Abstract
This article presents a distributed random search optimization method, the trust region probability collectives (TRPC) method, for unconstrained optimization problems without closed forms. Through analyzing the framework of the original probability collectives (PC) algorithm, three potential requirements on solving the original PC model are first identified. Then an interior point trust region method for bound constrained minimization is adopted to satisfy these requirements. Besides, the temperature annealing schedule is also redesigned to improve the algorithmic performance. Since the new annealing schedule is linked to the gradient, it is much more flexible and efficient than the original one. Ten benchmark functions are used to test the modified algorithm. Numerical results show that TRPC is superior to the PC algorithm in iteration times, accuracy, and robustness.
Access this article
Rent this article via DeepDyve
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1607-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1607_Fig1_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1607-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1607_Fig2_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1607-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1607_Fig3_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1607-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1607_Fig4_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1607-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1607_Fig5_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1607-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1607_Fig6_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1607-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1607_Fig7_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1607-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1607_Fig8_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1607-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1607_Fig9_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1607-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1607_Fig10_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1607-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1607_Fig11_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1607-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1607_Fig12_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1607-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1607_Fig13_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1607-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1607_Fig14_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1607-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1607_Fig15_HTML.gif)
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Antoine N et al (2004) Fleet assignment using collective intelligence. In: Proceedings of 42nd aerospace sciences meeting
Autry Brian M (2008) University course timetabling with probability collectives. NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CA
Bieniawski SR (2005) Distributed optimization and flight control using collectives. PhD thesis, Stanford University
Busoniu L, Robert B, De Bart S (2008) A comprehensive survey of multiagent reinforcement learning. In: IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, part C: applications and reviews, vol 38.2, pp 156–172 (2008)
Coleman TF, Li Y (1994) On the convergence of interior-reflective Newton methods for nonlinear minimization subject to bounds. Math Programm 67(1–3):189–224
Coleman Thomas F, Li Yuying (1996) An interior trust region approach for nonlinear minimization subject to bounds. SIAM J Optim 6(2):418–445
Gill Philip E, Murray W, Margaret H (1981) Wright, practical optimization. Academic Press, New York
Huang C-F et al (2005) A comparative study of probability collectives based multi-agent systems and genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, New York
Kulkarni AJ, Tai K (2008) Probability collectives for decentralized, distributed optimization: a collective intelligence approach. In: IEEE international conference on IEEE systems, man and cybernetics
Kulkarni AJ, Tai K (2009) Probability collectives: a decentralized, distributed optimization for multi-agent systems. In: Applications of soft computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 441–450
Kulkarni AJ, Tai K (2010a) Probability collectives: a distributed optimization approach for constrained problems. In: Evolutionary computation (CEC), IEEE congress, pp 1–8
Kulkarni AJ, Tai K (2010b) Probability collectives: a multi-agent approach for solving combinatorial optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput 10(3):759–771
Kulkarni AJ, Tai K (2011) A probability collectives approach with a feasibility-based rule for constrained optimization. Appl Comput Intell Soft Comput 12
Lee CF, Wolpert DH (2004) Product distribution theory for control of multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the third international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, vol 2. IEEE Computer Society, Washington
Wolpert DH, Lee CF (2004) Adaptive metropolis-Hastings sampling using product distributions. In: Proceedings of ICCS, vol 4
Wolpert DH, Tumer K (2002) Collective intelligence, data routing and Braess paradox. J Artif Intell Res 16:359–387
Wolpert DH (2006) Information theory—the Bridge connecting bounded rational game theory and statistical physics. Complex engineered systems. Springer, Berlin
Wolpert DH, Bieniawski S (2004) Distributed control by lagrangian steepest descent. In: 43rd IEEE conference on decision and control. CDC, vol 2. IEEE, Washington, D.C
Wolpert DH, Tumer K (1999) An introduction to collective intelligence. In: Technical report, NASA ARC-IC-99-63, NASA Ames Research Center
Wolpert DH, Tumer K (2001) Optimal payoff functions for members of collectives. Adv Complex Syst 4(2/3):265–279
Wolpert DH, Rajnarayan D, Bieniawski S (2011) Probab Collect Optim
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by V. Loia.
Appendices
Appendix A
This appendix provides more detailed explanations about the interior TR method we use in Sect. 3. However, the proof of the convergence is still omitted here. Readers who are interested in this could check (Coleman et al. 1996) for more information.
