Characteristics of many-objective test problems and penalty parameter specification in MOEA/D

Recently a number of evolutionary many-objective algorithms have been proposed using uniformly generated weight vectors. Those algorithms can be viewed as improved versions of MOEA/D with the PBI (penalty-based boundary intersection) function. Reference lines are uniformly specified using the weight vectors in the normalized objective space. The basic idea of those algorithms is to find a single solution along each reference line. Whereas a different search mechanism has been devised in each algorithm, solution assignment to reference lines is commonly based on the distance to the nearest reference line. This solution assignment can be interpreted as using a larger penalty value in MOEA/D with PBI. Actually, MOEA/D with PBI works well on frequently-used many-objective test problems DTLZ1-4 when a large penalty value is used. However, the shape of the contour lines of the PBI function suggests the use of a small penalty value for many-objective problems. Moreover, good results have been reported in the literature for many-objective knapsack problems when a small penalty value was used. In this paper, we discuss why good results are obtained from a large penalty value from a viewpoint of characteristics of DTLZ1-4 as test problems. Our discussions on the use of a large penalty value also explain why good results are obtained by recently-proposed weight vector-based evolutionary many-objective algorithms.

[1]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Evolutionary many-objective optimization , 2008, 2008 3rd International Workshop on Genetic and Evolving Systems.

[2]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  A multi-objective genetic local search algorithm and its application to flowshop scheduling , 1998, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C.

[3]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  MOEA/D: A Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[4]  Carlos A. Brizuela,et al.  A survey on multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for many-objective problems , 2014, Computational Optimization and Applications.

[5]  Mitsuo Gen,et al.  Specification of Genetic Search Directions in Cellular Multi-objective Genetic Algorithms , 2001, EMO.

[6]  Xin Yao,et al.  A New Dominance Relation-Based Evolutionary Algorithm for Many-Objective Optimization , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[7]  Kiyoshi Tanaka,et al.  Controlling Dominance Area of Solutions and Its Impact on the Performance of MOEAs , 2007, EMO.

[8]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[9]  Andrzej Jaszkiewicz,et al.  On the performance of multiple-objective genetic local search on the 0/1 knapsack problem - a comparative experiment , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[10]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Multi-objective genetic local search algorithm , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[11]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Relation Between Weight Vectors and Solutions in MOEA/D , 2015, 2015 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence.

[12]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  Stable Matching-Based Selection in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[13]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Relation between Neighborhood Size and MOEA/D Performance on Many-Objective Problems , 2013, EMO.

[14]  Tapabrata Ray,et al.  A Decomposition-Based Evolutionary Algorithm for Many Objective Optimization , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[15]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  An Evolutionary Many-Objective Optimization Algorithm Using Reference-Point Based Nondominated Sorting Approach, Part II: Handling Constraints and Extending to an Adaptive Approach , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[16]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[17]  Bo Zhang,et al.  Balancing Convergence and Diversity in Decomposition-Based Many-Objective Optimizers , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[18]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Behavior of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms on Many-Objective Knapsack Problems , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[19]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  An Evolutionary Many-Objective Optimization Algorithm Using Reference-Point-Based Nondominated Sorting Approach, Part I: Solving Problems With Box Constraints , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[20]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  A Study on the Specification of a Scalarizing Function in MOEA/D for Many-Objective Knapsack Problems , 2013, LION.

[21]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Scalable multi-objective optimization test problems , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600).

[22]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  An Evolutionary Many-Objective Optimization Algorithm Based on Dominance and Decomposition , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[23]  Xin Yao,et al.  Many-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms , 2015, ACM Comput. Surv..