pp 1–22 | Cite as

A reference point-based evolutionary algorithm for approximating regions of interest in multiobjective problems

  • E. FilatovasEmail author
  • O. Kurasova
  • J. L. Redondo
  • J. Fernández
Original Paper


Most evolutionary multiobjective optimization algorithms are designed to approximate the entire Pareto front. During the last decade, a series of preference-based evolutionary algorithms have been developed, where a part of the Pareto front is approximated by incorporating the preferences of a Decision Maker. However, only a few such algorithms are able to obtain well-distributed solutions covering the complete “region of interest” that is determined by a reference point. In this paper, a preference-based evolutionary algorithm for approximating the region of interest is proposed. It is based on the state-of-the-art genetic algorithm NSGA-II and the CHIM approach introduced in the NBI method which is used to obtain uniformly distributed solutions in the region of interest. The efficiency of the proposed algorithm has been experimentally evaluated and compared to other state-of-the-art multiobjective preference-based evolutionary algorithms by solving a set of multiobjective optimization benchmark problems. It has been shown that the incorporation of the Decision Maker’s preferences and the CHIM approach into the NSGA-II algorithm allows approximating the whole region of interest accurately while maintaining a good distribution of the obtained solutions.


Multiobjective optimization Evolutionary algorithms Preference-based EMO NSGA-II NBI CHIM 

Mathematics Subject Classification

90C29 90C26 68W25 90C59 



The research work of E. Filatovas was funded by a Grant (no. S-MIP-17-67) from the Research Council of Lithuania. The research work of J. L. Redondo and J. Fernández was funded by Grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MTM2015-70260-P, TIN2015-66680-C2-1-R, RTI2018-095993-B-100), Fundación Séneca (The Agency of Science and Technology of the Region of Murcia, 19241/PI/14 and 20817/PI/18), Junta de Andalucía (P12-TIC301, UAL18-TIC-A020-B), in part financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).


