Fitness inheritance in multiple objective evolutionary algorithms: A test bench and real-world evaluation

In many real-world applications of evolutionary algorithms, the fitness of an individual has to be derived using complex models and time-consuming computations. Especially in the case of multiple objective optimisation problems, the time needed to evaluate these individuals increases exponentially with the number of objectives due to the 'curse of dimensionality' [J. Chen, D.E. Goldberg, S. Ho, K. Sastry, Fitness inheritance in multi-objective optimization, in: W.B. Langdon et al. (Eds.), GECCO 2002: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, July 9-13, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, New York, 2002, pp. 319-326]. This in turn leads to a slower convergence of the evolutionary algorithms. It is not feasible to use time-consuming models with large population sizes unless the time to evaluate the objective functions is reduced. Fitness inheritance is an efficiency enhancement technique that was originally proposed by Smith et al. [R.E. Smith, B.A. Dike, S.A. Stegmann, Fitness inheritance in genetic algorithms, in: Proceedings of the 1995 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, February 26-28, ACM, Nashville, TN, USA, 1995] to improve the performance of genetic algorithms. Sastry et al. [K. Sastry, D.E. Goldberg, M. Pelikan, Don't evaluate, inherit, in: L. Spector et al. (Eds.), GECCO 2001: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, 2001, pp. 551-558] and Chen et al. [J. Chen, D.E. Goldberg, S. Ho, K. Sastry, Fitness inheritance in multi-objective optimization, in: W.B. Langdon et al. (Eds.), GECCO 2002: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, July 9-13, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, New York, 2002, pp. 319-326] have developed analytical models for fitness inheritance. In this paper, the usefulness of fitness inheritance for a set of popular and separable multiple objective test functions as well as a non-separable real-world problem is evaluated based on unary performance measures testing closeness to the Pareto-optimal front, uniform distribution along and extent of the obtained Pareto front. A statistical evaluation of the performance of an NSGA-II like algorithm on the basis of these unary performance measures suggests that especially for non-convex or non-continuous problems the use of fitness inheritance negatively affects the closeness to the Pareto-optimal front.

[1]  Barrett R. Bryant,et al.  Proceedings of the 1995 ACM symposium on applied computing, SAC'95, Nashville, TN, USA, February 26-28, 1995 , 1995, SAC.

[2]  Yaochu Jin,et al.  Knowledge incorporation in evolutionary computation , 2005 .

[3]  H. L. Scheurman,et al.  Techniques for Prescribing Optimal Timber Harvest and Investment Under Different Objectives—Discussion and Synthesis , 1977 .

[4]  Robert E. Smith,et al.  Fitness inheritance in genetic algorithms , 1995, SAC '95.

[5]  Bernard De Baets,et al.  Is Fitness Inheritance Useful for Real-World Applications? , 2003, EMO.

[6]  R. K. Ursem Multi-objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms , 2009 .

[7]  D. Goldberg,et al.  Don't evaluate, inherit , 2001 .

[8]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Why Quality Assessment Of Multiobjective Optimizers Is Difficult , 2002, GECCO.

[9]  Hisham M. Haddad,et al.  Proceedings of the 1999 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC'99, San Antonio, Texas, USA, February 28 - March 2, 1999 , 1999, ACM Symposium on Applied Computing.

[10]  John J. Grefenstette,et al.  Genetic Search with Approximate Function Evaluation , 1985, ICGA.

[11]  Bernard De Baets,et al.  Single versus multiple objective genetic algorithms for solving the even-flow forest management problem , 2004 .

[12]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Handbook of Evolutionary Computation , 1997 .

[13]  Jason R. Schott Fault Tolerant Design Using Single and Multicriteria Genetic Algorithm Optimization. , 1995 .

[14]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review , 2003, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[15]  R. Lyndon While,et al.  A faster algorithm for calculating hypervolume , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[16]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithm test suites , 1999, SAC '99.

[17]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[18]  Els Ducheyne,et al.  Probabilistic Models for Linkage Learning in Forest Management , 2005 .

[19]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A Fast Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-objective Optimisation: NSGA-II , 2000, PPSN.

[20]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Metamodel-Assisted Evolution Strategies , 2002, PPSN.

[21]  Joshua D. Knowles,et al.  On metrics for comparing nondominated sets , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600).

[22]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Running performance metrics for evolutionary multi-objective optimizations , 2002 .

[23]  Eckart Zitzler,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: methods and applications , 1999 .

[24]  Bernard De Baets,et al.  A spatial approach to forest‐management optimization: linking GIS and multiple objective genetic algorithms , 2006, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[25]  R. T. Bradley,et al.  Forest management tables (metric) , 1971 .

[26]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Fitness Inheritance In Multi-objective Optimization , 2002, GECCO.