rosenbrock-like problems: smf versus other sbo implementations · (mohamed et al., 2006) ¹eldred,...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations
A.S. Mohamed, S. Koziel, J.W. Bandler, M.H. Bakr, and Q.S. Cheng
Simulation Optimization Systems Research Laboratory Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, McMaster University
Bandler Corporation, www.bandler.com [email protected]
presented at
SURROGATE MODELLING AND SPACE MAPPING FOR ENGINEERING OPTIMIZATION SMSMEO-06, November 9-11, 2006, Technical University of Denmark
![Page 2: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline
space mapping surrogate
Rosenbrock function: the benchmark
our Rosenbrock test examples
SMF and other SBO implementations comparison
conclusions
![Page 3: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
A Space-Mapping-based Surrogate
![Page 4: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
SMF: Optimization Flowchart
![Page 5: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Generalized Space Mapping (GSM) Framework(Koziel, Bandler, and Madsen, 2006)
at iteration i, a surrogate model Rs(i) : X → Rm used
by the GSM optimization algorithm is defined as
where
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( ) ( )i i i i i i is c= ⋅ ⋅ + + + ⋅ −R x A R B x c d E x x
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( )i i i i i if c= − ⋅ ⋅ +d R x A R B x c
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( )f c
i i i i i i i= − ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅R RE J x A J B x c B
{}
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )0( , , )
( ) ( )0
( , , ) arg min || ( ) ( ) ||
|| ( ) ( ) ||f c
ii i i k kk f ck
i k kkk
w
v
=
=
= − ⋅ ⋅ + +
+ − ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅
∑
∑A B c
R R
A B c R x A R B x c
J x A J B x c B
![Page 6: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Rosenbrock Banana Function
Rosenbrock, 1960
Fletcher, Practical Methods of Optimization, 1987
Bakr, Bandler, Georgieva, and K. Madsen, 1999
Bandler, Mohamed, Bakr, Madsen, and Søndergaard, 2002
Søndergaard, 2003
Bandler, Cheng, Dakroury, Mohamed, Bakr, Madsen, and Søndergaard, 2004
Giunta and Eldred, 2000; Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, 2004
Robinson, Eldred, Willcox, and Haimes, 2006
![Page 7: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Original Rosenbrock Function (Coarse Model)(Bandler et al., 1999, 2002)
2 2 22 1 1
1 *
2
( ) 100( ) (1 )1.0
where and 1.0
c c
c c
R x x xxx
= − + −
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤= =⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
x
x x
x1
x 2
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
*( ) 0c cR =x
* 1.01.0c⎡ ⎤
= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦
x
*
![Page 8: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Transformed Rosenbrock Function (Fine Model)(Bandler et al., 2002)
parameter transformation of the original Rosenbrock function
2 2 22 1 1
1
2
*
( ) 100( ) (1 )
1.1 0.2 0.3where
0.2 0.9 0.3
1.27184470.4951456
f f
f
f
R u u u
uu
= − + −
− −⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤= = +⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦⎡ ⎤
= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦
x
u x
x
![Page 9: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Transformed Rosenbrock Function(Mohamed et al., 2006)
![Page 10: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Transformed Rosenbrock Function(Mohamed et al., 2006)
(9)
(9)
(9)
(9)
1.1083 0.20350.2177 0.8928
0.30880.2810
1.27184460.4951456
5.4e 16
f
fR
−⎡ ⎤= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦−⎡ ⎤
= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦⎡ ⎤
= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦
= −
B
c
x
( )
( )
*
*
1.1 0.20.2 0.9
0.30.3
1.27184470.4951456
0
true
true
f
fR
−⎡ ⎤= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦−⎡ ⎤
= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎤= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦
=
B
c
x
![Page 11: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Response-Transformed Rosenbrock Function (Fine Model)(Mohamed et al., 2006)
a response linear transformation of the original Rosenbrock function
2 2 22 1 1
1 *
2
( ) 2 100( ) (1 ) 3
1.0where and
1.0
f f
f f
R x x x
xx
⎡ ⎤= − + − +⎣ ⎦⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
= =⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
x
x x
![Page 12: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Response-Transformed Rosenbrock Function(Mohamed et al., 2006)
![Page 13: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Response-Transformed Rosenbrock Function(Mohamed et al., 2006)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
2.0007
3.01.00000031.0000005
1.4e 13
f
f
A
D
R
=
=
⎡ ⎤= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦
= −
x
( )
( )
*
*
2.0
3.01.01.0
0
true
true
f
f
A
D
R
=
=
⎡ ⎤= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦
=
x
![Page 14: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Response and Parameter-Transformed Rosenbrock Function (Fine Model) (Mohamed et al., 2006)
a response (scale + shift) and parameter (rotation + shift) transformation of the original Rosenbrock function
2 2 22 1 1
1
2
*
( ) 2 100( ) (1 ) 3
1.1 0.2 0.3where
0.2 0.9 0.3
1.27184470.4951456
f f
f
f
R u u u
uu
⎡ ⎤= − + − +⎣ ⎦− −⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
= = +⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎤= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦
x
u x
x
![Page 15: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Response and Parameter-Transformed Rosenbrock Function(Mohamed et al., 2006)
![Page 16: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Response and Parameter-Transformed Rosenbrock Function(Mohamed et al., 2006)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
4.87150.9862 0.63721.8238 1.1784
0.84461.449
0.01.27184420.4951449
3 (4.6e 13)
f
f
A
d
R
=
−⎡ ⎤= ⎢ ⎥−⎣ ⎦⎡ ⎤
= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦
=
⎡ ⎤= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦
= − −
B
c
x
( )
( )
( )
( )
*
*
2.01.1 0.20.2 0.9
0.30.3
3.01.27184470.4951456
3
true
true
true
true
f
f
A
d
R
=
−⎡ ⎤= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦−⎡ ⎤
= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦
=
⎡ ⎤= ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦
=
B
c
x
![Page 17: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Rosenbrock Function (Low Fidelity Model with Offsets)(Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004)
low fidelity model
high fidelity model
2 2 22 1 1
1 *
2
( ) 100( 0.2) (0.8 )0.8
where and 0.44
c c
c c
R x x xxx
= − + + −
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤= =⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
x
x x
2 2 22 1 1
1 *
2
( ) 100( ) (1 )
1.0where and
1.0
f f
f f
R x x x
xx
= − + −
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤= =⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
x
x x
![Page 18: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Rosenbrock Function (Low Fidelity Model with Offsets) (Mohamed et al., 2006)
¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004
1.53e–10235FD 2nd add¹
1.24e–15115Full 2nd add¹
8.96e–155931Full 2nd mult¹
6
23
#of iters
2.79e–14
4.73e–15
Rf
35
42
FM Evals
SMF
SR1 2nd comb¹
method
![Page 19: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Rosenbrock Function (Low Fidelity Model with Scalings)(Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004)
low fidelity model
high fidelity model
2 2 22 1 1
1 *
2
( ) 100(1.25 ) (1 1.25 )0.8
where and 0.512
c c
c c
R x x xxx
= − + −
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤= =⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
x
x x
2 2 22 1 1
1 *
2
( ) 100( ) (1 )
1.0where and
1.0
f f
f f
R x x x
xx
= − + −
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤= =⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
x
x x
![Page 20: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Rosenbrock Function (Low Fidelity Model with Scalings) (Mohamed et al., 2006)
¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004
4.58e–96817FD 2nd add¹
2.59e–127642Full 2nd mult¹
1.38e–1315487BFGS 2nd mult¹
1.68e–14514292BFGS 2nd comb¹
14
#of iters
9.39e–15
Rf
77
FM Evals
SMF
method
![Page 21: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Multi-Fidelity Optimization (MFO) Algorithm(Castro, Gray, Giunta, and Hough, 2006)
the MFO algorithm incorporates a derivative free optimization approach based on two techniques:
1. Asynchronous Parallel Pattern Search (APPS)2. Space Mapping (SM)
![Page 22: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Multi-Variable Rosenbrock Function (Case 1) (Castro, Gray, Giunta, and Hough, 2006)
high fidelity model
low fidelity model
[ ] [ ]
2 2 2 2 2 22 1 1 3 2 2
*1 2 3
( ) 100( ) (1 ) 100( ) (1 )
where and 1 1 1
f f
T Tf f
R x x x x x x
x x x
= − + − + − + −
= =
x
x x
[ ] [ ]
2 2 22 1 1
*1 2
( ) 100( ) (1 )
where and 1 1c c
T Tc c
R x x x
x x
= − + −
= =
x
x x
![Page 23: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Multi-Variable Rosenbrock Function (Case 1, using B) (Mohamed et al., 2006)
six SM parameters
¹Castro, Gray, Giunta, and Hough, 2006
0.38
1.35
Rf
30
87
# of function evaluations
SMF
MFO¹
method *fx
[ ]0.3 0.68 0.46 T
[ ]1.05 1.09 1.14 T
(6)0.05 0.15 0.450.19 1.00.0 0.0 1.0
3 1.02⎡ ⎤⎢ ⎥= ⎢
− −− ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦
B
![Page 24: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Multi-Variable Rosenbrock Function (Case 2) (Castro, Gray, Giunta, and Hough, 2006)
high fidelity model
low fidelity model
[ ] [ ]
2 2 2 2 2 22 1 1 3 2 2
2 2 24 3 3
*1 2 3 4
( ) 100( ) (1 ) 100( ) (1 )
100( ) (1 )
where and 1 1 1 1
f f
T Tf f
R x x x x x x
x x x
x x x x
= − + − + − + −
+ − + −
= =
x
x x
[ ] [ ]
2 2 22 1 1
*1 2
( ) 100( ) (1 )
where and 1 1c c
T Tc c
R x x x
x x
= − + −
= =
x
x x
![Page 25: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Multi-Variable Rosenbrock Function (Case 2, using B) (Mohamed et al., 2006)
eight SM parameters
¹Castro, Gray, Giunta, and Hough, 2006
0.451
1.58
Rf
103
154
# of function evaluations
SMF
MFO¹
method *fx
[ ]0.55 0.29 0.087 0.003 T−
[ ]0.99 0.93 0.89 0.64 T−
(9)
5.49 1.92 2.81 0.313.56 2.56 5.07 0.60.0 0.0 1.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
8⎡ ⎤⎢ ⎥⎢
−
⎥=⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥⎣
−
⎦
−B
![Page 26: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Multi-Variable Rosenbrock Function (Case 2, using B and E)(Mohamed et al., 2006)
eight SM parameters
¹Castro, Gray, Giunta, and Hough, 2006
0.056
1.58
Rf
110
154
# of function evaluations
SMF
MFO¹
method *fx
[ ]0.55 0.29 0.087 0.003 T−
[ ]0.99 1.01 1.02 0.60 T−
(11)
0.56 0.08 1.66 0.250.93 1.19 0.94 2.70.0 0.0 1.0 0.00.0 0. 1
0
0 0.0 .0
⎡ ⎤⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥⎢
⎦
−
⎥⎣
B
![Page 27: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Multi-Variable Rosenbrock Function (Case 2, using B) (Mohamed et al., 2006)
four SM parameters
¹Castro, Gray, Giunta, and Hough, 2006
0.76
1.73
Rf
76
80
# of function evaluations
SMF
MFO¹
method *fx
[ ]0.49 0.24 0.081 0.009 T
[ ]0.71 0.47 0.27 0.96 T−
(7)
0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 0.0 1.0 0.00.0 0.0
0.961.85 0.98 0.2
0.0 1.0
1⎡ ⎤⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦
−B
![Page 28: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Multi-Variable Rosenbrock Function (Case 2, using B and E) (Mohamed et al., 2006)
four SM parameters
¹Castro, Gray, Giunta, and Hough, 2006
0.36
1.73
Rf
76
80
# of function evaluations
SMF
MFO¹
method *fx
[ ]1.20 1.43 2.06 2.68 T−
(7)
0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 0.0 1.0 0.00.0 0.0
0.747.35 3.82 0.6
0.0 1.0
7⎡ ⎤⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦
−B
[ ]0.49 0.24 0.081 0.009 T
![Page 29: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Multi-Variable Rosenbrock Function (Case 3) (Castro, Gray, Giunta, and Hough, 2006)
high fidelity model
low fidelity model
[ ] [ ]
2 2 22 1 1
*1 2
( ) 100( ) (1 )
where and 1 1c c
T Tc c
R x x x
x x
= − + −
= =
x
x x
[ ] [ ]
2 2 2 2 2 22 1 1 3 2 2
*1 2 3
( ) 100( ) (1 ) 100( ) (1 )
where and 1 1 1
f f
T Tf f
R x x x x x x
x x x
= − + − + − + −
= =
x
x x
![Page 30: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Multi-Variable Rosenbrock Function (Case 3, using B and c) (Mohamed et al., 2006)
five SM parameters
¹Castro, Gray, Giunta, and Hough, 2006
0.062
0.728
Rf
42
50
# of function evaluations
SMF
MFO¹
method *fx
[ ]0.55 0.32 0.12 T
[ ]1.06 1.13 1.25 T
(4) (4)0.0 0.0
0.0 ,0.0 0.0 1.0
0
0.0
.90 1.141.23 0.05 1.28
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥= =⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎣
−− −
⎦ ⎦
B c
![Page 31: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Multi-Variable Rosenbrock Function (Case 3, using B and c) (Mohamed et al., 2006)
six SM parameters
¹Castro, Gray, Giunta, and Hough, 2006
0.015
1.2
Rf
56
62
# of function evaluations
SMF
MFO¹
method *fx
[ ]0.35 0.12 0.007 T
[ ]1.04 1.07 1.15 T
(5) (5)0.0
0.0 ,0.0 0.0 1.0 0
0.57 0.12 0.381.58 0.71 0.18
.0
⎡ −−
⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥= =⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
−B c
![Page 32: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Multi-Variable Rosenbrock Function (Case 3, using B and c) (Mohamed et al., 2006)
eight SM parameters
¹Castro, Gray, Giunta, and Hough, 2006
0.011
0.032
Rf
38
91
# of function evaluations
SMF
MFO¹
method *fx
[ ]0.95 0.91 0.84 T
[ ]1.02 1.04 1.09 T
(4) (4),0.0 0.0 1.0
0.92 0.05 0.67 0.230.3
08 0.78 0.01 1
..70
0⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥= =⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎣
− −
⎦ ⎦
B c
![Page 33: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
MIT Rosenbrock Function (Robinson, Eldred, Willcox, and Haimes, 2006)
high fidelity model
low fidelity model
[ ] [ ]
2 21 2
*1 2
( )
where and 0.0 0.0
= +
= =
x
x xc c
T Tc c
R x x
x x
[ ] [ ]
2 2 22 1 1
*1 2
( ) 4( ) (1 )
where and 1.0 1.0
= − + −
= =
x
x x
f f
T Tf f
R x x x
x x
![Page 34: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
MIT Rosenbrock Function (Mohamed et al., 2006)
POD: Proper Orthogonal Decomposition
¹Robinson, Eldred, Willcox, and Haimes, 2006
1.0e–1520Multi-fidelity with corrected POD¹
1.0e–1420Multi-fidelity with corrected SM¹
8.2e–14
Rf
24
FM Evals
SMF
method
![Page 35: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
2020241.0e–14
1.0e–158.2e–14Robinson et al., 2006 (Case 1)
91380.0320.011Castro et al., 2006 (Case 3c)50420.7280.062Castro et al., 2006 (Case 3b)62561.20.015Castro et al., 2006 (Case 3a)
8076761.730.76
0.36Castro et al., 2006 (Case 2b)
1541031101.580.451
0.056Castro et al., 2006 (Case 2a)
87301.350.38Castro et al., 2006 (Case 1)
5141547668
77
1.68e–141.38e–132.59e–124.58e–9
9.39e–15Eldred et al., 2004 (Case 2)
11594223
35
1.25e–158.96e–154.73e–101.53e–10
2.79e–14Eldred et al., 2004 (Case 1)
Other SBOSMFOther SBOSMF# fine model evaluationsRfTest Problem
![Page 36: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Conclusion
we utilize SMF to solve several Rosenbrock-like test problems
we compare SMF with other SBO implementations
within its current configuration, SMF manages to behave as well as or better than the other SBO implementations
![Page 37: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
![Page 38: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Bibliography 1J.W. Bandler, R.M. Biernacki, S.H. Chen, P.A. Grobelny, and R.H. Hemmers, “Space mapping technique for electromagnetic optimization,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 2536–2544, Dec. 1994.
