(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2013

Expensive Optimisation: A Metaheuristics
Perspective
Maumita Bhattacharya
School of Computing & Mathematics
Charles Sturt University
NSW, Australia - 2640

Abstract—Stochastic, iterative search methods such as
Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) are proven to be efficient
optimizers. However, they require evaluation of the candidate
solutions which may be prohibitively expensive in many real
world optimization problems. Use of approximate models or
surrogates is being explored as a way to reduce the number of
such evaluations. In this paper we investigated three such
methods. The first method (DAFHEA) partially replaces an
expensive function evaluation by its approximate model. The
approximation is realized with support vector machine (SVM)
regression models. The second method (DAFHEA II) is an
enhancement on DAFHEA to accommodate for uncertain
environments. The third one uses surrogate ranking with
preference learning or ordinal regression. The fitness of the
candidates is estimated by modeling their rank. The techniques’
performances on some of the benchmark numerical optimization
problems have been reported. The comparative benefits and
shortcomings of both techniques have been identified.
Keywords—Evolutionary Algorithm; Preference Learning;
Surrogate Modeling; Surrogate Ranking

I.

INTRODUCTION

Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) are biologically inspired
iterative processes where a population of candidate solutions is
evolved generation after generation. In a typical EA a number
of new offspring candidate solutions are produced through
mutation, recombination and selection. Individuals for
producing offspring are chosen using a selection strategy after
evaluating the fitness value of each individual in the selection
pool. In many real world optimization problems this fitness
evaluation can be very expensive.
The use of surrogates to reduce the expensive function
evaluation is found to be orders of magnitude cheaper
computationally [21, 9, and 18]. Incorporation of approximate
models may be one of the most promising approaches to
realistically use EA to solve complex real life problems,
especially where: (i). Fitness computation is highly timeconsuming, (ii). Explicit model for fitness computation is
absent, (iii). Environment of the evolutionary algorithm is
noisy etc. However, considering the obvious risk involved in
such approach, an EA with efficient control strategy for the
approximate model and robust performance is welcome.
There are different ways, in which a surrogate or
approximation model can be incorporated in an EA [15]; some
of which are as follows:

Problem level approximation. In this approach, the
statement of the problem itself is replaced by a reduced one
that is easier to solve. See [15] for some examples on this.
Functional approximation. As the name suggests, in this
approach, an alternate and explicit expression is constructed for
the objective function, for the purpose of reducing the cost of
evaluation. A set of evaluated points are used to build the
approximate fitness model. This model is used to predict the
fitness of candidate solutions. Usually a fraction of individuals
in the population are selected and evaluated within each
generation or over a number of generations to generate training
points and are added to the training set to update the surrogates
to maintain a reliable surrogate during evolution. See [13, 14,
and 15] for examples on this technique.
EA specific approximation. This approach is specific for
evolutionary algorithms and utilizes the algorithm’s structural
and functional aspects.
For a detailed review on use of approximation in EA, see
[15].In this paper we investigate three different methods which
use surrogates to reduce the number of actual function
evaluations in EA [4].
In the first one, namely, Dynamic Approximate Fitness
based Hybrid Evolutionary Algorithm (DAFHEA),
Bhattacharya et. al [2, 3] use both “functional approximation”
and “EA specific approximation”. It uses an approximation
model to partially replace expensive fitness evaluations in
evolutionary algorithm. DAFHEA uses an explicit control
strategy (a cluster-based on-line learning technique) to
improve reliability of using such approximate models to reduce
expensive function evaluations. Also the approximate
knowledge thus generated is exploited to avoid premature
convergence (one of the major impediments of using
evolutionary algorithm to solve complex real life optimization
problems).
The second method, DAFHEA II [5] is an enhancement on
DAFHEA to cover situations, where information from variable
input dimensions and noisy data is involved. DAFHEA-II uses
a multi-model regression approach. The multiple models are
estimated by successive application of the SVM regression
algorithm. Retraining of the model is done in a periodic
fashion.
In the third method, Runersson [22] makes use of the EA
feature that unlike classical optimization techniques, in rank
based selection, selection of the best candidates requires only

203 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2013

the rank or partial rank of the candidates. Here, the fitness of
individuals is indirectly estimated by modeling their rank using
surrogate. Preference learning or ordinal regression is used to
implement a kernel-defined feature space.
The features and effectiveness of the above two surrogatebased methods have been investigated in this work. The above
two methods have been selected for comparison as they are
based on very different concepts and may reveal important
characteristics which may be useful for specific problem cases.
Rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
presents a brief review on use of surrogates in evolutionary
computing. Section III outlines the features of the surrogatebased EA methods which we have investigated in this research.
Section IV presents the experiment details and discussions on
the findings. Finally, concluding remarks are summarized in
Section V.
II. SURROGATE-BASED EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM
The use of an approximate model to speed up optimization
dates all the way back to the sixties [8]. The most widely used
models being Response Surface Methodology [17], Krieging
models [23] and artificial neural network models [6]. As has
been mentioned in Section 1, the concept of using approximate
model varies in levels of approximation (Problem
approximation, Functional approximation, and Evolutionary
approximation), model incorporation mechanism and model
management techniques [15].
In the multidisciplinary optimization (MDO) community,
primarily response surface analysis and polynomial fitting
techniques are used to build the approximate models [11, 27].
These models work well when single point traditional gradientbased optimization methods are used. However, they are not
well suited for high dimensional multimodal problems as they
generally carry out approximation using simple quadratic
models.
In another approach, multilevel search strategies are
developed using special relationship between the approximate
and the actual model. An interesting class of such models
focuses on having many islands using low accuracy/cheap
evaluation models with small number of finite elements that
progressively propagate individuals to fewer islands using
more accurate/expensive evaluations [29]. This approach may
suffer from lower complexity/cheap islands having false
optima whose fitness values are higher than those in the higher
complexity/expensive islands. Rasheed et al. in [19, 20], uses a
method of maintaining a large sample of points divided into
clusters. Least square quadratic approximations are periodically
formed of the entire sample as well as the big clusters. Problem
of unevaluable points was taken into account as a design
aspect. However, it is only logical to accept that true evaluation
should be used along with approximation for reliable results in
most practical situations. Another approach using population
clustering is that of fitness imitation [15]. Here, the population
is clustered into several groups and true evaluation is done only
for the cluster representative [16]. The fitness value of other
members of the same cluster is estimated by a distance
measure. The method may be too simplistic to be reliable,
where the population landscape is a complex, multimodal one.

Jin et al. in [13, 14] analyzed the convergence property of
approximate fitness based evolutionary algorithm. It has been
observed that incorrect convergence can occur due to false
optima introduced by the approximate model. Two controlled
evolution strategies have been introduced. In this approach,
new solutions (offspring) can be (pre)-evaluated by the model.
The (pre)-evaluation can be used to indicate promising
solutions. It is not clear however, how to decide on the optimal
fraction of the new individuals for which true evaluation should
be done [1]. In an alternative approach, the optimum is first
searched on the model. The obtained optimum is then
evaluated on the objective function and added to the training
data of the model [19, 26, and 1]. Yet another approach as
proposed in [14], a regularization technique is used to eliminate
false minima.
III. THE INVESTIGATED METHODS
The main features of the three techniques investigated in
this work, DAFHEA, DAFHEA II and the preference learning
based EA are outlined below.
A. The DAFHEA Technique
The primary objectives of the proposed algorithm and their
realization are as below.
1) The main objective of DAFHEA is to reduce the
number of actual fitness function evaluations to speed up the
search process. The proposed algorithm achieves this by
partially replacing actual function evaluation (as is required
in traditional genetic algorithm) by SVM based estimation.
The DAFHEA framework includes a global model of genetic
algorithm (GA), hybridized with support vector machine
(SVM) [28] as the approximation tool.
2) The related major objective is to minimize the
adverse effect of estimation. To this end explicit control
strategies are used for evolution control, leading to
considerable speedup without compromising heavily on
solution accuracy.
The controlled use of estimation is the primary reason why
the proposed algorithm should be successful in reducing actual
fitness function evaluation without heavily compromising on
solution accuracy. The basic algorithm is as below.
Step One: Create a random population of
where,

N c individuals,

N c  5 * N a and N a  actual initial population size.

Step Two: Evaluate N c individual using actual expensive
function evaluation. Build the SVM approximate model using
normalized expensive function evaluation values as training set
for off-line training. (Use of normalized values in the training
set appears to improve performance of meta-model, reducing
effects of unnaturally high or low values). SVM hyperparameters are initially tuned based on this training set.
Step Three: Select N a best individual out of
evaluated individuals to form the initial GA population.

Nc

Remarks: The idea behind using five times the actual EA
population size (as explained in Step One) is to make the

204 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2013

approximation model sufficiently representative at least
initially. Since initial EA population is formed with N a best

Add the newly evaluated points to approximate model
training set to update model.

individuals out of these N c individuals, with high
recombination and low mutation rates, the EA population in
first few generations is unlikely to drift much from its initial
locality. Thus it is expected that large number of samples used
in building the approximation model will facilitate better
performance at this stage. Also using the higher fitness
individuals, chosen out of a larger set should give an initial
boost to the evolutionary process.

Step Seven: When termination/evolution control criteria
are not met, repeat Step Four to Step Seven.

Step Four: Select parents using suitable selection operator
and apply genetic operators namely recombination and
mutation to create a new generation.
Step Five: Use SVM approximation model to compute
fitness of new generation individuals based on approximate
evaluation. Form m distance-based (considering spatial
distribution of individuals) clusters in the new population
space. If for some n clusters, the standard deviation  
Predefined Threshold, rearrange solution space into m  n
clusters. Compute a merit function f m (x) as below:

f ( x)  f ( x)      d  3 s i
m
a
1 i
2 ij
In the equation (1),
value.
the

f a (x) is the predicted fitness function

 i is standard deviation (in terms of objective value) for

th

i cluster and d ij is the normalized minimum Euclidean

j th point of i th cluster from the all truly evaluated
th
points so far [22]. s i is the sparseness of the i cluster. 1 ,
 2 and  3 are scaling factors for  i , d ij and si respectively.
distance of

si 

No of individuals in cluster i
Dimension of individual

Step Six: Dynamically update the approximate model as
below:
1) Identify the cluster containing the optimum based on
approximation.
2) Perform expensive evaluation for the approximate
optimum and its k  nearest neighbors.
3) Also perform expensive evaluation for the centroid of
all other data clusters and their k  nearest neighbors.
4) Expand neighborhood for true evaluation until a
point is found in each space dimension such that percentage
error   Predefined threshold.



ait  aip
ait

 100

In the equation (3),

ait =True value of the i th neighbor and

a ip =Predicted value of the

i th neighbor and max i  k .

Remarks: It must be noted, the optimum is considered
based on the original predicted value f a (x) . For all other
purposes fitness based on the merit function f m (x) is
considered. Periodic parameter tuning of the SVM
approximation model was incorporated, though no specific
criterion was used.
Further details on the above method can be found in [2, 3].
B. The DAFHEA II Technique
As in the original DAFHEA framework, DAFHEA-II [5]
includes a global model of genetic algorithm (GA), hybridised
with support vector machine (SVM) as the approximation tool.
Expensive fitness evaluation of individuals as required in
traditional evolutionary algorithm is partially replaced by SVM
approximation models (unlike the original DAFHEA, multimodel regression is used). Evolution control is implemented by
periodic true evaluations, leading to considerable speedup
without compromising heavily on solution accuracy. Also the
approximate knowledge about the solution space generated is
used to maintain population diversity to avoid premature
convergence.
5) Functional Details
The operational detail of DAFHEA-II [15] framework is as
described below:
Step One: Create a random population of
where,

N c individuals,

N c  5  N a and N a  actual initial population size.

Step Two: Evaluate N c individual using actual expensive
function evaluation. Build the SVM approximate models using
the candidate solutions as input and the actual fitness
(expensive function evaluation values) as targets forming the
training set for off-line training.
Step Three: Select N a best individual out of
evaluated individuals to form the initial GA population.

