Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surrogate-assisted clonal selection algorithms for expensive optimization problems

  • Special Issue
  • Published:
Evolutionary Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Clonal selection algorithms are computational methods inspired by the behavior of the immune system which can be applied to solve optimization problems. However, like other nature inspired algorithms, they can require a large number of objective function evaluations in order to reach a satisfactory solution. When those evaluations involve a computationally expensive simulation model their cost becomes prohibitive. In this paper we analyze the use of surrogate models in order to enhance the performance of a clonal selection algorithm. Computational experiments are conducted to assess the performance of the presented techniques using a benchmark with 22 test-problems under a fixed budget of objective function evaluations. The comparisons show that for most cases the use of surrogate models improve significantly the performance of the baseline clonal selection algorithm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Algorithm 1
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Acar E, Rais-Rohani M (2009) Ensemble of metamodels with optimized weight factors. Struct Multidisc Optim 37(3):279–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aha DW (1997) Editorial. Artif Intell Rev 11(1–5):1–6 Special issue on lazy learning

    Google Scholar 

  3. AISWeb (2008): the online home of artificial immune systems. http://www.artificial-immune-systems.org., accessed 11/09/2008

  4. Barbosa HJC, Bernardino HS, Barreto AMS (2010) Using performance profiles to analyze the results of the 2006 CEC constrained optimization competition. In: IEEE world congress on computational intelligence. Barcelona, Spain

  5. Bernardino HS, Barbosa HJ, Fonseca LG (2010) A faster clonal selection algorithm for expensive optimization problems. In: Hart E, McEwan C, Timmis J, Hone A (eds) Artificial immune systems, lecture notes in computer science, vol 6209. Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg, pp 130–143

  6. Bernardino HS, Barbosa HJC (2009) Artificial immune systems for optimization. In: Chiong R (ed) Nature-inspired algorithms for optimisation.. Springer, Berlin, pp 389–411

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Bernardino HS, Fonseca LG, Barbosa HJC (2009) Surrogate-assisted artificial immune systems for expensive optimization problems. In: dos Santos WP (ed) Evolutionary computation. IntechWeb, pp 179–198

  8. Blanning RW (1974) The source and uses of sensivity information. Interfaces 4(4):32–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. de Castro LN, von Zuben FJ (2002) Learning and optimization using the clonal selection principle. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(3):239–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Custodio FL, Barbosa HJC, Dardenne LE (2010) Full-atom ab initio protein structure prediction with a genetic algorithm using a similarity-based surrogate model. In: IEEE world congress on computational intelligence. Barcelona, Spain

  11. Cutello V, Narzisi G, Nicosia G, Pavone M (2005) Clonal selection algorithms: A comparative case study using effective mutation potentials. In: Proc. of the intl. conf. on artificial immune systems—ICARIS 2005, LNCS, vol 3627. Springer, Banff, Canada, pp 13–28

  12. Cutello V, Nicosia G, Pavone M (2006) Real coded clonal selection algorithm for unconstrained global optimization using a hybrid inversely proportional hypermutation operator. In: Proc. of the ACM symposium on applied computing—SAC ’06. ACM Press, New York, pp 950–954

  13. Dolan E, Moré JJ (2002) Benchmarcking optimization software with performance profiles. Math Program 91(2):201–213

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Emmerich M, Giannakoglou K, Naujoks B (2006) Single- and multiobjective evolutionary optimization assisted by gaussian random field metamodels. Evol Comput 10(4):421–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ferrari S, Stengel RF (2005) Smooth function approximation using neural networks. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 16(1):24–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fonseca LG, Barbosa HJC, Lemonge ACC (2007) Metamodel assisted genetic algorithm for truss weight minimization. In: ICMOSPS’07. Durban, South Africa. CD-ROM

  17. Fonseca LG, Barbosa HJC, Lemonge ACC (2009) A similarity-based surrogate model for enhanced performance in genetic algorithms. Opsearch 46:89–107

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Fonseca LG, Barbosa HJC, Lemonge ACC (2010) On similarity-based surrogate models for expensive single- and multi-objective evolutionary optimization. In: Tenne Y, Goh CK (eds) Computational intelligence in expensive optimization problems. Springer, New York, pp 219–248

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Forrester AI, Keane AJ (2009) Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci 45:50–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Garrett SM (2004) Parameter-free, adaptive clonal selection. IEEE Congr Evol Comput 1:1052–1058

    Google Scholar 

  21. Giannakoglou KC (2002) Design of optimal aerodynamic shapes using stochastic optimization methods and computational intelligence. Prog Aerosp Sci 38(1):43–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Grefenstette J, Fitzpatrick J (2009) Genetic search with approximate fitness evaluations. In: Proc. of the intl. conf. on genetic algorithms and their applications, pp 112–120

