Optimal design: Overview

Definition

A task falls into the cate­go­ry of opti­mal design when it invol­ves the opti­mal choice of pro­duct para­me­ters. In con­trast to opti­mal con­trol and opti­mal esti­ma­ti­on, less empha­sis is pla­ced on time-vary­ing sys­tems and the esti­ma­ti­on of unknown relationships.

Ins­tead, the ques­ti­ons are less data-dri­ven and more of a pre-ana­ly­ti­cal natu­re: Given con­cre­te infor­ma­ti­on about the goal of the design endea­vor, which choice of para­me­ters maxi­mi­zes the suc­cess of the pro­duct equip­ped with such parameters?

Application areas

In such cases, the “pro­duct” can be a phy­si­cal object as well as time-mini­mi­zing sche­du­les, maxi­mum effi­ci­en­cy expe­ri­men­tal con­fi­gu­ra­ti­ons, trans­port rou­tes, resour­ce allo­ca­ti­ons, or net­work designs. This list pro­vi­des an incom­ple­te overview.

The appli­ca­ti­ons are enorm­ously diver­se and often have a direct busi­ness com­po­nent. This is due to his­to­ri­cal deve­lo­p­ment reasons and the fact that time expen­dit­u­re and cos­ts are pres­sing and easy-to-inter­pret mea­su­res of suc­cess, who­se mini­miza­ti­on is of gene­ral inte­rest. In its most gene­ral form

$$ \begin{align} \min_{x\in D} ~~~& f(x) \end{align}$$

opti­mal design includes opti­mi­zing uncer­tain­ties, sta­bi­li­ty and fle­xi­bi­li­ty mea­su­res, phy­si­cal as well as psy­cho­lo­gi­cal metrics, and any other effects of the pro­duct. Howe­ver, the more gene­ral the func­tion, the less addi­tio­nal struc­tu­re can be uti­li­zed to sim­pli­fy the solu­ti­on process.

Example

For a given volu­me \(V\) to be packa­ged in a box, the amount of pack­a­ging mate­ri­al requi­red depends on the dimen­si­ons of the box’s sides. The optimi­zation pro­blem is then for­mu­la­ted as

$$ \begin{align} \min_{x_1, x_2, x_3} ~~~& F(x_1,x_2,x_3) \\ \text{s.t.} ~~~&x_1x_2x_3=V \end{align}$$

whe­re \(F(x_1,x_2,x_3)=2[x_1x_2+x_2x_3+x_3x_1]\) repres­ents the sur­face area of the box, ther­eby quan­ti­fy­ing the con­sump­ti­on of pack­a­ging mate­ri­al. This pro­blem can be easi­ly sol­ved by hand.

Given the cons­traint that \(x_1x_2x_3 = V\), our goal is to mini­mi­ze the sur­face area. The mini­mal sur­face area for a given volu­me is achie­ved by a cube, as per the isope­ri­me­tric ine­qua­li­ty in three dimen­si­ons. Thus, the solu­ti­on to this optimi­zation pro­blem is a cube with sides of length \(\sqrt[3]{V}\), mea­ning \(x_1 = x_2 = x_3 = \sqrt[3]{V}\). This results in the mini­mal sur­face area and thus the mini­mal pack­a­ging mate­ri­al needed.

Figu­re 1: Sketch of the mate­ri­al mini­miza­ti­on pro­blem (a) and illus­tra­ti­on of mate­ri­al con­sump­ti­on for various pack­a­ging dimen­si­ons (b). The lowest con­sump­ti­on is 6\(m^2\) and is achie­ved for a cubic box with \(x_1=x_2=x_3=1m\).

By exclu­ding the non­sen­si­cal boun­da­ry cases whe­re \(x_k=0\) for \(k=1, 2, 3\) and \(V=0\), the cons­traint can be trans­for­med into the equa­ti­on \(x_3 = (x_1x_2)^{-1}V\). The mini­mum is rea­ched when \(\nabla F = 0\), i.e.,

$$\begin{bmatrix} \frac{\partial}{ \partial x_1} F \\ \frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} F \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 2 x_2 + \frac{V}{x_1^2} \\ 2x_1+ \frac{V}{x_2^2} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix} $$

This occurs pre­cis­e­ly when \(x_1^2x_2 = x_2^2x_1 = V\), thus \(x_1 = x_2 = (x_1x_2)^{-1}V = x_3\). This direct­ly impli­es \(x_1 = x_2 = x_3 = V^{1/3}\), mea­ning the opti­mal solu­ti­on invol­ves choo­sing a cubic packaging.