Nc

Remarks: The idea behind using five times the actual EA
population size (as explained in Step One) is to make the
approximation model sufficiently representative at least
initially. Since initial EA population is formed with N a best
individuals out of these N c individuals, with high
recombination and low mutation rates, the EA population in
first few generations is unlikely to drift much from its initial
locality. Thus it is expected that large number of samples used
in building the approximation model will facilitate better
performance at this stage. Also using the higher fitness
individuals, chosen out of a larger set should give an initial
boost to the evolutionary process.
Step Four: Rank the candidate solutions based on their
fitness value.

205 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2013

Step Five: Preserve the elite by carrying over the best
candidate solution to the next generation.
Step Six: Select parents using suitable selection operator
and apply genetic operators namely recombination and
mutation to create children (new candidate solutions) for the
next generation.
Step Seven: The SVM regression models created in Step
two are applied to estimate the fitness of the children (new
candidate solutions) created in Step six. This involves
assignment of most likely or appropriate models to each
candidate solution.
Step Eight: The set of newly created candidate solutions is
ranked based on their approximate fitness values.
Step Nine: The best performing newly created candidate
solution and the elite selected in Step five are carried to the
population of the next generation.
Step Ten: New candidate solutions or children are created
as described in Step six.

The technique used for preferential learning or ordinal
regression is kernel based. See [Runersson] for details on the
method of ordinal regression using kernel defined features.
Model selection in surrogate ranking involves appropriately
choosing a suitable kernel and its parameters as well as the
regulation parameter C which controls the balance between
model complexities and training errors. Choice of a suitable
kernel is problem specific.
As the search progresses, different regions of the search
space are sampled and the original surrogate ranking model
may be insufficiently accurate for new regions of the search
space. It is therefore extremely important to update the
surrogate during evolution. We have followed the surrogate
update method suggested by Runersson in [22]. The strategy
involves estimating the ranking of a population of points using
the current surrogate and identifying the highest ranking point.
The point is then evaluated using the true fitness function and
its rank is calculated. Accuracy of the surrogate is evaluated by
comparing the estimated rank with the true rank. The point
evaluated with true fitness function is added to the training set.

Step Eleven: Repeat Step seven to Step ten until either of
the following condition is reached:
1.
2.

The predetermined maximum number of generations
has been reached; or
The periodic retraining of the SVM regression
models is due.

Step Twelve: If the periodic retraining of the SVM
regression models is due, this will involve actual evaluation of
the candidate solutions in the current population. Based on this
training data new regression models are formed. The algorithm
then proceeds to execute Step four to Step eleven.
Remarks: The idea behind using periodic retraining of the
SVM regression models is to ensure that the models continue
to be representatives of the progressive search areas in the
solution space.
C. The Preference Learning Based EA
The second method is directly based on preference learning
or ordinal regression based technique proposed by Runersson
in [22] with the variation that we have used a genetic algorithm
implementation instead of CMA-ES. This method is based on
the assumption that in a stochastic and direct search method
such as EA, ordinal regression should be able to offer adequate
surrogates as only full or even partial ranking of the individuals
or search points is sufficient for the selection process.
Accordingly, the surrogate approach is considered as a
preference learning task, where a candidate point xi is preferred
over x j if

xi has a higher fitness than x j . The training set for

the surrogate model is thus composed of pairs of points

x , x 
i

j k

rk  1, 1 , taking the value +1 or -1
depending on whether xi has a higher fitness than x j or vice
and a corresponding label
versa.

IV.

EXPERIMENTS

A. Experiment Details for DAFHEA
It may be noted that the target problem domain for our
proposed algorithm involves time consuming actual fitness
function evaluation. This property or characteristic of the
fitness function is external to the EA process. Hence, to verify
DAFHEA’s effectiveness, it is sufficient to verify if DAFHEA
can effectively reduce the number of actual function
evaluations without compromising on accuracy for any set of
standard test functions. Considering this, the performance of
the proposed algorithm has been tested on five classical
benchmark test functions: namely, Spherical, Ellipsoidal,
Schwefel, Rosenbrock, and Rastrigin. Description of the test
functions are as given in [3]. These benchmark functions in the
test suit are scalable and are commonly used to assess the
performance of optimization algorithms [30]. For Spherical and
Rastrigin the global minimum is f x   0 at xi   0 .
n

