On the Use of Dynamic Reference Points in HypE

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10593)

Abstract

In evolutionary multiobjective optimization, hypervolume indicator is one of the most commonly-used performance metrics. To reduce its high computational costs in many objective optimization, Monte Carlo method is used in HypE (Hypervolume Estimation algorithm for multi-objective optimization) for approximating hypervolume values. However, the diversity preservation of HypE can be poor under inappropriate settings of the reference point. In this paper, the influence of the reference point on HypE is discussed and two variants of HypE algorithm with dynamic reference points are proposed to improve the performance of HypE. Our experimental results suggest that the new algorithms outperform HypE with fixed reference points on a set of multiobjective test instances with different shapes of Pareto fronts.

Keywords

Multiobjective optimization Evolutionary computation Hypervolume Reference point 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The work described in this paper was supported by the National Science Foundation of China under Grant 61473241, and a grant from ANR/RCC Joint Research Scheme sponsored by the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. A-CityU101/16) and France National Research Agency (ANR-16-CE23-0013-01).

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: FOGA 2009: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGEVO Workshop on Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, pp. 87–102 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bader, J., Zitzler, E.: HypE: an algorithm for fast hypervolume-based many-objective optimization. Evol. Comput. 19(1), 45–76 (2011)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)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bringmann, K., Friedrich, T.: Approximating the volume of unions and intersections of high-dimensional geometric objects. In: Hong, S.-H., Nagamochi, H., Fukunaga, T. (eds.) ISAAC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5369, pp. 436–447. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92182-0_40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coello Coello, C.A., Van Veldhuizen, D.A., Lamont, G.B.: Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deb, K.: Multi-objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Wiley, Hoboken (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6(2), 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deb, K., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Zitzler, E.: Scalable test problems for evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In: Abraham, A., Jain, L., Goldberg, R. (eds.) Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization, pp. 105–145. Springer, London (2005). doi:10.1007/1-84628-137-7_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ishibuchi, H., Imada, R., Setoguchi, Y., Nojima, Y.: Hypervolume subset selection for triangular and inverted triangular pareto fronts of three-objective problems. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM/SIGEVO Workshop on Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, pp. 95–110 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ishibuchi, H., Tsukamoto, N., Sakane, Y., Nojima, Y.: Hypervolume approximation using achievement scalarizing functions for evolutionary many-objective optimization. In: 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 530–537. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jain, H., Deb, K.: An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point-based nondominated sorting approach, Part II: handling constraints and extending to an adaptive approach. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 18(4), 602–622 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L.: Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength pareto approach. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 3(4), 257–271 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCity University of Hong KongHong KongHong Kong
  2. 2.City University of Hong Kong Shenzhen Research InstituteShenzhenChina
  3. 3.School of Mathematics and StatisticsXi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations