Hypervolume Sharpe-Ratio Indicator: Formalization and First Theoretical Results

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9921)

Abstract

Set-quality indicators have been used in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization Algorithms (EMOAs) to guide the search process. A new class of set-quality indicators, the Sharpe-Ratio Indicator, combining the selection of solutions with fitness assignment has been recently proposed. This class is based on a formulation of fitness assignment as a Portfolio Selection Problem which sees solutions as assets whose returns are random variables, and fitness as the investment in such assets/solutions. An instance of this class based on the Hypervolume Indicator has shown promising results when integrated in an EMOA called POSEA. The aim of this paper is to formalize the class of Sharpe-Ratio Indicators and to demonstrate some of the properties of that particular Sharpe-Ratio Indicator instance concerning monotonicity, sensitivity to scaling and parameter independence.

Keywords

Sharpe Ratio Portfolio selection Evolutionary algorithms Multiobjective optimization 

References

  1. 1.
    Auger, A., Bader, J., Brockhoff, D., Zitzler, E.: Theory of the hypervolume indicator: optimal \(\mu \)-distributions and the choice of the reference point. In: Foundations of Genetic Algorithms (FOGA 2009), pp. 87–102. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beume, N., Naujoks, B., Emmerich, M.: SMS-EMOA: multiobjective selection based on dominated hypervolume. EJOR 181, 1653–1669 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cornuejols, G., Tuntuncu, R.: Optimization Methods in Finance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ehrgott, M.: Multicriteria Optimization, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knowles, J.D.: Local-search and hybrid evolutionary algorithms for Pareto optimization. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nocedal, J., Wright, S.J.: Numerical Optimization. Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rudolph, G., Schütze, O., Trautmann, H.: On the closest averaged Hausdorff archive for a circularly convex Pareto front. In: Squillero, G., Burelli, P. (eds.) EvoApplications 2016. LNCS, vol. 9598, pp. 42–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31153-1_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yevseyeva, I., Guerreiro, A.P., Emmerich, M.T.M., Fonseca, C.M.: A portfolio optimization approach to selection in multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. In: Bartz-Beielstein, T., Branke, J., Filipič, B., Smith, J. (eds.) PPSN 2014. LNCS, vol. 8672, pp. 672–681. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zitzler, E.: Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: methods and applications. Ph.D. thesis, ETH Zurich, Switzerland (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zitzler, E., Knowles, J.D., Thiele, L.: Quality assessment of pareto set approximations. In: Branke, J., Deb, K., Miettinen, K., Słowiński, R. (eds.) Multiobjective Optimization. LNCS, vol. 5252, pp. 373–404. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Fonseca, C.M., da Fonseca, V.G.: Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 7(2), 117–132 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CISUC, Department of Informatics EngineeringUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations