Dominance Move calculation using a MIP approach for comparison of multi and many-objective optimization solution sets

Dominance move (DoM) is a binary quality indicator that can be used in multiobjective optimization. It can compare solution sets while representing some important features such as convergence, spread, uniformity, and cardinality. DoM has an intuitive concept and considers the minimum move of one set needed to weakly Pareto dominate the other set. Despite the aforementioned properties, DoM is hard to calculate. The original formulation presents an efficient and exact method to calculate it in a biobjective case only. This work presents a new approach to calculate and extend DoM to deal with three or more objectives. The idea is to use a mixed integer programming (MIP) approach to calculate DoM. Some initial experiments, in the biobjective space, were done to verify the model correctness. Furthermore, other experiments, using three, five, and ten objective functions were done to show how the model behaves in higher dimensional cases. Algorithms such as IBEA, MOEAD, NSGAIII, NSGAII, and SPEA2 were used to generate the solution sets, however any other algorithms could be used with DoM indicator. The results have confirmed the effectiveness of the MIP DoM in problems with more than three objective functions. Final notes, considerations, and future research are discussed to exploit some solution sets particularities and improve the model and its use for other situations.

[1]  Dario Izzo,et al.  FOR MASSIVELY PARALLEL OPTIMIZATION IN ASTRODYNAMICS ( THE CASE OF INTERPLANETARY TRAJECTORY OPTIMIZATION ) , 2012 .

[2]  Ye Tian,et al.  An Indicator-Based Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm With Reference Point Adaptation for Better Versatility , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  Miqing Li,et al.  Evolutionary many-objective optimisation: pushing the boundaries , 2015 .

[4]  Hua Xu,et al.  Objective Reduction in Many-Objective Optimization: Evolutionary Multiobjective Approaches and Comprehensive Analysis , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[5]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Efficient computation of expected hypervolume improvement using box decomposition algorithms , 2019, Journal of Global Optimization.

[6]  Xin Yao,et al.  Dominance Move: A Measure of Comparing Solution Sets in Multiobjective Optimization , 2017, ArXiv.

[7]  Jian-Bo Yang,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Support in Engineering Design , 1998 .

[8]  Dimo Brockhoff,et al.  Benchmarking algorithms from the platypus framework on the biobjective bbob-biobj testbed , 2019, GECCO.

[9]  Miqing Li,et al.  Benchmark Functions for the CEC'2017 Competition on Many-Objective Optimization , 2017 .

[10]  Alexandra M. Newman,et al.  Practical Guidelines for Solving Difficult Mixed Integer Linear , 2013 .

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

[12]  Artur M. Schweidtmann,et al.  Efficient multiobjective optimization employing Gaussian processes, spectral sampling and a genetic algorithm , 2018, Journal of Global Optimization.

[13]  Shahryar Rahnamayan,et al.  3D-RadVis Antenna: Visualization and performance measure for many-objective optimization , 2017, Swarm Evol. Comput..

[14]  Jingda Deng,et al.  Approximating Hypervolume and Hypervolume Contributions Using Polar Coordinate , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[15]  R. Lyndon While,et al.  A review of multiobjective test problems and a scalable test problem toolkit , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[16]  M. Jünger,et al.  50 Years of Integer Programming 1958-2008 - From the Early Years to the State-of-the-Art , 2010 .

[17]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Modified Distance Calculation in Generational Distance and Inverted Generational Distance , 2015, EMO.

[18]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  SPEA2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm , 2001 .

[19]  David W. Pentico,et al.  Assignment problems: A golden anniversary survey , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  A survey on handling computationally expensive multiobjective optimization problems with evolutionary algorithms , 2017, Soft Computing.

[21]  Xin Yao,et al.  of Birmingham Quality evaluation of solution sets in multiobjective optimisation , 2019 .

[22]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  Comparison between MOEA/D and NSGA-III on a set of novel many and multi-objective benchmark problems with challenging difficulties , 2019, Swarm Evol. Comput..

[23]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Scope of stationary multi-objective evolutionary optimization: a case study on a hydro-thermal power dispatch problem , 2008, J. Glob. Optim..

[24]  Shengxiang Yang,et al.  A Performance Comparison Indicator for Pareto Front Approximations in Many-Objective Optimization , 2015, GECCO.

[25]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  An Optimality Theory-Based Proximity Measure for Set-Based Multiobjective Optimization , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[26]  Miguel A. Vega-Rodríguez,et al.  Analysing the scalability of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms when solving the motif discovery problem , 2013, Journal of Global Optimization.

[27]  Eckart Zitzler,et al.  Indicator-Based Selection in Multiobjective Search , 2004, PPSN.