Random-Weighted Search-Based Multi-objective Optimization Revisited

  • Shuai Wang
  • Shaukat Ali
  • Arnaud Gotlieb
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8636)


Weight-based multi-objective optimization requires assigning appropriate weights using a weight strategy to each of the objectives such that an overall optimal solution can be obtained with a search algorithm. Choosing weights using an appropriate weight strategy has a huge impact on the obtained solutions and thus warrants the need to seek the best weight strategy. In this paper, we propose a new weight strategy called Uniformly Distributed Weights (UDW), which generates weights from uniform distribution, while satisfying a set of user-defined constraints among various cost and effectiveness measures. We compare UDW with two commonly used weight strategies, i.e., Fixed Weights (FW) and Randomly-Assigned Weights (RAW), based on five cost/effectiveness measures for an industrial problem of test minimization defined in the context of Video Conferencing System Product Line developed by Cisco Systems. We empirically evaluate the performance of UDW, FW, and RAW in conjunction with four search algorithms ((1+1) Evolutionary Algorithm (EA), Genetic Algorithm, Alternating Variable Method, and Random Search) using the industrial case study and 500 artificial problems of varying complexity. Results show that UDW along with (1+1) EA achieves the best performance among the other combinations of weight strategies and algorithms.


Uniformly distributed weights multi-objective optimization search algorithms 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Konak, A., Coit, D.W., Smith, A.E.: Multi-objective optimization using genetic algorithms: A tutorial. Reliability Engineering & System Safety (91), 992–1007 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marler, R.T., Arora, J.S.: Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Struct Multidisc Optim. 26, 369–395 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jin, Y., Okabe, T., Sendhoff, B.: Adapting weighted aggregation for multiobjective evolution strategies. In: Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele, L., Coello Coello, C.A., Corne, D.W. (eds.) EMO 2001. LNCS, vol. 1993, pp. 96–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murata, T., Ishibuchi, H., Tanaka, H.: Multi-objective genetic algorithm and its applications to flowshop scheduling. Computer & Industrial Engineer. 30(4), 957–968 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harman, M., Mansouri, S.A., Zhang, Y.: Search Based Software Engineering: A Comprehensive Analysis and Review of Trends Techniques and Applications, Technical Report TR-09-03, King College London (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang, S., Ali, S., Gotlieb, A.: Minimizing Test Suites in Software Product Lines Using Weighted-based Genetic Algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), pp. 1493–1500 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gotlieb, A., Petit, M.: A uniform random test data generator for path testing. The Journal of Systems and Software 83(12), 2618–2626 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cisco Systems TelePresence codec c90 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang, S., Gotlieb, A., Ali, S., Liaaen, M.: Automated Selection of Test Cases using Feature Model: An Industrial Case Study. In: Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., Clarke, P. (eds.) MODELS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8107, pp. 237–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang, S., Ali, S., Yue, T., Liaaen, M.: Using Feature Model to Support Model-Based Testing of Product Lines: An Industrial Case Study. In: Proceedings of International Conference of Software Quality (QSIC), pp. 75–84 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arcuri, A., Briand, L.C.: A Practical Guide for Using Statistical Tests to Assess Randomized Algorithms in Software Engineering. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 21–28 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sheskin, D.J.: Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arcuri, A., Fraser, G.: On Parameter Tuning in Search Based Software Engineering. In: Cohen, M.B., Ó Cinnéide, M. (eds.) SSBSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6956, pp. 33–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yoo, S., Harman, M.: Regression testing minimization, selection and prioritization: A survey. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 22(2), 67–120 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walcott, K.R., Soffa, M.L., Kapfhammer, G.M., Roos, R.S.: Time-Aware Test Suite Prioritization. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pp. 1–12 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harman, M.: Making the Case for MORTO: Multi Objective Regression Test Optimization. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Testing, pp. 111–114 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith, N.A., Tromble, R.W.: Sampling Uniformly from the Unit Simplex. Technical Report. Johns Hopkins UniversityGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang, S., Ali, S., Gotlieb, A.: Random-Weighted Search-Based Multi-Objective Test Suite Optimization Revisited. Technical Report 2013-01 (2013),

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shuai Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shaukat Ali
    • 1
  • Arnaud Gotlieb
    • 1
  1. 1.Certus Software V&V CenterSimula Research LaboratoryNorway
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations