Setting targets for surrogate-based optimization

Journal of Global Optimization

Volumn 55, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 857-875

  Queipo, Nestor V ^a   Pintos, Salvador ^a   Nava, Efrain ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA   (Venezuela)

Author keywords

Extreme value theory; Minimum estimates from sample data; Setting targets; Surrogate based optimization

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL OPTIMIZATIONS; EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCIES; ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY; EXTREME VALUE THEORY; HIGH-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEMS; MOMENT MATCHING METHOD; SAMPLE DATA; SURROGATE-BASED OPTIMIZATION;

DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS; ENHANCED RECOVERY; ESTIMATION; WIND EFFECTS;

OPTIMIZATION;

EID: 84876492301     PISSN: 09255001     EISSN: 15732916     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10898-011-9837-4     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Queipo N.; Pintos S.; Verde A.; Haftka R.: Assessing the value of another cycle in Gaussian process surrogate-based optimization. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 39(5), 459-475 (2009). doi: 10.1007/s00158-008-0346-0
2. Giunta A.A.; Balabanov V.; Haim D.; Grossman B.; Mason W.H.; Watson L.T.; Haftka R.T.: Multidisciplinary optimization of a supersonic transport using design of experiments, theory and responsive surface modeling. Aeronaut. J. 101, 347-356 (1997)
3. Balabanov, V.; Haftka, R.; Grossman, B.; Mason, W.; Watson, L.: Multidisciplinary response model for HSCT wing bending material weight. In: Proc 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symp Multidiscip Anal Optim, AIAA paper 98-4804, St. Louis, MO, pp. 778-788 (1998)
4. Li, W.; Padula, S.: Approximation methods for conceptual design of complex systems. In: Chui, C.; Neamtu, M.; Schumaker, L. (eds.) 11th Int Conf Approx Theory. Gatlinburg, TN, May (2004)
5. Queipo N.; Haftka R.; Shyy W.; Goel T.; Vaidyanathan R.; Tucker P.K.: Surrogate-based analysis and optimization. J. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 41, 1-28 (2005)
6. Craig, K.; Stander, N.; Dooge, A.; Varadappa, S.: MDO of automotive vehicles for crashworthiness using response surface methods. In: 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symp Multidiscip Anal Optim, AIAA paper 2002-5607, Atlanta, 4-6 September (2002)
7. Kurtaran H.; Eskamdarian A.; Marzougui D.; Bedewi N.: Crashworthiness design optimization using successive response surface approximations. Comput. Mech. 29, 409-421 (2002)
8. Queipo N.; Goicochea J.; Pintos S.: Surrogate modeling-based optimization of SAGD processes. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 35(1-2), 83-93 (2002)
9. Queipo N.; Verde A.; Canelon J.; Pintos S.: Efficient global optimization of hydraulic fractuing designs. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 35(3-4), 151-166 (2002)
10. Wang G.; Shan S.: Review of metamodeling techniques in support of engineering design optimization. ASME Trans. J. Mech. Des. 129(4), 370 (2007)
11. Forrester A.; Keane A.: Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 45(1-9), 50-79 (2009)
12. Jones D.: A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces. J. Glob. Optim. 21, 345-383 (2001)
13. Gutmann H.: A radial basis function method for global optimization. J. Glob. Optim. 19, 201-227 (2001)
14. Jones D.; Schonlau M.; Welch W.: Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J. Glob. Optim. 13, 455-492 (1998)
15. Sasena M.; Papalambros P.; Goovaerts P.: Exploration of metamodeling sampling criteria for constrained global optimization. Eng. Optim. 34(3), 263-278 (2002)
16. Sobester A.; Leary S.; Keane A.: On the design of optimization strategies based on global response surface approximation models. J. Glob. Optim. 33, 31-59 (2005)
17. Huang D.; Allen T.; Notz W.; Zeng N.: Global optimization of stochastic black-box systems via sequential kriging meta-models. J. Glob. Optim. 34, 441-466 (2006)
18. Apley D.; Liu J.; Chen W.: Understanding the effects of model uncertainty in robust design with computer experiments. J. Mech. Des. 128(4), 945-958 (2006)
19. Forrester, A.; Jones, D.: Global optimization of deceptive functions with spare sampling. In: Proc 12th AIAA/ISSMO Multidiscip Anal Optim Conf, BC, Canada, 10-12 September (2008)
20. Ponweiser, W.; Wagner, T.; Vincze, M.: Clustered multiple generalized expected improvement: a novel infill sampling criterion for surrogate models. In: Michalewicz, Z. (ed.) IEEE Congr on Evol Comp, pp. 3514-3521. IEEE Computer Society. (2008)
21. Ginsbourger, D.; Le Riche, R.; Carraro, L.: Multi-points criterion for deterministic parallel global optimization based on Kriging. In: Intl Conf Nonconvex Progr, Rouen, France (2007)
22. Gumbel E.J.: Statistics of Extremes, pp. 375. Columbia University Press, New York (1958)
23. Finkenstadt, B.; Rootzéen, H. (eds): Extreme Values in Finance, Telecommunications and the Environment. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, London (2003)
24. Coles S.G.: An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values. Springer, New York (2001)
25. Johnson M.; Moore L.; Ylvisaker D.: Minimax and maximin distance designs. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 26, 131-148 (1990)
26. Iman R.; Conover W.: A distribution-free approach to inducing rank correlation among input variables. Commun. Stat. Part B Simulat. Comput. 11, 311-334 (1982)
27. Owen A.B.: Controlling correlations in latin hypercube samples. J. Stat. Assoc. 89, 1517-1522 (1994)
28. McKay M.; Conover W.; Beckman R.: A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21, 239-245 (1979)
29. Tang B.: Orthogonal array-based latin hypercubes. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 88, 1392-1397 (1993)
30. Ye K.: Orthogonal column latin hypercubes and their application in computer experiments. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 93, 1430-1439 (1998)
31. Palmer K.; Tsui K.: A minimum bias latin hypercube design. IIE Trans. 33, 793-808 (2001)
32. Leary S.; Bhaskar A.; Keane A.: Optimal orthogonal array-based latin hypercubes. J. Appl. Statist. 30, 585-598 (2003)
33. Cramer H.: Mathematical Methods of Statistics. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1999)
34. Jin R.; Chen W.; Simpson T.: Comparative studies of metamodeling techniques under multiple modeling criteria. Struct. Multidisc. Optim. 23, 1-13 (2000)
35. Dixon L.; Szegö G.: The global optimization problem: an introduction. In: Dixon, L.; Szegö, G. (eds) Towards Global Optimization, 2, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978)
36. Digalakis J.; Margaritis G.: On benchmarking functions for genetic algorithms. Int. J. Comp. Math. 77(4), 481-506 (2001)
37. Zerpa L.; Queipo N.; Pintos S.; Salager S.: An optimization methodology for alkaline-surfactant-polymer flooding processes using field scale numerical simulations and multiple surrogates. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 47(3-4), 197-208 (2005)
38. Carrero E.; Zerpa L.; Queipo N.; Pintos S.: Global sensitivity analysis of alkali-surfactant-polymer enhanced oil recovery processes. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 50(1-2), 30-42 (2007)
39. Sanchez E.; Queipo N.; Pintos S.: Toward an optimal ensemble of kernel-based approximations with engineering applications. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 36(3), 247-267 (2008)
40. Nava E.; Pintos S.; Queipo N.: A geostatistical perspective for the surrogate-based integration of variable fidelity models. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 51, 56-66 (2010)
41. UTCHEM: Utchem-9.0 a three-dimensional chemical flood simulator (2000). http://www.cpge.utexas.edu/utchem/