J.W. Bandler, R.M. Biernacki, S.H. Chen, R.H. Hemmers, and K. Madsen, “Electromagnetic optimization exploiting aggressive space mapping,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 2874–2882, Dec. 1995.
N. Alexandrov, J. E. Dennis, R. M. Lewis, and V. Torczon, “A trust region framework for managing the use of approximation models in optimization,” Structural Optimization, vol. 15, pp. 16–23, 1998.
A.J. Booker, J.E. Dennis, Jr., P.D. Frank, D. B. Serafini, V. Torczon, and M.W. Trosset, “A rigorous framework for optimization of expensive functions by surrogates,” Structural Optimization, vol. 17, pp. 1–13 , 1999.
J.W. Bandler, S. Koziel, and K. Madsen, “Space mapping for engineering optimization,” SIAG/Optimization Views-and-News Special Issue on Surrogate/Derivative-free Optimization, vol. 17, Mar. 2006.
S. Koziel, J.W. Bandler, and K. Madsen, “Space mapping optimization algorithms for engineering design,” IEEE MTT-S Int. Microwave Symp. Digest (San Francisco, CA, June 2006).
![Page 39: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Bibliography 2H.H. Rosenbrock, “An automatic method for finding the greatest or least value of a function,” Computer Journal, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 175–184, 1960.
R. Fletcher, Practical Methods of Optimization, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1987.
M.H. Bakr, J.W. Bandler, N.K. Georgieva, and K. Madsen, “A hybrid aggressive space-mapping algorithm for EM optimization,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 2440–2449, Dec. 1999.
J.W. Bandler, A.S. Mohamed, M.H. Bakr, K. Madsen, and J. Søndergaard, “EM-based optimization exploiting partial space mapping and exact sensitivities,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 2741–2750, Dec. 2002.
J. Søndergaard, Optimization using surrogate models––by the space mapping technique, Ph.D. Thesis, Informatics and Mathematical Modelling (IMM), Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Lyngby, Denmark, 2003.
J.W. Bandler, Q.S. Cheng, S.A. Dakroury, A.S. Mohamed, M.H. Bakr, K. Madsen, and J. Søndergaard, “Space mapping: the state of the art,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 337–361, Jan. 2004.
SMF, Bandler Corporation, P.O. Box 8083, Dundas, ON, Canada L9H 5E7, 2006.
![Page 40: Rosenbrock-like Problems: SMF Versus Other SBO Implementations · (Mohamed et al., 2006) ¹Eldred, Giunta, and Collis, AIAA, 2004 FD 2nd add¹ 5 23 1.53e–10 Full 2nd add¹ 5 11](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052105/604065798940257a545883f7/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Bibliography 3M.S. Eldred, A.A. Giunta, and S.S. Collis, “Second-order corrections for surrogate-based optimization with model hierarchies,” paper AIAA-2004-4457 in Proceedings of the 10th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Albany, NY, Aug. 30–Sept. 1, 2004.
J.P. Castro, G.A. Gray, A.A. Giunta, and P.D. Hough, “Developing a computationally efficient dynamic multilevel hybrid optimization scheme using multifidelity model interactions,” Technical Report SAND2005-7498, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA, Jan 2006.
T.D. Robinson, M.S. Eldred, K.E. Willcox, and R. Haimes, “Strategies for multifidelity optimization with variable dimensional hierarchical models,” Proceedings of the 47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference (2nd AIAA Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Specialist Conference), Newport, Rhode Island, May 1–4, 2006.
A.A. Giunta and M.S. Eldred, “Implementation of a trust region model management strategy in the DAKOTA optimization toolkit,” paper AIAA-2000-4935 in Proceedings of the 8th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Long Beach, CA, September 6–8, 2000.
D. Echeverria and P.W. Hemker, “Space mapping and defect correction,” CMAM Int. Mathematical J. Computational Methods in Applied Mathematics, vol. 5, pp. 107–136, 2005.
D. Echeverria, D. Lahaye, L. Encica, and P.W. Hemker, “Optimisation in electromagnetics with the space-mapping technique,” COMPEL Int. J. Comp. and Math. in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, vol. 24, pp. 952–966, 2005.