Investigation of a Simple Distance Based Ranking Metric for Decomposition-Based Multi/Many-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms
Multi-objective problems with more than three objectives, more commonly referred to as many-objective problems, have lately been a subject of significant research interest. Decomposition of the objective space is one of the most widely used approaches, where the original problem is decomposed into several single-objective sub-problems and solved collaboratively. The sub-problems are defined using reference vectors, to which candidate solutions are assigned based on some proximity measures (e.g. perpendicular distance/angle etc.). The individuals attached to a given reference vector can thus be considered as a sub-population trying to solve that sub-problem. To create selection pressure among the members of the sub-population, several measures have been proposed in the past; such as weighted sum, penalty boundary intersection, achievement scalarizing function, Tchebycheff, etc. While being competitive, some of them require parameters or reference points for implementation, which is far from ideal. The aim of this study is to investigate an alternative, less explored avenue - the use of distance based ranking with a decomposition based algorithm. Towards this end, we propose an improved version of an existing distance based metric and embed it within a decomposition based evolutionary algorithm (DBEA-MDR). We characterize its performance through a comprehensive benchmarking on a range of regular and inverted DTLZ/WFG problems. While the performance of DBEA-MDR based on conventional benchmarking practice (quality of solutions of the final populations) is not competitive with existing state-of-the-art algorithms, selection of a diverse set of solutions (of same size as the population) from the archive significantly improves its performance which in a number of cases supersedes the performance of other algorithms. Based on these observations, apart from highlighting the scope of improvement in the presented strategy, the study also emphasizes the need to look into existing benchmarking practices further. In particular, instead of the performance judged by the final population, a better approximation set could be found from the archive and performance judged on such sets would be more reflective of the true performance of the algorithms.
KeywordsMulti-objective optimization Decomposition Distance based ranking
The authors would like to acknowledge the Australia-Germany Joint Research Cooperation Scheme for supporting this work.
- 1.Asafuddoula, M., Singh, H., Ray, T.: An enhanced decomposition based evolutionary algorithm with adaptive reference vectors. IEEE Trans. Cybern. (2017, in press)Google Scholar
- 8.Deb, K., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Zitzler, E.: Scalable test problems for evolutionary multiobjective optimization. In: Abraham, A., Jain, L., Goldberg, R. (eds.) Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization: Theoretical Advances and Applications. AI&KP, pp. 105–145. Springer, London (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-137-7_6CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 10.Ishibuchi, H., Tsukamoto, N., Nojima, Y.: Evolutionary many-objective optimization: a short review. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 2419–2426 (2008)Google Scholar
- 12.Köppen, M., Yoshida, K.: Substitute distance assignments in NSGA-II for handling many-objective optimization problems. In: Obayashi, S., Deb, K., Poloni, C., Hiroyasu, T., Murata, T. (eds.) EMO 2007. LNCS, vol. 4403, pp. 727–741. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70928-2_55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Mostaghim, S., Schmeck, H.: Distance based ranking in many-objective particle swarm optimization. In: Rudolph, G., Jansen, T., Beume, N., Lucas, S., Poloni, C. (eds.) PPSN 2008. LNCS, vol. 5199, pp. 753–762. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87700-4_75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Murata, T., Ishibuchi, H., Gen, M.: Specification of genetic search directions in cellular multi-objective genetic algorithms. In: Zitzler, E., Thiele, L., Deb, K., Coello Coello, C.A., Corne, D. (eds.) EMO 2001. LNCS, vol. 1993, pp. 82–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44719-9_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Singh, H.K., Isaacs, A., Ray, T., Smith, W.: A study on the performance of substitute distance based approaches for evolutionary many objective optimization. In: Li, X., et al. (eds.) SEAL 2008. LNCS, vol. 5361, pp. 401–410. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89694-4_41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Trivedi, A., Srinivasan, D., Sanyal, K., Ghosh, A.: A survey of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms based on decomposition. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 21, 440–462 (2017)Google Scholar