Comparing Decomposition-Based and Automatically Component-Wise Designed Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms

  • Leonardo C. T. BezerraEmail author
  • Manuel López-Ibáñez
  • Thomas Stützle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9018)


A main focus of current research on evolutionary multi-objective optimization (EMO) is the study of the effectiveness of EMO algorithms for problems with many objectives. Among the several techniques that have led to the development of more effective algorithms, decomposition and component-wise design have presented particularly good results. But how do they compare? In this work, we conduct a systematic analysis that compares algorithms produced using the MOEA/D decomposition-based framework and the AutoMOEA component-wise design framework. In particular, we identify a version of MOEA/D that outperforms the best known MOEA/D algorithm for several scenarios and confirms the effectiveness of decomposition on problems with three objectives. However, when we consider problems with five objectives, we show that MOEA/D is unable to outperform SMS-EMOA, being often outperformed by it. Conversely, automatically designed AutoMOEAs display competitive performance on three-objective problems, and the best and most robust performance among all algorithms considered for problems with five objectives.


Multi-objective optimization Evolutionary algorithms Decomposition Component-wise design Automatic configuration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aguirre, H.: Advances on many-objective evolutionary optimization. In: Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference Companion on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO 2013 Companion, pp. 641–666. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beume, N., Fonseca, C.M., López-Ibáñez, M., Paquete, L., Vahrenhold, J.: On the complexity of computing the hypervolume indicator. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 13(5), 1075–1082 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beume, N., Naujoks, B., Emmerich, M.: SMS-EMOA: Multiobjective selection based on dominated hypervolume. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 181(3), 1653–1669 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bezerra, L.C.T., López-Ibáñez, M., Stützle, T.: Automatic generation of multi-objective ACO algorithms for the bi-objective knapsack. In: Dorigo, M., Birattari, M., Blum, C., Christensen, A.L., Engelbrecht, A.P., Groß, R., Stützle, T. (eds.) ANTS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7461, pp. 37–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bezerra, L.C.T., López-Ibáñez, M., Stützle, T.: Automatic component-wise design of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. Tech. Rep. TR/IRIDIA/2014-012, IRIDIA, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium, Brussels, Belgium (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bezerra, L.C.T., López-Ibáñez, M., Stützle, T.: Automatic design of evolutionary algorithms for multi-objective combinatorial optimization. In: Bartz-Beielstein, T., Branke, J., Filipič, B., Smith, J. (eds.) PPSN 2014. LNCS, vol. 8672, pp. 508–517. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bezerra, L.C.T., López-Ibáñez, M., Stützle, T.: Comparing decomposition-based and automatically component-wise designed multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (2015).
  8. 8.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6(2), 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deb, K., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Zitzler, E.: Scalable test problems for evolutionary multiobjective optimization. In: Abraham, A., et al. (eds.) Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization. Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing, pp. 105–145. Springer, London (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fleming, P.J., Purshouse, R.C., Lygoe, R.J.: Many-objective optimization: an engineering design perspective. In: Coello Coello, C.A., Hernández Aguirre, A., Zitzler, E. (eds.) EMO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3410, pp. 14–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hajela, P., Lin, C.Y.: Genetic search strategies in multicriterion optimal design. Structural Optimization 4(2), 99–107 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huband, S., Hingston, P., Barone, L., While, L.: A review of multiobjective test problems and a scalable test problem toolkit. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 10(5), 477–506 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ishibuchi, H., Tsukamoto, N., Nojima, Y.: Evolutionary many-objective optimization: A short review. In: IEEE CEC, pp. 2419–2426. IEEE Press (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knowles, J.D., Corne, D.: Approximating the nondominated front using the Pareto archived evolution strategy. Evol. Comput. 8(2), 149–172 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, H., Zhang, Q.: Multiobjective optimization problems with complicated Pareto sets, MOEA/D and NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 13(2), 284–302 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li, M., Yang, S., Liu, X., Shen, R.: A comparative study on evolutionary algorithms for many-objective optimization. In: Purshouse et al. [20], pp. 261–275Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    López-Ibáñez, M., Dubois-Lacoste, J., Stützle, T., Birattari, M.: The irace package, iterated race for automatic algorithm configuration. Tech. Rep. TR/IRIDIA/2011-004, IRIDIA, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    López-Ibáñez, M., Stützle, T.: The automatic design of multi-objective ant colony optimization algorithms. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 16(6), 861–875 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nowak, K., Märtens, M., Izzo, D.: Empirical performance of the approximation of the least hypervolume contributor. In: Bartz-Beielstein, T., Branke, J., Filipič, B., Smith, J. (eds.) PPSN 2014. LNCS, vol. 8672, pp. 662–671. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Purshouse, R.C., et al. (eds.): Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization - 7th International Conference, EMO 2013, Proceedings. LNCS, vol. 7811, Sheffield, UK, March 19–22. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reed, P.M.: Many-objective visual analytics: Rethinking the design of complex engineered systems. In: Purshouse et al. [20], p. 1Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tušar, T., Filipič, B.: Differential evolution versus genetic algorithms in multiobjective optimization. In: Obayashi, S., Deb, K., Poloni, C., Hiroyasu, T., Murata, T. (eds.) EMO 2007. LNCS, vol. 4403, pp. 257–271. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wagner, T., Beume, N., Naujoks, B.: Pareto-, aggregation-, and indicator-based methods in many-objective optimization. In: Obayashi, S., Deb, K., Poloni, C., Hiroyasu, T., Murata, T. (eds.) EMO 2007. LNCS, vol. 4403, pp. 742–756. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    While, L., Bradstreet, L.: Applying the WFG algorithm to calculate incremental hypervolumes. In: IEEE CEC, pp. 1–8. IEEE Press (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    While, L., Bradstreet, L., Barone, L.: A fast way of calculating exact hypervolumes. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 16(1), 86–95 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang, Q., Li, H.: MOEA/D: A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 11(6), 712–731 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang, Q., Liu, W., Li, H.: The performance of a new version of MOEA/D on CEC09 unconstrained MOP test instances. In: IEEE CEC, pp. 203–208. IEEE Press (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang, Q., Suganthan, P.N.: Special session on performance assessment of multiobjective optimization algorithms/CEC 2009 MOEA competition (2009).
  29. 29.
    Zitzler, E., Künzli, S.: Indicator-based selection in multiobjective search. In: Yao, X., Burke, E.K., Lozano, J.A., Smith, J., Merelo-Guervós, J.J., Bullinaria, J.A., Rowe, J.E., Tiňo, P., Kabán, A., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) PPSN 2004. LNCS, vol. 3242, pp. 832–842. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., Thiele, L.: SPEA2: Improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization. In: Giannakoglou, K.C., et al. (eds.) EUROGEN, pp. 95–100. CIMNE, Barcelona (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L., Deb, K.: Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical results. Evol. Comput. 8(2), 173–195 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonardo C. T. Bezerra
    • 1
    Email author
  • Manuel López-Ibáñez
    • 1
  • Thomas Stützle
    • 1
  1. 1.IRIDIAUniversité libre de Bruxelles (ULB)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations