%PDF-1.5
%
1 0 obj
<<
/Metadata 2 0 R
/Names 3 0 R
/OpenAction 4 0 R
/Outlines 5 0 R
/PageMode /UseNone
/Pages 6 0 R
/Type /Catalog
/ViewerPreferences <<
/FitWindow true
>>
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Author (Cemre Cubukcuoglu, Berk Ekici, Mehmet Fatih Tasgetiren and Sevil Sariyildiz)
/CreationDate (D:20190712191106+08'00')
/Creator (LaTeX with hyperref package)
/Keywords (grasshopper; optimization; differential evolution; architectural design; computational design; performance based design; building performance optimization; single-objective optimization; architectural design optimization; parametric design)
/ModDate (D:20190724143335+02'00')
/PTEX.Fullbanner (This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.18 \(TeX Live 2017/W32TeX\) kpathsea version 6.2.3)
/Producer (pdfTeX-1.40.18)
/Subject (Most of the architectural design problems are basically real-parameter optimization problems. So, any type of evolutionary and swarm algorithms can be used in this field. However, there is a little attention on using optimization methods within the computer aided design \(CAD\) programs. In this paper, we present Optimus, which is a new optimization tool for grasshopper algorithmic modeling in Rhinoceros CAD software. Optimus implements self-adaptive differential evolution algorithm with ensemble of mutation strategies \(jEDE\). We made an experiment using standard test problems in the literature and some of the test problems proposed in IEEE CEC 2005. We reported minimum, maximum, average, standard deviations and number of function evaluations of five replications for each function. Experimental results on the benchmark suite showed that Optimus \(jEDE\) outperforms other optimization tools, namely Galapagos \(genetic algorithm\), SilverEye \(particle swarm optimization\), and Opossum \(RbfOpt\) by finding better results for 19 out of 20 problems. For only one function, Galapagos presented slightly better result than Optimus. Ultimately, we presented an architectural design problem and compared the tools for testing Optimus in the design domain. We reported minimum, maximum, average and number of function evaluations of one replication for each tool. Galapagos and Silvereye presented infeasible results, whereas Optimus and Opossum found feasible solutions. However, Optimus discovered a much better fitness result than Opossum. As a conclusion, we discuss advantages and limitations of Optimus in comparison to other tools. The target audience of this paper is frequent users of parametric design modelling e.g., architects, engineers, designers. The main contribution of this paper is summarized as follows. Optimus showed that near-optimal solutions of architectural design problems can be improved by testing different types of algorithms with respect to no-free lunch theorem. Moreover, Optimus facilitates implementing different type of algorithms due to its modular system.)
/Title (OPTIMUS: Self-Adaptive Differential Evolution with Ensemble of Mutation Strategies for Grasshopper Algorithmic Modeling)
/Trapped /False
>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Length 6389
/Subtype /XML
/Type /Metadata
>>
stream
application/pdf
Cemre Cubukcuoglu, Berk Ekici, Mehmet Fatih Tasgetiren and Sevil Sariyildiz
Most of the architectural design problems are basically real-parameter optimization problems. So, any type of evolutionary and swarm algorithms can be used in this field. However, there is a little attention on using optimization methods within the computer aided design (CAD) programs. In this paper, we present Optimus, which is a new optimization tool for grasshopper algorithmic modeling in Rhinoceros CAD software. Optimus implements self-adaptive differential evolution algorithm with ensemble of mutation strategies (jEDE). We made an experiment using standard test problems in the literature and some of the test problems proposed in IEEE CEC 2005. We reported minimum, maximum, average, standard deviations and number of function evaluations of five replications for each function. Experimental results on the benchmark suite showed that Optimus (jEDE) outperforms other optimization tools, namely Galapagos (genetic algorithm), SilverEye (particle swarm optimization), and Opossum (RbfOpt) by finding better results for 19 out of 20 problems. For only one function, Galapagos presented slightly better result than Optimus. Ultimately, we presented an architectural design problem and compared the tools for testing Optimus in the design domain. We reported minimum, maximum, average and number of function evaluations of one replication for each tool. Galapagos and Silvereye presented infeasible results, whereas Optimus and Opossum found feasible solutions. However, Optimus discovered a much better fitness result than Opossum. As a conclusion, we discuss advantages and limitations of Optimus in comparison to other tools. The target audience of this paper is frequent users of parametric design modelling e.g., architects, engineers, designers. The main contribution of this paper is summarized as follows. Optimus showed that near-optimal solutions of architectural design problems can be improved by testing different types of algorithms with respect to no-free lunch theorem. Moreover, Optimus facilitates implementing different type of algorithms due to its modular system.
OPTIMUS: Self-Adaptive Differential Evolution with Ensemble of Mutation Strategies for Grasshopper Algorithmic Modeling
2019-07-12T19:11:06+08:00
LaTeX with hyperref package
2019-07-24T14:33:35+02:00
2019-07-24T14:33:35+02:00
grasshopper; optimization; differential evolution; architectural design; computational design; performance based design; building performance optimization; single-objective optimization; architectural design optimization; parametric design
pdfTeX-1.40.18
False
This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.18 (TeX Live 2017/W32TeX) kpathsea version 6.2.3
uuid:3445f831-165e-4190-94ab-41ebfb28b3ea
uuid:f30c7381-bb9e-4bda-b4c0-3556eb4e5b7a
endstream
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Dests 8 0 R
>>
endobj
4 0 obj
<<
/D [9 0 R /FitH]
/S /GoTo
>>
endobj
5 0 obj
<<
/Count 31
/First 10 0 R
/Last 11 0 R
/Type /Outlines
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Count 28
/Kids [12 0 R 13 0 R 14 0 R 15 0 R 16 0 R]
/Type /Pages
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Kids [17 0 R 18 0 R 19 0 R 20 0 R 21 0 R 22 0 R]
/Limits [(AMS.10) (table.caption.38)]
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Annots [23 0 R 24 0 R 25 0 R 26 0 R 27 0 R 28 0 R]
/Contents [29 0 R 30 0 R 31 0 R 32 0 R 33 0 R 34 0 R 35 0 R 36 0 R]
/CropBox [0 0 595.276 841.89]
/MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89]
/Parent 12 0 R
/Resources 37 0 R
/Rotate 0
/Type /Page
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/A 38 0 R
/Count 10
/First 39 0 R
/Last 40 0 R
/Next 41 0 R
/Parent 5 0 R
/Title
>>
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/A 42 0 R
/Parent 5 0 R
/Prev 43 0 R
/Title
>>
endobj
12 0 obj
<<
/Count 7
/Kids [44 0 R 9 0 R 45 0 R 46 0 R 47 0 R 48 0 R 49 0 R]
/Parent 6 0 R
/Type /Pages
>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<<
/Count 6
/Kids [50 0 R 51 0 R 52 0 R 53 0 R 54 0 R 55 0 R]
/Parent 6 0 R
/Type /Pages
>>
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Count 6
/Kids [56 0 R 57 0 R 58 0 R 59 0 R 60 0 R 61 0 R]
/Parent 6 0 R
/Type /Pages
>>
endobj
15 0 obj
<<
/Count 6
/Kids [62 0 R 63 0 R 64 0 R 65 0 R 66 0 R 67 0 R]
/Parent 6 0 R
/Type /Pages
>>
endobj
16 0 obj
<<
/Count 3
/Kids [68 0 R 69 0 R 70 0 R]
/Parent 6 0 R
/Type /Pages
>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<<
/Kids [71 0 R 72 0 R 73 0 R 74 0 R 75 0 R 76 0 R]
/Limits [(AMS.10) (Item.28)]
>>
endobj
18 0 obj
<<
/Kids [77 0 R 78 0 R 79 0 R 80 0 R 81 0 R 82 0 R]
/Limits [(Item.29) (cite.B3-algorithms-511406)]
>>
endobj
19 0 obj
<<
/Kids [83 0 R 84 0 R 85 0 R 86 0 R 87 0 R 88 0 R]
/Limits [(cite.B30-algorithms-511406) (cite.B62-algorithms-511406)]
>>
endobj
20 0 obj
<<
/Kids [89 0 R 90 0 R 91 0 R 92 0 R 93 0 R 94 0 R]
/Limits [(cite.B63-algorithms-511406) (page.15)]
>>
endobj
21 0 obj
<<
/Kids [95 0 R 96 0 R 97 0 R 98 0 R 99 0 R 100 0 R]
/Limits [(page.16) (subsection.4.2)]
>>
endobj
22 0 obj
<<
/Kids [101 0 R 102 0 R 103 0 R 104 0 R]
/Limits [(subsubsection.1.3.1) (table.caption.38)]
>>
endobj
23 0 obj
<<
/A <<
/S /URI
/Type /Action
/URI (http://www.mdpi.com/journal/algorithms)
>>
/Border [0 0 0]
/C [0 1 1]
/H /I
/Rect [75.539 757.64 207.93 793.648]
/Subtype /Link
/Type /Annot
>>
endobj
24 0 obj
<<
/A <<
/S /URI
/Type /Action
/URI (http://www.mdpi.com)
>>
/Border [0 0 0]
/C [0 1 1]
/H /I
/Rect [474.736 757.64 519.737 793.648]
/Subtype /Link
/Type /Annot
>>
endobj
25 0 obj
<<
/A <<
/S /URI
/Type /Action
/URI (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0406-9569)
>>
/Border [0 0 0]
/C [0 1 1]
/H /I
/Rect [242.97 640.347 254.034 654.01]
/Subtype /Link
/Type /Annot
>>
endobj
26 0 obj
<<
/A <<
/S /URI
/Type /Action
/URI (http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/12/7/141?type=check_update&version=1)
>>
/Border [0 0 0]
/C [0 1 1]
/H /I
/Rect [466.564 525.722 518.801 544.722]
/Subtype /Link
/Type /Annot
>>
endobj
27 0 obj
<<
/A <<
/S /URI
/Type /Action
/URI (http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/a12070141)
>>
/Border [0 0 0]
/C [0 1 1]
/H /I
/Rect [175.348 38.684 241.396 50.141]
/Subtype /Link
/Type /Annot
>>
endobj
28 0 obj
<<
/A <<
/S /URI
/Type /Action
/URI (http://www.mdpi.com/journal/algorithms)
>>
/Border [0 0 0]
/C [0 1 1]
/H /I
/Rect [392.71 38.684 519.737 50.141]
/Subtype /Link
/Type /Annot
>>
endobj
29 0 obj
<<
/Length 740
/Filter /FlateDecode
>>
stream
HTn0+x"nesfȴMDR-.үH6
g潙yCۊ \!c5UQ%շ_(R.K.QaɌ{m5wkW>Lpbv{
;2DXq6I,bPX☣d/e<&:k3ݙ̅F5I?If'd<"/X
n(ơZ >BQHʰ|0->ͦƕ?rͪ"CM90e)ʅ_&݆5Uإ?/onWˋ<Ҙ BeYBrnsW,m+?X*j-yuVX(;c#%
mHYώQ 3uiPgcx"
zfM,P!٭@?Dkl'F!v