Rosenbrock has a global minimum of f x   0 at xi   1 .
n

All simulations were carried out using the following
assumptions: The population size of 10n was used for all the
simulations, where n is the number of variables for the
problem; for comparison purposes three sets of input
dimensions are considered; namely, n  5, 10 and 20. For all
cases, tenfold validation was done with the number of
generations being 1000; the SVM regression models [8] were
trained with five times the real GA population size initially.
All the simulation processes were executed using a
®

Pentium 4, 2.4GHz CPU processor for both DAFHEA and the
Preference Learning based EA.
B. Experiment Details for DAFHEA II
Both non-noisy and noisy versions of the chosen
benchmark functions have been used to test DAFHEA II. The
noisy versions of the functions have been obtained as follows.

206 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2013





f Noisy x   f x   N  ,  2
Here,





N  ,  2 = Standard Normal (or Gaussian)

distribution with mean,



= 0 and variance,

probability density function
follows.







f x;  ,  2 



f x;  , 

2



2 =

1. The

is defined as

 x   2 

exp  
2 2 
 2

1

All simulations were carried out using the following
experiment setup: The population size of 10n was used for all
the simulations, where n is the number of variables for the
problem; for comparison purposes three sets of input
dimensions are considered; namely, n  5, 10 and 20. For all
three cases, tenfold validation was done with the number of
iterations being 1000 for all non-noisy versions of the test
problems; the SVM regression models were trained with five
times the real EA (GA in this case) population size initially.
However, in case of the noisy versions of the test functions
much larger number of iterations has been used to obtain
acceptable level of accuracy of results. All the simulation
®

processes were executed using a Pentium 4, 2.4GHz CPU
processor.
C. Experiment Details for Performance Learning Based EA
Following Runersson’s [22] method a 2-norm soft margin
support vector machine (SVM) has been used and the
technique has been implemented using a classical genetic
algorithm. As mentioned earlier, choice of appropriate kernel is
an important factor in the performance learning based EA.
Runersson [22] has tried ordinal regression with different
kernels and concluded that 4th order polynomial kernel
produces the best results for the Rosenbrock’s function. For the
sake of fair comparison we have used the same kernel for this
test function. For the Spherical function, the 2nd order
polynomial kernel performed best. Gaussian distribution with
variance 0.12 has been used for the Rastrigin’s function.
Training points have been generated using a standard
normal distribution centered about the origins (global minima)
of the respective test functions. 1000 testing points were
generated in the same manner. Using 60 randomly sampled
training points the surrogate model has been estimated by
ordinal regression. The regulation parameter C has been
chosen as 1.0E6.
As the search zooms in on a local minimum, the search will
benefit from use of different kernel [22]. As suggested by
Runersson in [22] a Gaussian distribution with variance 0.12
was used in case of the Rosenbrock’s and the Spherical
functions in similar situations.
The surrogate has been validated and updated as explained
in Section 3.2, every second generation.

D. Results and Discussions
Performances of the three investigated methods on nonnoisy versions of Spherical, Ellipsoidal, Schwefel, Rosenbrock,
and Rastrigin functions with n  5, 10 and 20 have been
demonstrated in Table I. We have not reported any information
on the number of actual function evaluations required for
DAFHEA II in Table I as by design this technique employs
additional function evaluations to achieve better performance
in noisy environment. To give an idea about its efficacy in the
noisy environment, Table II presents the comparative
performances of the canonical Genetic Algorithm, DAFHEA
and DAFHEA II in terms of number of actual function
evaluations required when tested on the noisy versions of the
test functions.
As can be observed from these results, Preference Learning
based EA seems to have an advantage in terms of “number of
actual function evaluations” over DAFHEA. However, its
performance in terms of “mean fitness” is just not comparable
to that of DAFHEA in all nine test cases. Both methods found
the classical Spherical function easier to tackle as compared to
the Rosenbrock’s and the Rastrigin’s functions. For both
algorithms the mean function values for the spherical functions
were better than their Rosenbrock counterparts. However, it
may appear that based on the number of function evaluations,
the spherical function was much harder for DAFHEA to solve
than its Rosenbrock counterpart of the same dimension. It must
be noted that increase in number of iterations and thus increase
in the number of actual function evaluation showed no
improvement in case of the Rosenbrock’s function.
In
general, both models gained on performance with increase in
training set size.
As can be anticipated, performances of both techniques
deteriorated with increase in problem dimensions. However,
this deterioration is much higher in case of the Preference
Learning based EA, where the results are practically unusable
except in case of Spherical function. Increase in the number of
true function evaluations does not seem to improve the
situation.
Other general observations are as below:
Both DAFHEA and Preference Learning based EA are
applicable to situations where no explicit or computable fitness
function is available. However, the concept of using preference
learning based surrogate ranking may show more flexibility in
such scenarios.
In the Preference Learning based EA, surrogate ranking has
been realized using kernel based ordinal regression. That
means the method is easily adaptable to any data types as long
as a suitable kernel can be defined for the specific problem at
hand. However, this is both an advantage and a disadvantage as
this means, sufficient knowledge of the characteristics of the
problem is required which may be difficult in real world
scenarios.
The preference learning based EA benefits from selection
of different kernel while the search zooms in on a local
minimum. However, this switch may impose some additional
computational as well as decisional overhead.

207 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2013

Surrogate ranking with RBF kernel tended to suffer from
overfitting and get stuck in local minima. Second order
polynomial performed better in case of higher order
Rosenbrock’s function.
The major drawback of the preference learning based
surrogate ranking seems to be its inefficiency in handing higher
dimensional problems, which is a common situation for most
real world optimization problems.
TABLE I.
PERFORMANCES OF THE DAFHEA TECHNIQUE (M1), THE
DAFHEA II TECHNIQUE (M2) AND THE PREFERENCE LEARNING BASED EA
(M3) AS IMPLEMENTED ON SPHERICAL, ELLIPSOIDAL, SCHWEFEL,
ROSENBROCK, AND RASTRIGIN FUNCTIONS WITH n  5, 10 AND 20.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED AS THE “MEAN FITNESS”
AND THE “NUMBER OF ACTUAL FUNCTION EVALUATIONS”.
Function

Mean
Fitness
(M1)

Mean
Fitness
(M2)

Mean
Fitness
(M3)

1.789E41
Rosenbrock(10) 1.991E39
Rosenbrock(20) 2.313E36
Spherical(5)
1.138E60
Spherical(10) 1.152E58
Spherical(20) 1.58E55
Ellipsoidal(5) 3.220E57
Ellipsoidal(10) 3.271E55
Ellipsoidal(20) 2.209E52
Schwefel(5)
1.198E54
Schwefel(10)
1.199E51
Schwefel(20)
1.023E48
Rastrigin(5)
3.285E5
Rastrigin(10) 3.089E3
Rastrigin(20) 1.324E1

1.998E38
1.918E26
1.901E19
1.138E56
1.588E43
1.388E35
3.412E51
2.523E39
1.323E32
1.911E48
2.971E38
1.989E31
3.322E1
3.388E1
10.032

1.1103E0.7
1.0005

Rosenbrock(5)

be the choice where accuracy (mean fitness value) is of
paramount importance. DAFHEA II that uses multi-model
regression for surrogate generation, shows some advantage
over original DAFHEA and Canonical GA when applied to
noisy functions, in terms of solution accuracy (results have not
been shown in this article). However, this comes at the expense
of some extra overhead in terms of number of actual function
evaluations.
TABLE II.
PERFORMANCES OF THE CANONOCAL GA (M1), THE
DAFHEA TECHNIQUE (M2) AND THE DAFHEA II TECHNIQUE (M2) AS
IMPLEMENTED ON NOISY VERSIONS OF SPHERICAL, E LLIPSOIDAL, SCHWEFEL,
ROSENBROCK, AND RASTRIGIN FUNCTIONS WITH n  5, 10 AND 20. THE
PERFORMANCE MEASURE HAS BEEN EXPRESSED AS THE “NUMBER OF ACTUAL
FUNCTION EVALUATIONS”.
Function

No of
No of
Actual
Actual
Function
Function
Evaluations Evaluations
(M1)
(M3)
7015
1200
6990

4000

2.1108

21170

17000

1.0102E7
1.0081E5.5
1.0125E5.5
1.0000E6.1
1.0100E5.5
1.0511E4.5
1.0001E0.8
0.9000

21210

375

77520

1200

110420

2750

18500

400

65700

1500

95510

2900

11500

2700

15000

5000

2.0002

25100

18000

1.1901E0.8
0.9899

4550

1700

7175

5000

3.0011

28010

15000

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

V. CONCLUSIONS
Use of surrogates may be the most realistic answer to
problems an iterative, stochastic search process like EA faces
while dealing with situations, where, true fitness computation is
highly expensive, or explicit model for fitness computation is
absent, or environment of the evolutionary algorithm is noisy
and so on. In this research, we have investigated three
surrogate-based EA methods which aim at addressing some of
these problems. While the first two methods, DAFHEA and
DAFHEA II are based on “functional approximation” and “EA
specific approximation” (see Section I), the second method
uses surrogate ranking by ordinal regression or preference
learning. Experiment results have shown, while Preference
Learning based EA has some cost advantage in terms of
number of true function evaluations, DAFHEA clearly should

[5]

[6]
[7]

[8]
[9]

No of
No of
No of
Actual
Actual
Actual
Function
Function
Function
Evaluations Evaluations Evaluations
(M1)
(M2)
(M3)
Rosenbrock(5) 35,000
9500
9000
Rosenbrock(10) 100,000
71250
71000
Rosenbrock(20) 500,000
290,500
290,000
Spherical(5)
100,000
59000
58000
Spherical(10) 100,000
76000
75000
Spherical(20) 500,000
300,500
300,000
Ellipsoidal(5) 100,000
59000
58000
Ellipsoidal(10) 100,000
85000
84500
Ellipsoidal(20) 250,000
81550
81500
Schwefel(5)
100,000
69000
68000
Schwefel(10)
100,000
65000
64500
Schwefel(20)
300,000
200,050
200,000
Rastrigin(5)
100,000
5500
5100
Rastrigin(10) 100,000
20500
20000
Rastrigin(20) 500,000
410,500
410,000
REFERENCES
Büche., D., Schraudolph, N., and Koumoutsakos, P., Accelerating
Evolutionary Algorithms Using Fitness Function Models, Proc.
Workshops Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference,
Chicago, 2003.
Bhattacharya, M., and Lu, G., DAFHEA: A Dynamic Approximate
Fitness based Hybrid Evolutionary Algorithm, Proceedings of the IEEE
Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2003, Vol.3, IEEE Catalogue
No. 03TH8674C, ISBN 0-7803-7805-9, pp. 1879-1886.
Bhattacharya, M., Surrogate Based EA for Expensive Optimization
Problem, Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary
Computation (CEC 2007), Singapore, 1-4244-1340-0, 2007 IEEE Press.
Bhattacharya, M., An Investigation on Two Surrogate-based EAs,
Australian Journal of Intelligent Information Processing Systems, ISSN:
1321-2133, Vol 12. No. 2, 2010, pp. 7-12.
Bhattacharya, M., Reduced Computation for Evolutionary Optimization
in Noisy Environment, Proceedings of ACM Genetic and Evolutionary
Computation Conference 2008 (GECCO 2008), Atlanta, USA, ACM
Press, ISBN: 978-1-60558-131-6, pp. 2117-2122.
Bishop, C., Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition, Oxford Press,
1995.
Cherkassky, V., and Ma, Y., Multiple Model Estimation: A New
Formulation for Predictive Learning, under review in IEEE Transaction
on Neural Network.
Dunham, B., Fridshal, D., Fridshal, R. and North, J., Design by natural
selection, Synthese, 15, pp. 254-259, 1963.
El-Beltagy, M. A., and Keane, A. J., Evolutionary optimization for
computationally expensive problems using Gaussian processes, Proc.
Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IC-AI'2001), CSREA Press, Las
Vegas, pp. 708-714, 2001.