  23. Hu H, Lee DL (2006) Range nearest-neighbor query. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 18(1):78–91

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Jin Y, Branke J (2005) Evolutionary optimization in uncertain environments-a survey. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 9(3):303–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kecman V (2001) Learning and soft computing: support vector machines, neural networks, and fuzzy logic models. Complex adaptive systems. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  26. Liang Y, Leung KS (2002) Two-way mutation evolution strategies, pp 789 –794

  27. Lim D, Jin Y, Ong YS, Sendhoff B (2010) Generalizing surrogate-assisted evolutionary computation. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 14(3):329–355

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ong Y, Nair P, Keane A (2003) Evolutionary optimization of computationally expensive problems via surrogate modeling. AIAA J 41(4):687–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Praveen C, Duvigneau R (2009) Low cost PSO using metamodels and inexact pre-evaluation: application to aerodynamic shape design. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198(9–12):1087–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rasheed K, Vattam S, Ni X (2002) Comparison of methods for using reduced models to speed up design optimization. In: Proc. of genetic and evolutionary computation conference. Morgan Kaufmann, New York, pp 1180–1187

  31. Regis RG, Shoemaker CA (2004) Local function approximation in evolutionary algorithms for the optimization of costly functions. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8(5):490–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Runarsson T (2006) Approximate evolution strategy using stochastic ranking. In: Yen GG et al (eds) IEEE world congress on computational intelligence. Vancouver, Canada, pp 745–752

  33. Runarsson TP (2004) Constrained evolutionary optimization by approximate ranking and surrogate models. In: Yao X et al (eds) Proc. of 8th parallel problem solving from nature. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 401–410

  34. Salami M, Hendtlass T (2003) A fast evaluation strategy for evolutionary algorithms. Appl Soft Comput 2:156–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sanchez E, Pintos S, Queipo N (2007) Toward an optimal ensemble of kernel-based approximations with engineering applications. Structural and multidisciplinary optimization, pp 1–15

  36. Sastry K, Lima CF, Goldberg DE (2006) Evaluation relaxation using substructural information and linear estimation. In: Proc. of the 8th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM Press, New York, pp 419–426

  37. Shepard D (1968) A two-dimensional interpolation function for irregularly-spaced data. In: Proc. of the 1968 23rd ACM national conference. ACM Press, New York, pp 517–524

  38. Smith RE, Dike BA, Stegmann, SA (1995) Fitness inheritance in genetic algorithms. In: Proc. of the ACM symposium on applied computing, pp 345–350

  39. Suganthan PN (2010) Benchmarks for evaluation of evolutionary algorithms. http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/epnsugan/index_files/cec-benchmarking.htm, accessed in 2010

  40. Suganthan PN, Hansen N, Liang JJ, Deb K, Chen YP, Auger A, Tiwari S (2005) Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the cec 2005 special session on real-parameter optimization. Tech. Rep. 2005005, Nanyang Technological University

  41. Sun XY, Gong D, Li S (2009) Classification and regression-based surrogate model-assisted interactive genetic algorithm with individual’s fuzzy fitness. In: Proc. of the 11th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM Press, New York, pp 907–914

  42. Tang K, Li X, Suganthan PN, Yang Z, Weise T (2009) Benchmark functions for the cec’2010 special session and competition on large scale global optimization. Tech. rep., Nature Inspired Computation and Applications Laboratory

  43. Tang K, Yao X, Suganthan PN, MacNish C, Chen YP, Chen CM, Yang Z (2007) Benchmark functions for the cec’2008 special session and competition on large scale global optimization. Tech. rep., Nature Inspired Computation and Applications Laboratory

  44. Wanner EF, Guimaraes FG, Takahashi RHC, Lowther DA, Ramirez JA (2008) Multiobjective memetic algorithms with quadratic approximation-based local search for expensive optimization in electromagnetics. IEEE Trans Magn 44(6):1126–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Whitley D (2010) Test functions. http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~genitor/functions.html, accessed in 2010

  46. Yan X, Su XG (2009) Linear regression analysis: theory and computing. World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Yang D, Flockton SJ (1995) Evolutionary algorithms with a coarse-to-fine function smoothing. IEEE Intl Conf Evol Comput 2:657–662

    Google Scholar 

  48. Yao X, Liu Y, Lin G (1999) Evolutionary programming made faster. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3:82–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support received from CNPq (308317/2009-2) and FAPERJ (grants E-26/102.825/2008 and E-26/100 .308/2010).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratório Nacional de Computação Científica, LNCC, Av. Getulio Vargas, 333, 25651-075, Petrópolis, RJ, Brazil

    Heder S. Bernardino & Helio J. C. Barbosa

  2. Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, UFJF, Campus Universitrio, 36036-330, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil

    Helio J. C. Barbosa & Leonardo G. Fonseca

Authors
  1. Heder S. Bernardino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helio J. C. Barbosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leonardo G. Fonseca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helio J. C. Barbosa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bernardino, H.S., Barbosa, H.J.C. & Fonseca, L.G. Surrogate-assisted clonal selection algorithms for expensive optimization problems. Evol. Intel. 4, 81–97 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-011-0056-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-011-0056-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation