Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 21, Issue 8, pp 1917–1929 | Cite as

Hypervolume-based multi-objective local search

ICIC2010

Abstract

This paper presents a multi-objective local search, where the selection is realized according to the hypervolume contribution of solutions. The HBMOLS algorithm proposed is inspired from the IBEA algorithm, an indicator-based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm proposed by Zitzler and Künzli in 2004, where the optimization goal is defined in terms of a binary indicator defining the selection operator. In this paper, we use the indicator optimization principle, and we apply it to an iterated local search algorithm, using hypervolume contribution indicator as selection mechanism. The methodology proposed here has been defined in order to be easily adaptable and to be as parameter-independent as possible. We carry out a range of experiments on the multi-objective flow shop problem and the multi-objective quadratic assignment problem, using the hypervolume contribution selection as well as two different binary indicators which were initially proposed in the IBEA algorithm. Experimental results indicate that the HBMOLS algorithm is highly effective in comparison with the algorithms based on binary indicators.

Keywords

Hypervolume contribution Multi-objective Local search Flow shop problem Quadratic assignment problem 

References

  1. 1.
    Arroyo J, Armentano V (2005) Genetic local search for multi-objective flowshop scheduling problems. Eur J Oper Res 167(3):717–738MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bader J, Deb K, Zitzler E (2008) Faster hypervolume-based search using monte carlo sampling. In: Conference on multiple criteria decision making (MCDM 2008). Springer, New York, pp 313–326Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basseur M, Burke EK (2007) Indicator-based multiobjective local search. In: Proceedings of the IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2007). Singapore, September, pp 3100–3107Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basseur M, Seynhaeve F, Talbi E-G (2002) Design of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms: application to the flow-shop scheduling problem. In: Congress on evolutionary computation, vol 2. Honolulu, USA, pp 1151–1156Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beume N (2009) S-metric calculation by considering dominated hypervolume as klee’s measure problem. Evol Comput 17(4):477–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beume N, Naujoks B, Emmerich M (2007) SMS-EMOA: multiobjective selection based on dominated hypervolume. Eur J Oper Res 181:1653–1669MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bradstreet L, While L, Barone L (2008) A fast incremental hypervolume algorithm. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 12(6):714–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bringmann K, Friedrich T (2008) Approximating the volume of unions and intersections of high-dimensional geometric objects. In: ISAAC’08: proceedings of the 19th international symposium on algorithms and computation, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer, pp 436–447Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bringmann K, Friedrich T (2009) Don’t be greedy when calculating hypervolume contributions. In: FOGA’09: proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGEVO workshop on foundations of genetic algorithms. New York, NY, USA, ACM, pp 103–112Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coello Coello CA, Lamont GB, Van Veldhuizen DA (2006) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems (genetic and evolutionary computation). Springer, New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Day O, Lamont B (2005) Multiobjective quadratic assignment problem solved by an explicit building block search algorithm—momga-iia. In: EvoCOP, volume 3448 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, New York, pp 91–100Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dhaenens C, Lemesre J, Talbi E (2010) K-ppm: A new exact method to solve multiobjective combinatorial optimization problems. Eur J Oper Res 1:45–53MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Du J, Leung JY-T (1990) Minimizing total tardiness on one machine is NP-hard. Math Oper Res 15:483–495MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Figueira J, Liefooghe A, Talbi E-G, Wierzbicki A (2010) A parallel multiple reference point approach for multi-objective optimization. Eur J Oper Res 205(2):390–400MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knowles JD, Corne DW (2000) Approximating the nondominated front using the pareto archived evolution strategy. Evol Comput 8(2):149–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Knowles JD, Thiele L, Zitzler E (2005) A tutorial on the performance assessment of stochastive multiobjective optimizers. Technical report TIK-Report No. 214, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory, ETH Zurich, JulyGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Landa-Silva D, Burke EK, Petrovic S (2004) Metaheuristic for multiobjective optimisation, chapter an introduction to multiobjective metaheuristics for scheduling and timetabling. Springer, New York, pp 91–129Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lenstra JK, Rinnooy Kan AHG, Brucker P (1977) Complexity of machine scheduling problems. Ann Discrete Math 1:343–362MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liefooghe A, Mesmoudi S, Humeau J, Jourdan L, Talbi E-G (2009) Designing, implementing and analyzing effective heuristics. In: Engineering stochastic local search algorithms, volume 5752 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, New York, pp 120–124Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nagar A, Haddock J, Heragu S (1995) Multiple and bicriteria scheduling: a litterature survey. Eur J Oper Res 81:88–104MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paquete L, Stuetzle T (2006) A study of local search algorithms for the biobjective QAP with correlated flow matrices. Eur J Oper Res 169(3):943–959MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pardalos P, Rendl F, Wolkowicz H (1994) The quadratic assignment problem: a survey and recent developments. In: Proceedings of the DIMACS workshop on quadratic assignment problems, volume 16 of DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science, pp 1–42Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sahni S, Gonzalez T (1976) P-complete approximation problems. J ACM 23(3):555–565MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taillard E (1993) Benchmarks for basic scheduling problems. Eur J Oper Res 64:278–285MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang Q, Li H (2006) A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. Technical report TIK-report CSM-450, Department of Computer Science, University of EssexGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zitzler E, Künzli S (2004) Indicator-based selection in multiobjective search. In 8th international conference on parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN VIII), pp 832–842, Birmingham, UK, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zitzler E, Thiele L (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength pareto approach. Evol Comput 3:257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zitzler E, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Foneseca CM, Grunert da Fonseca V (2003) Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(2):117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthieu Basseur
    • 1
  • Rong-Qiang Zeng
    • 1
  • Jin-Kao Hao
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of AngersAngers Cedex 01France

Personalised recommendations