208 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2013
[10] Gunn, S. R., Support Vector Machines for Classification and Regression,
Technical Report, School of Electronics and Computer Science,
University of Southampton, (Southampton, U.K.), 1998.
[11] Hajela, P., and Lee, A., Topological optimization of rotorcraft subfloor
structures for crashworthiness considerations, Computers and Structures,
vol.64, pp. 65-76, 1997.
[12] Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J., The Elements of Statistical
Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Springer Series in
Statistics, ISBN 0-387-95284-5.
[13] Jin, Y., Olhofer, M., and Sendhoff, B., A Framework for Evolutionary
Optimization with Approximate Fitness Functions, IEEE Transactions
on Evolutionary Computation, 6(5), pp. 481-494, (ISSN: 1089-778X).
2002.
[14] Jin, Y., Olhofer, M., and Sendhoff, B., On Evolutionary Optimisation
with Approximate Fitness Functions, Proceedings of the Genetic and
Evolutionary Computation Conference GECCO, Las Vegas, Nevada,
USA. pp. 786- 793, July 10-12, 2000.
[15] Jin, Y., Surrogate-assisted evolutionary computation: Recent advances
and future challenges, Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, Vol 1,
pp.61-67, 2011.
[16] Kim, H. S., and Cho, S. B., An efficient genetic algorithm with less
fitness evaluation by clustering, Proceedings of IEEE Congress on
Evolutionary Computation, pp. 887-894, 2001.
[17] Myers, R. and Montgomery, D., Response Surface Methodology, John
Wiley & Sons, 1985.
[18] Pierret, S., Three-dimensional blade design by means of an artificial
neural network and Navier-Stokes solver, Proceedings of Fifth
Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, Amsterdam, 1999.
[19] Rasheed, K., An Incremental-Approximate-Clustering Approach for
Developing Dynamic Reduced Models for Design Optimization,
Proceedings of IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2000.

[20] Rasheed, K., Vattam, S., and Ni, X., Comparison of Methods for Using
Reduced Models to Speed Up Design Optimization, The Genetic and
Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO'2002), 2002.
[21] Ratle, A., Accelerating the convergence of evolutionary algorithms by
fitness landscape approximation, Parallel Problem Solving from NaturePPSN V, Springer-Verlag, pp. 87-96, 1998.
[22] Runersson, T. P., Constrained evolutionary optimization by approximate
ranking and surrogate models, Parallel Problem Solving from NaturePPSN VII (PPSN-2004). Volume 3242 of LNCS., Springer-Verlag, pp.
401-410, 2004.
[23] Sacks, J., Welch, W., Mitchell, T., and Wynn, H., Design and analysis of
computer experiments, Statistical Science, 4(4), 1989.
[24] Schölkopf, B., Burges, J. and Smola, A., ed., Advances in Kernel
Methods: Support Vector Machines, MIT Press, 1999.
[25] Smola, A. and Schölkopf, B., A Tutorial on Support Vector Regression,
NeuroCOLT Technical Report NC-TR-98-030, Royal Holloway
College, University of London, UK, 1998.
[26] Torczon, V., and Trosset, M. W., Using approximations to accelerate
engineering design optimisation, ICASE Report No. 98-33. Technical
report, NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681-2199,
1998.
[27] Toropov, V. V., Filatov, A., and Polykin, A. A., Multiparameter
structural optimization using FEM and multipoint explicit
approximations, Structural Optimization, vol. 6, pp. 7-14, 1993.
[28] Vapnik, V., The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory, Springer-Verlag,
NY, USA, 1999.
[29] Vekeria, H. D., and Parmee, I. C., The use of a co-operative multi-level
CHC GA for structural shape optimization, Fourth European Congress
on Intelligent Techniques and Soft Computing – EUFIT’96, 1996.
[30] Won, K., Roy, T., and Tai, K., A Framework for Optimization Using
Approximate Functions, Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on
Evolutionary Computation’ 2003, Vol.3, IEEE Catalogue No.
03TH8674C, ISBN 0-7803-7805-9.

209 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org

