Hisao Ishibuchi
ABSTRACT
Dominance resistant solutions (DRSs) in multi-objective problems have very good values for some objectives and very bad values for other objectives. Whereas DRSs are far away from the Pareto front, they are hardly dominated by other solutions due to some very good objective values. It is well known that the existence of DRSs severely degrades the search ability of Pareto dominance-based algorithms such as NSGA-II and SPEA2. In this paper, we examine the effect of DRSs on the search ability of NSGA-II on the DTLZ test problems with many objectives. We slightly change their problem formulation to increase the size of the DRS region. Through computational experiments, we show that DRSs have a strong negative effect on the search ability of NSGA-II whereas they have almost no effect on MOEA/D with the PBI function. We also show that a slightly modified NSGA-II for decreasing the negative effect of DRSs works well on many-objective DTLZ test problems (its performance is similar to NSGA-III and MOEA/D). These results suggest that DTLZ is not an appropriate test suite for evaluating many-objective evolutionary algorithms. This issue is further addressed through computational experiments on newly formulated test problems with no distance function.
- N. Beume, B. Naujoks, and M. Emmerich. 2007. SMS-EMOA: Multiobjective selection based on dominated hypervolume. European Journal of Operational Research 181, 3 (2007), 1653--1669.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- K. Deb. 2001. Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Deb and H. Jain. 2014. An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point-based non-dominated sorting approach, Part I: Solving problems with box constraints. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 18, 4 (2014) 577--601.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 6, 2 (2002) 182--197.Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Deb, L. Thiele, M. Laumanns, and E. Zitzler. 2002. Scalable multi-objective optimization test problems. Proceedings of 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2002), IEEE, Honolulu, USA, 825--830.Google Scholar
- S. Huband, P. Hingston, L. Barone, and L. While. 2006. A review of multiobjective test problems and a scalable test problem toolkit. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 10, 5 (2006), 477--506.Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Ikeda, H. Kita, and S. Kobayashi. 2001. Failure of Pareto-based MOEAs: Does non-dominated really mean near to optimal? Proceedings of 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2001), IEEE, Seoul, Korea, 957--962.Google Scholar
- H. Ishibuchi, N. Akedo, and Y. Nojima. 2015. Behavior of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms on many-objective knapsack problems. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 19, 2 (2015) 264--283.Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Ishibuchi, L. He, and K. Shang. 2019. Regular Pareto front shape is not realistic. Proceedings of 2019 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2019), IEEE, Wellington, New Zealand, 2035--2042.Google Scholar
- H. Ishibuchi, R. Imada, Y. Setoguchi, and Y. Nojima. 2018. How to specify a reference point in hypervolume calculation for fair performance comparison. Evolutionary Computation 26, 3 (2018) 411--440.Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Ishibuchi, R. Imada, Y. Setoguchi, and Y. Nojima. 2018. Reference point specification in inverted generational distance for triangular linear Pareto front. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 22, 6 (2018) 961--975.Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Ishibuchi, T. Matsumoto, N. Masuyama, and Y. Nojima. 2020. Many-objective problems are not always difficult for Pareto dominance-based evolutionary algorithms. Proceedings of 24th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2020), Santiago, Spain (Accepted).Google Scholar
- H. Ishibuchi, Y. Setoguchi, H. Masuda, and Y. Nojima. 2017. Performance of decomposition-based many-objective algorithms strongly depends on Pareto front shapes. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 21, 2 (2017) 169--190.Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Ishibuchi, N. Tsukamoto, and Y. Nojima. 2008. Evolutionary many-objective optimization: A short review. Proceedings of 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2008), IEEE, Hong Kong, China, 2419--2426.Google Scholar
- B. Li, J. Li, K. Tang, and X. Yao. 2015. Many-objective evolutionary algorithms: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys 48, 1 (2015) Article 13, 1--35.Google Scholar
- K. Li, K. Deb, Q. Zhang, and S. Kwong. 2015. An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm based on dominance and decomposition. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 19, 5 (2015) 694--716.Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Mostaghim and H. Schmeck. 2008. Distance based ranking in many-objective particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of PPSN X, 753--762 (2008).Google Scholar
- H. Sato, H. E. Aguirre, and K. Tanaka. 2007. Controlling dominance area of solutions and its impact on the performance of MOEAs. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO 2007), Springer, 5--20.Google ScholarCross Ref
- O. Schütze, A. Lara, and C. A. C. Coello. 2011. On the influence of the number of objectives on the hardness of a multiobjective optimization problem. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 15, 4 (2011) 444--455.Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. von Lücken, B. Barán, and C. Brizuela. 2014. A survey on multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for many-objective problems. Computational Optimization and Applications 58, 3 (2014) 707--756.Google Scholar
- T. Wagner, N. Beume, and B. Naujoks. 2007. Pareto-, aggregation-, and indicator-based methods in many-objective optimization. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO 2007), Springer, 742--756.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Z. Wang, Y. S. Ong, and H. Ishibuchi. 2019. On scalable multiobjective test problems with hardly-dominated boundaries. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 23, 2 (2019) 217--231.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Yuan, H. Xu, B. Wang, and X. Yao. 2016. A new dominance relation based evolutionary algorithm for many-objective optimization. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 20, 1 (2016) 16--37.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Q. Zhang and H. Li. 2007. MOEA/D: A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 11, 6 (2007) 712--731.Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Zitzler, D. Brockhoff, and L. Thiele. 2007. The hypervolume indicator revisited: On the design of Pareto-compliant indicators via weighted integration. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO 2007), Springer, 862--876.Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Zitzler, M. Laumanns, and L. Thiele. 2001. SPEA2: Improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm. TIK-Report 103, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory (TIK), Department of Electrical Engineering, ETH, Zurich.Google Scholar
- E. Zitzler and L. Thiele. 1998. Multiobjective optimization using evolutionary algorithms - A comparative case study. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN V), Amsterdam, Netherlands, 292--301.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Effects of dominance resistant solutions on the performance of evolutionary multi-objective and many-objective algorithms
Recommendations
An improved NSGA-III procedure for evolutionary many-objective optimization
GECCO '14: Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary ComputationMany-objective (four or more objectives) optimization problems pose a great challenge to the classical Pareto-dominance based multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs), such as NSGA-II and SPEA2. This is mainly due to the fact that the selection ...
Evolutionary many-objective optimization by NSGA-II and MOEA/D with large populations
SMC'09: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE international conference on Systems, Man and CyberneticsEvolutionary multiobjective optimization (EMO) is an active research area in the field of evolutionary computation. EMO algorithms are designed to find a non-dominated solution set that approximates the entire Pareto front of a multiobjective ...
Adaptive Update Range of Solutions in MOEA/D for Multi and Many-Objective Optimization
SEAL 2014: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Simulated Evolution and Learning - Volume 8886MOEA/D, a representative multi-objective evolutionary algorithm, decomposes a multi-objective optimization problem into a number of single objective optimization problems and tries to approximate Pareto front by simultaneously optimizing each of these ...
Comments