Agents: Definition, Classification and Structure
Download
Report
Transcript Agents: Definition, Classification and Structure
Multi-Objective Non-linear
Optimization via
Parameterization and Inverse
Function Approximation
University of Regina
Industrial Systems Engineering
M.A.Sc. Thesis Defense
May 23, 2003
Mariano Arriaga Marín
1
Thesis Contributions
Novel technique for attaining the global
solution of nonlinear optimization
problems.
Novel technique for multi-objective
nonlinear optimization (MONLO).
Artificial Neural Networks (ANN)
Implementation
Methods tested in:
– Highly nonlinear optimization problems,
– MONLO problems, and
– Practical scheduling problem.
2
Current Global Optimization
Techniques
Common Techniques
Multistart
Clustering
Method
Genetic Algorithms
Simulated Annealing
Tabu Search
3
Multiple Objective Optimization
Current MONLO procedure:
– Divide the problem in two parts
1. Multi-Objective Single Objective
Problem
2. Solve with a Nonlinear Optimization
Technique
4
Multi-Objective Single Objective
Common Techniques
–
–
–
–
–
Weighting Method
E-Constraint
Interactive Surrogate Worth Trade-Off Solution
Lexicographic Ordering
Goal Programming
Problems
– Include extra parameters which might be
difficult to determine their value.
– Determining their value gets more difficult as
the number of objective functions increases
5
Proposed Optimization Algorithm
Min
F(x) = {f1(x),…,fm(x)}
– where x n
fi(x) ; i = 1,…,m
Optimization of:
– Non-Linear functions
– Multi-objective
– Avoid local minima and inflection
points
6
General Idea
Set an initial value for x and calculate f(x)
Decrease the value of the function via a
parameter
Calculate corresponding f -1(x)
– Note: The algorithm does not necessarily follow the
function
x0
7
General Idea
When the algorithm reaches a local minima
– it looks for a lower value
– if this value exists, the algorithm “jumps” to it and
continues the process
This process continues until the algorithm
reaches the global minimum.
x0
xf
8
Inverse Function Approximation
Inverse Function Approximation
Continuous functions
Full Theoretical Justification1
.
x(r ) J ( x(r ) J ( x(r )) J ( x(r ))
T
T
1 1
.
y J ( x(r )) v v
Mayorga R.V. and Carrera J., (2002), “A Radial Basis Function Network Approach for the Computation of Inverse Time
Variant Functions”, IASTED Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence & Soft Computing, Banff, Canada. (To appear in the
9
International Journal of Neural Systems).
1
Global Optimization Example
Consider the function:
( x12 ( x2 1)2 )
f ( x) 3 (1 x1 ) e
2
( x12 x22 )
(2x1 10x 10x )e
3
1
5
2
1 ( ( x1 1)2 x22 )
e
10
3
10
Initial Model – Part 1
Initial point in “front”
side of curve (1)
Gets out of two local
minima (2 & 3)
Converges to the
global minimum (4)
v=0 and Z-1=0
11
Initial Model – Part 2
Initial point in “back”
side of curve
Gets stuck in an
inflection point
Does not get to the
global minimum
v=0 and Z-1=0
12
Model with vector v and Z-1
Initial point in
“back” side of curve
Goes around the
curve (null space
vector)
Converges to the
global minimum
13
Artificial Neural Networks Model
Initial point in “back”
side of curve
Calculate J(x) and v
with ANNs
Follows almost the
same trajectory as
previous model
Converges to the
global minimum
14
The Griewank Function - Example
Consider the function:
1
x1 100 2 x2 100 2
f ( x1 , x2 )
4000
x 100
cosx1 100 cos 2
1
2
15
Griewank Function Optimization
Initial Model Z-1=0 & v=0
Model with Z-1 & v
Model Using
ANN
16
Multi-Objective Nonlinear Example
2
I-Beam Design Problem2
– Determine best tradeoff dimensions
Minimize conflicting
objectives
– Cross-sectional Area
– Static Deflection
Osyczka, A., (1984), Multicriterion Optimization in Engineering with FORTRAN programs. Ellis Horwood Limited.
17
What if both objectives are solved
separately?
↓
Cross-Sectional Area
↑ Static Deflection
↓ Static Deflection
↑ Cross-Sectional Area
18
I-Beam Results
―
Feasible Solutions
― Strong Pareto
Solutions
― Weak Pareto
Solutions
19
I-Beam Results
Result
– Proposed approach achieves very similar results to
state-of-the-art Genetic Algorithms (GA)
– Gives a diverse set of strong Pareto solutions
– The result of the ANN implementations varies by 0.88%
Computational Time3
– If compared to a standard floating point GA4, the
computational time decreases in 83%
– From 15.2 sec to 2.56 sec
3 Experiments performed in a Sun Ultra 4 Digital Computer. GA: 100 individuals and 50 generations.
4 Passino, K., (1998), Genetic Algorithms Code, September 21st,
http://eewww.eng.ohio-state.edu/~passino/ICbook/ic_code.html (accessed February 2003).
20
Multi-Objective Optimization:
Just-In-Time Scheduling Problem
Consider 5 products manufactured in 2 production
lines
Minimize:
– Cost
– Line Unbalance
– Plant Unbalance
Variables:
– Production Rate
– Level Loading
– Production Time
Production Constraints
21
Scheduling Problem – Optimization
Results
Minimize:
– Cost
22
Multi-Objective Optimization
Example
Minimize:
– Cost
– Line unbalance
Production
Rate
variance / line
23
Multi-Objective Optimization
Example
Minimize:
– Cost
– Line unbalance
Production
Rate
variance / line
– Plant unbalance
Distribute
production
in both production
lines
24
Conclusion
Novel global optimization method
It avoids local minima and inflection
points
The algorithm leads to convexities
via a null space vector v
It can also be used for constraint
nonlinear optimization
25
Conclusion (cont.)
Novel MONLO deterministic method
Starts from a single point instead of a
population
Computational Time
–
For the I-Beam example, the computational
time is 83% less than Genetic Algorithms
–
The implementation of ANN reduces the
number of calculations to compute the
Inverse Function
–
For the scheduling example, the ANN
implementation reduces computational time
by 70%
26
Publications
3rd ANIROB/IEEE-RAS International
Symposium of Robotics and Automation,
Toluca, Mexico. Sept 1-4, 2002
Three journal papers already submitted:
– Journal of Engineering Applications of Artificial
Intelligence
– International Journal of Neural Systems
– Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing
One paper to be published as a Chapter in
a book on Intelligent Systems.
Editor: Dr. Alexander M. Meystel
27