Two-Layered Weight Vector Specification in Decomposition-Based Multi-Objective Algorithms for Many-Objective Optimization Problems

Recently high performance of decomposition-based algorithms such as MOEA/D, NSGA-III and MOEA/DD for many-objective optimization has been repeatedly reported. When they are applied to many-objective problems, weight vectors are usually generated by a two-layered approach with boundary and inside layers. However, the specification of the two layers has not been discussed in detail in the literature. They are usually intuitively specified: More weight vectors are included in the boundary layer than the inside layer, and the size of the simplex in the inside layer is a half of that in the boundary layer. In this paper, we discuss the following two issues about the specification of the two layers: (i) how to specify the number of weight vectors in each layer, and (ii) how to specify the size of the simplex in the inside layer. We address these two issues through computational experiments on many-objective problems with six types of Pareto fronts: linear triangular, convex triangular, concave triangular, linear inverted triangular, convex inverted triangular, and concave inverted triangular. Our experimental results clearly demonstrate that the appropriate specification of the two layers strongly depends on the problem (i.e., the shape of the Pareto front) and the performance indicator. We also address the two issues from a viewpoint of the relation between the weight vector distribution for each shape of the Pareto front and the optimal distribution of solutions for each performance indicator.

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

[2]  Nicola Beume,et al.  SMS-EMOA: Multiobjective selection based on dominated hypervolume , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  Maoguo Gong,et al.  A Clustering-Based Evolutionary Algorithm for Many-Objective Optimization Problems , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

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

[5]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Reference Point Specification in Inverted Generational Distance for Triangular Linear Pareto Front , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[6]  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.

[7]  Beatrice M. Ombuki-Berman,et al.  A Scalability Study of Many-Objective Optimization Algorithms , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

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

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

[10]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Reference point specification in hypervolume calculation for fair comparison and efficient search , 2017, GECCO.

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

[12]  Saúl Zapotecas Martínez,et al.  On the low-discrepancy sequences and their use in MOEA/D for high-dimensional objective spaces , 2015, 2015 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC).

[13]  Zhang Yi,et al.  IGD Indicator-Based Evolutionary Algorithm for Many-Objective Optimization Problems , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

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

[15]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  A Study on Performance Evaluation Ability of a Modified Inverted Generational Distance Indicator , 2015, GECCO.

[16]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Performance of Decomposition-Based Many-Objective Algorithms Strongly Depends on Pareto Front Shapes , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[17]  Carlos A. Coello Coello,et al.  A Study of the Parallelization of a Coevolutionary Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithm , 2004, MICAI.

[18]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  How to Specify a Reference Point in Hypervolume Calculation for Fair Performance Comparison , 2018, Evolutionary Computation.

[19]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms - A Comparative Case Study , 1998, PPSN.

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

[21]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Comparison of Hypervolume, IGD and IGD+ from the Viewpoint of Optimal Distributions of Solutions , 2019, EMO.