An EMO Algorithm Using the Hypervolume Measure as Selection Criterion

  • Michael Emmerich
  • Nicola Beume
  • Boris Naujoks
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3410)

Abstract

The hypervolume measure is one of the most frequently applied measures for comparing the results of evolutionary multiobjective optimization algorithms (EMOA). The idea to use this measure for selection is self-evident. A steady-state EMOA will be devised, that combines concepts of non-dominated sorting with a selection operator based on the hypervolume measure. The algorithm computes a well distributed set of solutions with bounded size thereby focussing on interesting regions of the Pareto front(s). By means of standard benchmark problems the algorithm will be compared to other well established EMOA. The results show that our new algorithm achieves good convergence to the Pareto front and outperforms standard methods in the hypervolume covered. We also studied the applicability of the new approach in the important field of design optimization. In order to reduce the number of time consuming precise function evaluations, the algorithm will be supported by approximate function evaluations based on Kriging metamodels. First results on an airfoil redesign problem indicate a good performance of this approach, especially if the computation of a small, bounded number of well-distributed solutions is desired.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Deb, K.: Multi-Objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coello Coello, C.A., Van Veldhuizen, D.A., Lamont, G.B.: Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L.: Multiobjective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms—A Comparative Study. In: Eiben, A.E. (ed.) Parallel Problem Solving from Nature V, Amsterdam, pp. 292–301. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fleischer, M.: The Measure of Pareto Optima. Applications to Multi-objective Metaheuristics. In: Fonseca, C.M., Fleming, P.J., Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele, L. (eds.) EMO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2632, pp. 519–533. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knowles, J., Corne, D.: Properties of an Adaptive Archiving Algorithm for Storing Nondominated Vectors. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 7, 100–116 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Knowles, J.D., Corne, D.W., Fleischer, M.: Bounded Archiving using the Lebesgue Measure. In: Proceedings of the, Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC’2003), vol. 4, pp. 2490–2497. IEEE Press, Canberra (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knowles, J., Corne, D.: On Metrics for Comparing Nondominated Sets. In: Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2002), Piscataway, New Jersey, vol. 1, pp. 711–716. IEEE Service Center (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zitzler, E.: Evolutionary Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: Methods and Applications. PhD thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deb, K., Mohan, M., Mishra, S.: Towards a Quick Computation of Well-Spread Pareto-Optimal Solutions. In: Fonseca, C.M., Fleming, P.J., Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele, L. (eds.) EMO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2632, pp. 222–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deb, K., Mohan, M., Mishra, S.: A Fast Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithm for Finding Well-Spread Pareto-Optimal Solutions. KanGAL report 2003002, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA–II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6, 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele, L.: Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results. Evolutionary Computation 8(2), 173–195 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Naujoks, B., Willmes, L., Bäck, T., Haase, W.: Evaluating multi-criteria evolutionary algorithms for airfoil optimisation. In: Guervós, J.J.M., Adamidis, P., Beyer, H.G., Fernández-Villacañas, J.L., Schwefel, H.P. (eds.) Parallel Problem Solving from Nature – PPSN VII, Proc. Seventh Int’l Conf., Granada, Berlin, pp. 841–850. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Emmerich, M., Naujoks, B.: Metamodel assisted multiobjective optimisation strategies and their application in airfoil design. In: Parmee, I.C. (ed.) Adaptive Computing in Design and Manufacture VI, pp. 249–260. Springer, London (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sacks, J., Welch, W.J., Mitchell, W.J., Wynn, H.P.: Design and analysis of computer experiments. Statistical Science 4, 409–435 (1989)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Emmerich
    • 2
  • Nicola Beume
    • 1
  • Boris Naujoks
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Systems AnalysisUniversity of DortmundDortmundGermany
  2. 2.Leiden Institute for Advanced Computer ScienceUniversity of LeidenLeidenNL

Personalised recommendations