  1. Agrawal RB, Deb K, Agrawal R (1995) Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space. Complex Syst 9(2):115–148Google Scholar
  2. Bechikh S, Kessentini M, Said LB, Ghédira K (2015) Chapter Four—Preference incorporation in evolutionary multiobjective optimization: a survey of the state-of-the-art. Adv Comput 98:141–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benson HP, Sayin S (1997) Towards finding global representations of the efficient set in multiple objective mathematical programming. Nav Res Logist 44(1):47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Branke J (2016) MCDA and multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. Multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer, New York, pp 977–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cabello J, Luque M, Miguel F, Ruiz A, Ruiz F (2014) A multiobjective interactive approach to determine the optimal electricity mix in Andalucía (Spain). Top 22(1):109–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coello CAC, Van Veldhuizen DA, Lamont GB (2002) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems, vol 242. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Das I, Dennis JE (1998) Normal-boundary intersection: a new method for generating the Pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimization problems. SIAM J Optim 8(3):631–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deb K (1999) Multi-objective genetic algorithms: problem difficulties and construction of test problems. Evol Comput 7:205–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Deb K, Jain H (2014) An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point-based nondominated sorting approach, part I: solving problems with box constraints. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18(4):577–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deb K, Kumar A (2007) Interactive evolutionary multi-objective optimization and decision-making using reference direction method. In: Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, ACM, pp 781–788Google Scholar
  12. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002a) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deb K, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Zitzler E (2002b) Scalable multi-objective optimization test problems. In: Proceedings of the 2002 congress on evolutionary computation, CEC’02, pp 825–830, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  14. Deb K, Sundar J, Udaya Bhaskara Rao N, Chaudhuri S (2006) Reference point based multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Int J Comput Intell Res 2(3):273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deb K, Siegmund F, Ng AH (2014) R-HV: a metric for computing hyper-volume for reference point based EMOs. In: International conference on swarm, evolutionary, and memetic computing, Springer, pp 98–110Google Scholar
  16. Figueira JR, Liefooghe A, Talbi EG, Wierzbicki AP (2010) A parallel multiple reference point approach for multi-objective optimization. Eur J Oper Res 205(2):390–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Filatovas E, Kurasova O, Sindhya K (2015) Synchronous R-NSGA-II: an extended preference-based evolutionary algorithm for multi-objective optimization. Informatica 26(1):33–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Filatovas E, Kurasova O, Redondo JL, Fernández J (2016) A preference-based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for approximating a region of interest. In: XIII Globall optimizatin workshop, GOW’16, pp 21–24Google Scholar
  19. Filatovas E, Lančinskas A, Kurasova O, Žilinskas J (2017) A preference-based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm R-NSGA-II with stochastic local search. Cent Eur J Oper Res 25(4):859–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fonseca CM, Fleming PJ et al (1993) Genetic algorithms for multiobjective optimization: formulation, discussion and generalization. In: ICGA, vol 93, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp 416–423Google Scholar
  21. Hong W, Tang K (2016) Convex hull-based multi-objective evolutionary computation for maximizing receiver operating characteristics performance. Memet Comput 8(1):35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hong W, Lu G, Yang P, Wang Y, Tang K (2015) A new evolutionary multi-objective algorithm for convex hull maximization. In: IEEE Congress on evolutionary computation, CEC’15, pp 931–938, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  23. Karasakal E, Silav A (2016) A multi-objective genetic algorithm for a bi-objective facility location problem with partial coverage. Top 24(1):206–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Korhonen PJ, Laakso J (1986) A visual interactive method for solving the multiple criteria problem. Eur J Oper Res 24(2):277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kurasova O, Petkus T, Filatovas E (2013) Visualization of Pareto front points when solving multi-objective optimization problems. Inf Technol Control 42(4):353–361Google Scholar
  26. Lam JSL (2010) An integrated approach for port selection, ship scheduling and financial analysis. Netnomics Econ Res Electron Netw 11(1):33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li K, Deb K (2016) Performance assessment for preference-based evolutionary multi-objective optimization using reference points. COIN Rep 1(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li L, Yevseyeva I, Basto-Fernandes V, Trautmann H, Jing N, Emmerich M (2017) Building and using an ontology of preference-based multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. In: International conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization, pp 406–421Google Scholar
  29. Messac A, Mattson CA (2004) Normal constraint method with guarantee of even representation of complete Pareto frontier. AIAA J 42(10):2101–2111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Messac A, Ismail-Yahaya A, Mattson CA (2003) The normalized normal constraint method for generating the Pareto frontier. Struct Multidiscip Optim 25(2):86–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miettinen K (1999) Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Mohammadi A, Omidvar MN, Li X (2013) A new performance metric for user-preference based multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. In: 2013 IEEE Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), pp 2825–2832Google Scholar
  33. Molina J, Santana LV, Hernández-Díaz AG, Coello Coello CA, Caballero R (2009) g-dominance: Reference point based dominance for multiobjective metaheuristics. Eur J Oper Res 197(2):685–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moreno J, Ortega G, Filatovas E, Martínez JA, Garzón EM (2018) Improving the performance and energy of non-dominated sorting for evolutionary multiobjective optimization on GPU/CPU platforms. J Glob Optim 71(3):631–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Motta RS, Afonso SM, Lyra PR (2012) A modified NBI and NC method for the solution of N-multiobjective optimization problems. Struct Multidiscip Optim 46(2):239–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ortega G, Filatovas E, Garzón E, Casado LG (2017) Non-dominated sorting procedure for Pareto dominance ranking on multicore CPU and/or GPU. J Glob Optim 69(3):607–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petkus T, Filatovas E, Kurasova O (2009) Investigation of human factors while solving multiple criteria optimization problems in computer network. Technol Econ Dev Econ 15(3):464–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Purshouse RC, Deb K, Mansor MM, Mostaghim S, Wang R (2014) A review of hybrid evolutionary multiple criteria decision making methods. In: 2014 IEEE Congress on evolutionary computation, CEC’14), pp 1147–1154, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  39. Redondo J, Fernández J, Álvarez J, Arrondo A, Ortigosa P (2015) Approximating the Pareto-front of a planar bi-objective competitive facility location and design problem. Comput Oper Res 62(1):337–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roy PC, Islam MM, Deb K (2016) Best order sort: a new algorithm to non-dominated sorting for evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2016 on genetic and evolutionary computation conference companion, pp 1113–1120, ACMGoogle Scholar
  41. Ruiz AB, Saborido R, Luque M (2015a) A preference-based evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization: the weighting achievement scalarizing function genetic algorithm. J Glob Optim 62(1):101–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ruiz AB, Sindhya K, Miettinen K, Ruiz F, Luque M (2015b) E-NAUTILUS: a decision support system for complex multiobjective optimization problems based on the NAUTILUS method. Eur J Oper Res 246(1):218–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Said LB, Bechikh S, Ghédira K (2010) The r-dominance: a new dominance relation for interactive evolutionary multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 14(5):801–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Santos J, Ferreira A, Flintsch G (2017) A multi-objective optimization-based pavement management decision-support system for enhancing pavement sustainability. J Clean Prod 164:1380–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shao L, Ehrgott M (2016) Discrete representation of non-dominated sets in multi-objective linear programming. Eur J Oper Res 255(3):687–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Siddiqui S, Azarm S, Gabriel SA (2012) On improving normal boundary intersection method for generation of Pareto frontier. Struct Multidiscip Optim 46(6):839–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Siegmund F, Ng AH, Deb K (2012) Finding a preferred diverse set of Pareto-optimal solutions for a limited number of function calls. In: 2012 IEEE Congress on evolutionary computation, CEC’12, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  48. Talbi EG (2009) Metaheuristics: from design to implementation, vol 74. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tang S, Cai Z, Zheng J (2008) A fast method of constructing the non-dominated set: Arena’s principle. In: Fourth international conference on natural computation, ICNC’08, vol 1, pp 391–395, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  50. Thiele L, Miettinen K, Korhonen PJ, Molina J (2009) A preference-based evolutionary algorithm for multi-objective optimization. Evol Comput 17(3):411–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wickramasinghe UK, Carrese R, Li X (2010) Designing airfoils using a reference point based evolutionary many-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm. In: 2010 IEEE Congress on evolutionary computation, CEC’10, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  52. Yuan X, Tian H, Yuan Y, Huang Y, Ikram RM (2015) An extended NSGA-III for solution multi-objective hydro-thermal-wind scheduling considering wind power cost. Energy Convers Manag 96:568–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zapotecas Martínez S, Coello Coello CA (2010) a novel diversification strategy for multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference companion on genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO’10, pp 2031–2034. ACM, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang Q, Li H (2007) MOEA/D: a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 11(6):712–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang X, Ye T, Cheng R, Jin Y (2012) An efficient approach to non-dominated sorting for evolutionary multi-objective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 19(2):201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zitzler E, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Fonseca CM, Da Fonseca VG (2003) Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(2):117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zitzler E, Thiele L (1998) Multiobjective optimization using evolutionary algorithms—a comparative case study. In: Parallel problem solving from nature—PPSN V, Springer, pp 292–301Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Data Science and Digital TechnologiesVilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania
  2. 2.Department of Informatics, Agrifood Campus of International Excellence (ceiA3)University of AlmeríaAlmeríaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Statistics and Operations ResearchUniversity of MurciaEspinardoSpain

Personalised recommendations