Objective reduction for many-objective optimization problems using objective subspace extraction
- 215 Downloads
Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) have shown their effectiveness in exploring a well converged and diversified approximation set for multi-objective optimization problems (MOPs) with 2 and 3 objectives. However, most of them perform poorly when tackling MOPs with more than 3 objectives [often called many-objective optimization problems (MaOPs)]. This is mainly due to the fact that the number of non-dominated individuals increases rapidly in MaOPs, leading to the loss of selection pressure in population update. Objective reduction can be used to lower the difficulties of some MaOPs, which helps to alleviate the above problem. This paper proposes a novel objective reduction framework for MaOPs using objective subspace extraction, named OSEOR. A new conflict information measurement among different objectives is defined to sort the relative importance of each objective, and then an effective approach is designed to extract several overlapped subspaces with reduced dimensionality during the execution of MOEAs. To validate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, it is embedded into a well-known and frequently used MOEA (NSGA-II). Several test MaOPs, including four irreducible problems (i.e. DTLZ1–DTLZ4) and a reducible problem (i.e. DTLZ5), are used to assess the optimization performance. The experimental results indicate that the performance of NSGA-II can be significantly enhanced using OSEOR on both irreducible and reducible MaOPs.
KeywordsMany-objective optimization Objective reduction Objective subspace extraction Conflict information
This work was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China under Grants 61402291, 61171124, 61301298, Seed Funding from Scientific and Technical Innovation Council of Shenzhen Government under Grant 0000012528, Foundation for Distinguished Young Talents in Higher Education of Guangdong under Grant 2014KQNCX129, Natural Science Foundation of SZU under Grants 201531, JCYJ20160422112909302, GJHS20160328145558586, and Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong under Grant 2013B021500017.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Author Naili Luo declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Xia Li declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Qiuzhen Lin declares that he has no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- Aguirre H and Tanaka K (2009) Adaptive \(\varepsilon \)-ranking on MNK-landscapes. In: Computational intelligence in miulti-criteria decision-making, pp 104–111Google Scholar
- Al MN, Petrovski A et al (2013) D2MOPSO: MOPSO based on decomposition and dominance with archiving using crowding distance in objective and solution spaces. Evol Comput 22(1):47–77Google Scholar
- Auger A and Bader J, et al (2009) Theory of the hypervolume indicator: optimal \(\mu \)-distributions and the choice of the reference point. In: Tenth ACM Sigevo workshop on foundations of genetic algorithms, pp 87–102Google Scholar
- Chen XH, Li X et al (2014) Improved population partitioning method in multi-objective shuffled frog leaping algorithm. J Signal Process 30(10):1134–1142Google Scholar
- Coello CAC, Lechuga MS (2002) MOPSO: a proposal for multiple objective particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2002 congress on evolutionary computation. CEC’02, pp 1051–1056Google Scholar
- Coello CAC, Van Veldhuizen DA et al (2006) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems (Genetic and Evolutionary Computation). Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Corne DW, Knowles JD (2009) Techniques for highly multiobjective optimisation: some nondominated points are better than others. In: Proceedings Gecco ACM, pp 773–780Google Scholar
- Deb K, Saxena DK (2005) On finding pareto-optimal solutions through dimensionality. Reduction for certain large-dimensional multi-objective optimization problems, KanGAL ReportGoogle Scholar
- Deb K, Thiele L et al (2006) Scalable test problems for evolutionary multiobjective optimization. Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization, Springer, London, pp 105–145Google Scholar
- Hadka D, Reed PM et al (2012) Diagnostic assessment of the borg MOEA for many-objective product family design problems. Evolutionary computation, pp 1–10Google Scholar
- Huaping Y, Yao W (2013) A new multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm based on decomposition. J Syst Eng Electron 325(2):541–557Google Scholar
- Ishibuchi H, Akedo N et al (2011) Behavior of EMO algorithms on many-objective optimization problems with correlated objectives. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, Cec 2011, New Orleans, LA, USA, 5–8 June, pp 1465–1472Google Scholar
- Ishibuchi H, Tsukamoto N et al (2008) Evolutionary many-objective optimization: a short review. In: Proc. of 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Hong Kong, pp 2424–2431Google Scholar
- Ishibuchi H, Sakane Y et al (2009) Evolutionary many-objective optimization by NSGA-II and MOEA/D with large populations. In: IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, pp 1758–1763Google Scholar
- Jaimes AL, Coello CAC et al (2008) Objective reduction using a feature selection technique. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference, GECCO 2008, Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, USA, pp 673–680Google Scholar
- Jaimes AL, Coello CAC (2015) Many-objective problems: challenges and methods. Springer handbook of computational intelligence. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1033–1046Google Scholar
- Lin Q, Chen J et al (2016) A hybrid evolutionary immune algorithm for multiobjective optimization problems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 20(5):711–729Google Scholar
- Mashwani WK, Salhi A (2014) Multiobjective memetic algorithm based on decomposition. Appl Soft Comput 21(8):221–243Google Scholar
- Saxena D (2006) Searching for Pareto-optimal solutions through dimensionality reduction for certain large-dimensional multi-objective optimization problems. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computationGoogle Scholar
- Schaffer JD (1985) Multiple objective optimization with vector evaluated genetic algorithms. In: International conference on genetic algorithms, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, July, pp 93–100Google Scholar
- Wang G, Wu JJ (2007) A new fuzzy dominance GA applied to solve many-objective optimization problem. In: International conference on innovative computing, information and control, IEEE computer societyGoogle Scholar
- Wang R, Purshouse RC et al (2013) Preference-inspired co-evolutionary algorithm using adaptively generated goal vectors. Evolutionary computation, pp 916–923Google Scholar
- Zhan ZH, Li J et al (2013) Multiple populations for multiple objectives: a coevolutionary technique for solving multiobjective optimization problems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet Part B Cybernet Publ IEEE Syst Man Cybernet Soc 43(2):445–463Google Scholar
- Zitzler E, Laumanns M et al (2001) SPEA2: improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm for multi-objective optimization. Evolutionary methods for design, optimization and control with applications to industrial problems. In: Proceedings of the Eurogen 2001, Athens, Greece, SeptemberGoogle Scholar