: non-nature inspired methods. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 52(1), 1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, M. (2015). Sequential Bayesian polynomial chaos model selection for estimation of sensitivity indices. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 3, 146–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Beers, M. W. C., & Kleijnen, C. J. P. (2003). Kriging for interpolation in random simulation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(3), 255–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wierzbicki, A. P. (1982). A mathematical basis for satisficing decision making. Mathematical Modelling, 3(5), 391–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wierzbicki, A. P. (1986). On the completeness and constructiveness of parametric characterizations to vector optimization problems. OR Spectrum, 8(2), 73–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, T., & Tseng, L. (2002). Solving a multi-objective simulation model using a hybrid response surface method and lexicographical goal programming approach-a case study on integrated circuit ink-marking machines. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53(2), 211–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yun, Y., Yoon, M., & Nakayama, H. (2009). Multi-objective optimization based on metamodeling by using support vector regression. Optimization and Engineering, 10(2), 167–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zitzler, E., Deb, K., & Thiele, L. (2000). Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical results. Evolutionary Computation, 8(2), 173–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar