Investigation of a Simple Distance Based Ranking Metric for Decomposition-Based Multi/Many-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms

  • Hemant Kumar SinghEmail author
  • Kalyan Shankar Bhattacharjee
  • Tapabrata Ray
  • Sanaz Mostaghim
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11320)


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.


Multi-objective optimization Decomposition Distance based ranking 



The authors would like to acknowledge the Australia-Germany Joint Research Cooperation Scheme for supporting this work.


  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Bhattacharjee, K.S., Singh, H.K., Ray, T.: A novel decomposition-based evolutionary algorithm for engineering design optimization. J. Mech. Des. 139(4), 041403 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheng, R., Jin, Y., Olhofer, M., Sendhoff, B.: A reference vector guided evolutionary algorithm for many-objective optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 20(5), 773–791 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Das, I., Dennis, J.E.: Normal-boundary intersection: a new method for generating the pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimization problems. SIAM J. Optim. 8(3), 631–657 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Das, S., Suganthan, P.N.: Differential evolution: a survey of the state-of-the-art. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 15(1), 4–31 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deb, K., Jain, H.: 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), 577–601 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6(2), 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huband, S., Hingston, P., Barone, L., While, L.: A review of multi-objective test problems and a scalable test problem toolkit. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 10(5), 477–506 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 11.
    Ishibuchi, H., Setoguchi, Y., Masuda, H., Nojima, Y.: Performance of decomposition-based many-objective algorithms strongly depends on Pareto front shapes. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 21(2), 169–190 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, K., Deb, K., Zhang, Q., Kwong, S.: An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm based on dominance and decomposition. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 19(5), 694–716 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miettinen, K.: Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization, vol. 12. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 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). Scholar
  16. 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). Scholar
  17. 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). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tanabe, R., Ishibuchi, H., Oyama, A.: Benchmarking multi-and many-objective evolutionary algorithms under two optimization scenarios. IEEE Access 5, 19597–19619 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 20.
    Yuan, Y., Xu, H., Wang, B., Yao, X.: A new dominance relation-based evolutionary algorithm for many-objective optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 20(1), 16–37 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang, Q., Li, H.: MOEA/D: a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 11(6), 712–731 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hemant Kumar Singh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kalyan Shankar Bhattacharjee
    • 1
  • Tapabrata Ray
    • 1
  • Sanaz Mostaghim
    • 2
  1. 1.University of New South WalesCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Otto von Guericke UniversityMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations