Figure 4 Window of Maximum Similarity between AOG_1 and (static)
quadratic function.
Table 1 reports the best solutions for function AOG_1 . The type
of variables (ToV) is included since evaluations considered the bounds
(\(\mathbf{x}_{\mathbf{1}}^{\mathbf{U}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{x}_{\mathbf{1}}^{\mathbf{L}}\),\(\mathbf{x}_{\mathbf{2}}^{\mathbf{U}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{x}_{\mathbf{2}}^{\mathbf{L}}\))
as both continuous and integer variables. Also, the best solution, the
best objective function value (OFV) found, WMS dimensions and location
for each case are reported. The function AOG_1 , the quadratic
function\(\mathbf{Z=}\mathbf{f}\left(\mathbf{x}_{\mathbf{1}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{x}_{\mathbf{2}}\right)\)to superimpose, and the WMS of the composite objective function for the
integer case are presented in Figure 4. In all cases, the stationary
point (0, 0) is within the WMS. According to the results, it is possible
to conclude that the method demonstrated potential to find regions of
similarity between two responses, where optimality can be a pattern of
interest.
Table 1 Results for AOG_1 , and quadratic (static) function to
superimpose.