Advertisement

Preference Articulation by Means of the R2 Indicator

  • Tobias Wagner
  • Heike Trautmann
  • Dimo Brockhoff
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7811)

Abstract

In multi-objective optimization, set-based performance indicators have become the state of the art for assessing the quality of Pareto front approximations. As a consequence, they are also more and more used within the design of multi-objective optimization algorithms. The R2 and the Hypervolume (HV) indicator represent two popular examples. In order to understand the behavior and the approximations preferred by these indicators and algorithms, a comprehensive knowledge of the indicator’s properties is required. Whereas this knowledge is available for the HV, we presented a first approach in this direction for the R2 indicator just recently. In this paper, we build upon this knowledge and enhance the considerations with respect to the integration of preferences into the R2 indicator. More specifically, we analyze the effect of the reference point, the domain of the weights, and the distribution of weight vectors on the optimization of μ solutions with respect to the R2 indicator. By means of theoretical findings and empirical evidence, we show the potentials of these three possibilities using the optimal distribution of μ solutions for exemplary setups.

Keywords

Weight Vector Pareto Front Target Direction Weight Space Target Vector 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Auger, A., Bader, J., Brockhoff, D., Zitzler, E.: Theory of the Hypervolume Indicator: Optimal μ-Distributions and the Choice of the Reference Point. In: Foundations of Genetic Algorithms (FOGA 2009), pp. 87–102. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Auger, A., Bader, J., Brockhoff, D., Zitzler, E.: Hypervolume-based Multiobjective Optimization: Theoretical Foundations and Practical Implications. Theoretical Computer Science 425, 75–103 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Auger, A., Hansen, N.: A Restart CMA Evolution Strategy With Increasing Population Size. In: Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2005), pp. 1769–1776. IEEE Press (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bader, J., Zitzler, E.: HypE: An Algorithm for Fast Hypervolume-Based Many-Objective Optimization. Evolutionary Computation 19(1), 45–76 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beume, N., Naujoks, B., Emmerich, M.: SMS-EMOA: Multiobjective selection based on dominated hypervolume. European Journal of Operational Research 181(3), 1653–1669 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beume, N., Naujoks, B., Preuss, M., Rudolph, G., Wagner, T.: Effects of 1-Greedy \(\mathcal{S}\)-Metric-Selection on Innumerably Large Pareto Fronts. In: Ehrgott, M., Fonseca, C.M., Gandibleux, X., Hao, J.-K., Sevaux, M., et al. (eds.) EMO 2009. LNCS, vol. 5467, pp. 21–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bozkurt, B., Fowler, J.W., Gel, E.S., Kim, B., Köksalan, M., Wallenius, J.: Quantitative Comparison of Approximate Solution Sets for Multicriteria Optimization Problems with Weighted Tchebycheff Preference Function. Operations Research 58(3), 650–659 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brockhoff, D., Wagner, T., Trautmann, H.: On the Properties of the R2 Indicator. In: Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 2012), pp. 465–472 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Byrd, R.H., Lu, P., Nocedal, J., Zhu, C.: A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 16, 1190–1208 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deb, K., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Zitzler, E.: Scalable Multi-Objective Optimization Test Problems. In: Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2002), pp. 825–830. IEEE Press (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hansen, M.P., Jaszkiewicz, A.: Evaluating The Quality of Approximations of the Non-Dominated Set. Technical report, Institute of Mathematical Modeling, Technical University of Denmark, IMM Technical Report IMM-REP-1998-7 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hansen, N.: The CMA Evolution Strategy: A Comparing Review. In: Lozano, J., Larrañaga, P., Inza, I., Bengoetxea, E. (eds.) Towards a New Evolutionary Computation. STUDFUZZ, vol. 192, pp. 75–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hansen, N.: CMA Evolution Strategy Source Code (2012), http://www.lri.fr/~hansen/cmaes_inmatlab.html
  14. 14.
    Igel, C., Hansen, N., Roth, S.: Covariance Matrix Adaptation for Multi-objective Optimization. Evolutionary Computation 15(1), 1–28 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knowles, J.: ParEGO: A Hybrid Algorithm With On-Line Landscape Approximation for Expensive Multiobjective Optimization Problems. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 10(1), 50–66 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miettinen, K.: Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization. Kluwer, Boston (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang, Q., Li, H.: MOEA/D: A multi-objective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 11(6), 712–731 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zitzler, E.: Evolutionary Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: Methods and Applications. PhD thesis, ETH Zurich, Switzerland (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele, L.: Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results. Evolutionary Computation 8(2), 173–195 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zitzler, E., Knowles, J., 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
  21. 21.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L.: Multiobjective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms - A Comparative Case Study. In: Eiben, A.E., Bäck, T., Schoenauer, M., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) PPSN V. LNCS, vol. 1498, pp. 292–301. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Fonseca, C.M., Grunert da Fonseca, V.: Performance Assessment of Multiobjective Optimizers: An Analysis and Review. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 7(2), 117–132 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Wagner
    • 1
  • Heike Trautmann
    • 2
  • Dimo Brockhoff
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Machining Technology (ISF)TU Dortmund UniversityGermany
  2. 2.Statistics DepartmentTU Dortmund UniversityGermany
  3. 3.DOLPHIN TeamINRIA Lille - Nord EuropeVilleneuve d’AscqFrance

Personalised recommendations