IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/coopap/v89y2024i2d10.1007_s10589-024-00596-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Full-low evaluation methods for bound and linearly constrained derivative-free optimization

Author

Listed:
  • C. W. Royer

    (Université Paris Dauphine-PSL, Place du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny)

  • O. Sohab

    (Lehigh University)

  • L. N. Vicente

    (Lehigh University)

Abstract

Derivative-free optimization (DFO) consists in finding the best value of an objective function without relying on derivatives. To tackle such problems, one may build approximate derivatives, using for instance finite-difference estimates. One may also design algorithmic strategies that perform space exploration and seek improvement over the current point. The first type of strategy often provides good performance on smooth problems but at the expense of more function evaluations. The second type is cheaper and typically handles non-smoothness or noise in the objective better. Recently, full-low evaluation methods have been proposed as a hybrid class of DFO algorithms that combine both strategies, respectively denoted as Full-Eval and Low-Eval. In the unconstrained case, these methods showed promising numerical performance. In this paper, we extend the full-low evaluation framework to bound and linearly constrained derivative-free optimization. We derive convergence results for an instance of this framework, that combines finite-difference quasi-Newton steps with probabilistic direct-search steps. The former are projected onto the feasible set, while the latter are defined within tangent cones identified by nearby active constraints. We illustrate the practical performance of our instance on standard linearly constrained problems, that we adapt to introduce noisy evaluations as well as non-smoothness. In all cases, our method performs favorably compared to algorithms that rely solely on Full-eval or Low-eval iterations.

Suggested Citation

  • C. W. Royer & O. Sohab & L. N. Vicente, 2024. "Full-low evaluation methods for bound and linearly constrained derivative-free optimization," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 89(2), pages 279-315, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:coopap:v:89:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10589-024-00596-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10589-024-00596-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10589-024-00596-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10589-024-00596-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. T. H. Matheiss & David S. Rubin, 1980. "A Survey and Comparison of Methods for Finding All Vertices of Convex Polyhedral Sets," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 167-185, May.
    2. S. Gratton & C. W. Royer & L. N. Vicente & Z. Zhang, 2019. "Direct search based on probabilistic feasible descent for bound and linearly constrained problems," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 72(3), pages 525-559, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ubaldo M. García Palomares, 2023. "Convergence of derivative-free nonmonotone Direct Search Methods for unconstrained and box-constrained mixed-integer optimization," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 821-856, July.
    2. repec:cep:stiecm:em/2012/559 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Liesiö, Juuso & Andelmin, Juho & Salo, Ahti, 2020. "Efficient allocation of resources to a portfolio of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(2), pages 619-636.
    4. Haines, Linda M., 1998. "A statistical approach to the analytic hierarchy process with interval judgements. (I). Distributions on feasible regions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 112-125, October.
    5. repec:cep:stiecm:/2012/559 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Makowski, David & Hendrix, Eligius M. T. & van Ittersum, Martin K. & Rossing, Walter A. H., 2001. "Generation and presentation of nearly optimal solutions for mixed-integer linear programming, applied to a case in farming system design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(2), pages 425-438, July.
    7. Komarova, Tatiana, 2013. "Binary choice models with discrete regressors: Identification and misspecification," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 177(1), pages 14-33.
    8. Harju, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Virtanen, Kai, 2019. "Spatial multi-attribute decision analysis: Axiomatic foundations and incomplete preference information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(1), pages 167-181.
    9. Pey-Chun Chen & Pierre Hansen & Brigitte Jaumard & Hoang Tuy, 1998. "Solution of the Multisource Weber and Conditional Weber Problems by D.-C. Programming," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 46(4), pages 548-562, August.
    10. José H. Dulá & Francisco J. López, 2006. "Algorithms for the Frame of a Finitely Generated Unbounded Polyhedron," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 97-110, February.
    11. Mohammadali S. Monfared & Sayyed Ehsan Monabbati & Mahsa Mahdipour Azar, 2020. "Bi-objective optimization problems with two decision makers: refining Pareto-optimal front for equilibrium solution," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 42(2), pages 567-584, June.
    12. Pooriya Beyhaghi & Daniele Cavaglieri & Thomas Bewley, 2016. "Delaunay-based derivative-free optimization via global surrogates, part I: linear constraints," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 331-382, November.
    13. Piet-Lahanier, Hélène & Veres, Sándor M. & Walter, Eric, 1992. "Comparison of methods for solving sets of linear inequalities in the bounded-error context," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 515-524.
    14. Mo, S.H. & Norton, J.P., 1990. "Fast and robust algorithm to compute exact polytope parameter bounds," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 481-493.
    15. Elliot Noma, 1992. "Determining implied relationships on incomplete ordinal data," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 427-434, November.
    16. Maryam Bagherikahvarin & Yves Smet, 2017. "Determining new possible weight values in PROMETHEE: a procedure based on data envelopment analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(5), pages 484-495, May.
    17. Li, Changmin & Yang, Hai & Zhu, Daoli & Meng, Qiang, 2012. "A global optimization method for continuous network design problems," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1144-1158.
    18. Tatiana Komarova, 2012. "Binary Choice Models with Discrete Regressors: Identification and Misspecification," STICERD - Econometrics Paper Series 559, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    19. Ida, Masaaki, 2005. "Efficient solution generation for multiple objective linear programming based on extreme ray generation method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(1), pages 242-251, January.
    20. Mattila, V. & Virtanen, K., 2015. "Ranking and selection for multiple performance measures using incomplete preference information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 568-579.
    21. Troutt, M. D. & Pang, W. K. & Hou, S. H., 1999. "Performance of some boundary-seeking mode estimators on the dome bias model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 209-218, November.
    22. Vetschera, Rudolf, 1996. "A recursive algorithm for volume-based sensitivity analysis of linear decision models," Discussion Papers, Series I 279, University of Konstanz, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:coopap:v:89:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10589-024-00596-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.