The method we consider is mainly for the problem with a smooth nonlinear objective function subject to bounds on variables:
The feasible region is \({F}\mathop {\,=\,}\limits ^{\text {def}}\,\{x:l\le x\le u\}\) and the strict interior is \(\mathrm{inf}({F})\mathop {\,=\,}\limits ^{\text {def}} \{x:l<x<u\}\). It can be easily checked that model (10) follows this form with \(l=0\) and \(u=1\).
The main idea of this interior TR method is to transform the problem above into a corresponding TR sub-problem which has the same form with the TR sub-problem of an unconstrained problem. To implement this, first we define a vector \(v(x)\) and an affine scaling matrix \(D(x)\) as follows:
Definition 3
Let \(v(x_{i})= (v_{i1}, v_{i2}, \ldots , v_{in})\) be a vector for \(x_{i}\); then
Note that \(v_{i}\) measures each component’s distance from the current point \(x=(x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots , x_{n})\) to the bound \(l\) and \(u\).
Definition 4
For all \(v(x_{i})\), let
where diag(\(\cdot \)) denotes a diagonal matrix.
Assume \(x\)* is a local minimizer for (13), so the first-order necessary conditions for \(x\)* should be
It is worth noting that these first-order conditions to (13) are equivalent to
(14) has the form of the first-order conditions for unconstrained problems and this is exactly why we use the scaling transformation.
So, a Newton stop for (14) satisfies
where \(J_k^v \) is the Jacobian matrix of \(\vert v(x_{i})\vert \); we set \(J_{k}=\mathrm{diag}\)(sign(\(\nabla f))\). The term \(\mathrm{diag}(\nabla f(x_k ))J_k^v \) on the left side is to make the scaled Hessian matrix \(D_k^{-2} H_k \) positive semi-definite.
Based on this Newton step, we could define our quadratic model for the TR method:
where
And a slight modification of the quadratic model above is exactly (11) we used in Sect. 3.2 where \(\nabla f_k =\nabla L_k \). It’s also obvious that the statements a\(\sim \)c in Sect. 3.2 hold.
Appendix B
This appendix describes the dog-leg method we used to solve the quadratic sub-problem in TR. Still, we omit the convergence proof of this method and only present the results. More information could be found in Gill et al. (1981).
The quadratic sub-problem we consider is
Note if we define \(\psi (s)=m_c (x_c +s)-f(x_c )\), (16) has the same form of (15).
Thedog-leg method does not find the optimal solution \(s\)* to (16). Instead, it uses two directions to approximate \(s\)*. The first direction is the steepest descent direction and the second is the Newton direction. According to the trust region radius, different \(s\) is chosen as an approximate solution to (16). This idea could be illustrated by the figure below (Fig. 16).
Point C.P. is the Cauchy Point, the minimizer of (16) in the steepest descent direction. Obviously, we need to consider three cases:
Case 1 if \(\delta _c \le \left\| {s^\mathrm{C.P.}} \right\| _2 \)
In this case, we choose \(s=\alpha s^\mathrm{C.P.},\,0<\alpha <1\) as the final solution.
Case 2 if \(\left\| {s^\mathrm{C.P.}} \right\| _2 \le \delta _c \le \left\| {s^N} \right\| _2 \)
In this case, we choose \(s=s^\mathrm{C.P.}+\alpha (s^N-s^\mathrm{C.P.}),\,0<\alpha <1\) as the final solution.
Case 3 if \(\delta _c \ge \left\| {s^N} \right\| _2 \)
In this case, we choose \(s=s^N\) as the final solution
It has been proved that alone the curve \(x_{c}\rightarrow \)C.P. \(\rightarrow x_{N}\), \(m_{c}\) decreases monotonically and there is always \(\left\| {s^\mathrm{C.P.}} \right\| _2 \le \left\| {s^N} \right\| _2 \). So every solution generated by the dog-leg method to the quadratic sub-problem is a sufficient descent and the method ultimately converges. In Sect. 3.2, we use the notation \(s^{B}\) and \(s^{U}\) instead of \(s^{N}\) and \(s^\mathrm{C.P.}.\)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, B., Wu, R. A modified probability collectives optimization algorithm based on trust region method and a new temperature annealing schedule. Soft Comput 20, 1581–1600 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-015-1607-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-015-1607-7