In rea­li­ty, of cour­se, fur­ther con­di­ti­ons must be con­side­red: trans­por­ta­bi­li­ty, stora­bi­li­ty, and manu­fac­tu­ra­bi­li­ty of the pack­a­ging lea­ding to size rest­ric­tions as well as the cos­ts of the enti­re manu­fac­tu­ring pro­cess, not just the pack­a­ging mate­ri­al. This results in a geo­me­tric pro­gram who­se solu­ti­on is not as obvious.

Classes of problems

Sur­pri­sin­gly many prac­ti­cal tasks can be for­mu­la­ted as sta­tic design pro­blems, inclu­ding some with expli­cit time depen­den­cy. We will focus on pro­blems for which relia­ble solu­ti­on algo­rith­ms are available. This non-exhaus­ti­ve over­view of pro­blem clas­ses excludes some inte­res­t­ing non­line­ar pro­blems that do not fit the sche­ma but can still be addres­sed with glo­bal optimi­zation heu­ristics and manu­al tweaking.

Experiment design

Expe­ri­men­tal design invol­ves arran­ging indi­vi­du­al expe­ri­ments into a maxi­mal­ly effec­ti­ve com­bi­na­ti­on. The goal may be the detec­ta­bi­li­ty of a spe­ci­fic para­me­ter or the mini­miza­ti­on of uncer­tain­ties in the state­ments that can be deri­ved from the com­bi­na­ti­on of experiments.

Cons­traints limit the resour­ces available for the expe­ri­ments or the simul­tan­ei­ty of the expe­ri­ment exe­cu­ti­on. The pro­ducts of this optimi­zation are expe­ri­ment com­bi­na­ti­ons that mini­mi­ze uncertainty.

Scheduling

A sche­du­le is used to deter­mi­ne the order and respon­si­bi­li­ty for pro­ces­sing tasks. A typi­cal exam­p­le is machi­ne sche­du­ling: Various raw mate­ri­als must be trans­for­med into pro­ducts by machines.

Dif­fe­rent machi­nes per­form various steps at dif­fe­rent speeds, and a sequence of ope­ra­ti­ons must be found such that all dead­lines are met and the total pro­ces­sing time is mini­mi­zed. Mathe­ma­ti­cal­ly opti­mal sche­du­ling is the big brot­her of ad-hoc plan­ning with Gantt charts. The pro­ducts of the­se opti­miza­ti­ons are time-mini­mi­zing schedules.

Transportation and resource allocation

The tra­ve­ling sales­per­son pro­blem is one of the oldest and most obvious logi­stics pro­blems. A given set of loca­ti­ons is to be visi­ted in a sequence that mini­mi­zes the total dura­ti­on of the trip. The pro­blem is pro­ven to be one of the most dif­fi­cult mathe­ma­ti­cal problems.

Nevert­hel­ess, the­re are algo­rith­ms that can relia­bly sol­ve even more com­pli­ca­ted trans­port pro­blems invol­ving various loca­ti­ons, goods, deli­very capa­ci­ties, and cons­traints. The pro­ducts of the­se opti­miza­ti­ons are cost-mini­mi­zing trans­port routes.

Topology- and network design

Net­works and their topo­lo­gi­cal pro­per­ties play a signi­fi­cant role in the mathe­ma­ti­cal mode­ling of neigh­bor­hood rela­ti­onships. They are important for repre­sen­ting mat­ters con­cer­ning the flow of goods, forces, or logi­cal connections.

Sin­ce net­works often pro­vi­de the for­mal frame­work for the cons­traints occur­ring in an optimi­zation pro­blem, their opti­mal design gua­ran­tees sen­si­ble beha­vi­or of the enti­ties flowing within this network.

Practical aspects

Depen­ding on the exact pro­blem for­mu­la­ti­on and cons­traints, sol­ving the afo­re­men­tio­ned optimi­zation pro­blems can ran­ge from simp­le to impos­si­ble. Some trans­por­ta­ti­on and sche­du­ling plans can be for­mu­la­ted as line­ar pro­grams and are the­r­e­fo­re straight­for­ward, while expe­ri­men­tal design typi­cal­ly requi­res semi­de­fi­ni­te pro­gramming, making it nume­ri­cal­ly chal­len­ging but still relia­bly solvable.

Howe­ver, as soon as logi­cal rest­ric­tions and dis­crete objects come into play, mixed-inte­ger optimi­zation must be employ­ed. Then, no con­ver­gence gua­ran­tees can be made. Unfort­u­na­te­ly, this is often the case when non-tri­vi­al cons­traints need to be con­side­red. The vast amount of logi­stic lite­ra­tu­re is nevert­hel­ess a tes­ta­ment to the prac­ti­cal suc­ces­ses and the effec­ti­ve­ness of the approach.

Code