Difficulty in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization of Discrete Objective Functions with Different Granularities

Objective functions are discrete in combinatorial optimization. In general, the number of possible values of a discrete objective is totally different from problem to problem. That is, discrete objectives have totally different granularities in different problems (In this paper, “granularity” means the width of discretization intervals). In combinatorial multiobjective optimization, a single problem has multiple discrete objectives with different granularities. Some objectives may have fine granularities with many possible values while others may have very coarse granularities with only a few possible values. Handling of such a combinatorial multiobjective problem has not been actively discussed in the EMO community. In our former study, we showed that discrete objectives with coarse granularities slowed down the search by NSGA-II, SPEA2, MOEA/D and SMS-EMOA on two-objective problems. In this paper, we first discuss why such a discrete objective deteriorates the search ability of those EMO algorithms. Next we propose the use of strong Pareto dominance in NSGA-II to improve its search ability. Then we examine the effect of discrete objectives on the performance of the four EMO algorithms on many-objective problems. An interesting observation is that discrete objectives with coarse granularities improve the search ability of NSGA-II and SPEA2 on many-objective problems whereas they deteriorate their search ability on two-objective problems. The performance of MOEA/D and SMS-EMOA is always deteriorated by discrete objectives with coarse granularities. These observations are discussed from the following two viewpoints: One is the difficulty of many-objective problems for Pareto dominance-based EMO algorithms, and the other is the relation between discrete objectives and the concept of e-dominance.

[1]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Balance between genetic search and local search in memetic algorithms for multiobjective permutation flowshop scheduling , 2003, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[2]  Evan J. Hughes,et al.  Evolutionary many-objective optimisation: many once or one many? , 2005, 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  Frank Neumann,et al.  Additive approximations of pareto-optimal sets by evolutionary multi-objective algorithms , 2009, FOGA '09.

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

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

[6]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  On the Evolutionary Optimization of Many Conflicting Objectives , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[7]  Frank Neumann,et al.  Benefits and drawbacks for the use of epsilon-dominance in evolutionary multi-objective optimization , 2008, GECCO '08.

[8]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Effects of discrete objective functions with different granularities on the search behavior of EMO algorithms , 2012, GECCO '12.

[9]  Lucas Bradstreet,et al.  A Fast Way of Calculating Exact Hypervolumes , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[10]  Carlos A. Coello Coello,et al.  On the Influence of the Number of Objectives on the Hardness of a Multiobjective Optimization Problem , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

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

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

[13]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization Problems With Complicated Pareto Sets, MOEA/D and NSGA-II , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[14]  Nicola Beume,et al.  Pareto-, Aggregation-, and Indicator-Based Methods in Many-Objective Optimization , 2007, EMO.

[15]  Xin Yao,et al.  Performance Scaling of Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithms , 2003, EMO.

[16]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Analysis of interpretability-accuracy tradeoff of fuzzy systems by multiobjective fuzzy genetics-based machine learning , 2007, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[17]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Behavior of Evolutionary Many-Objective Optimization , 2008, Tenth International Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation (uksim 2008).

[18]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Multi-objective pattern and feature selection by a genetic algorithm , 2000, GECCO.

[19]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Evolutionary many-objective optimization: A short review , 2008, 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence).

[20]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  On the Performance Assessment and Comparison of Stochastic Multiobjective Optimizers , 1996, PPSN.

[21]  Hans-Paul Schwefel,et al.  Parallel Problem Solving from Nature — PPSN IV , 1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[22]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Combining Convergence and Diversity in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization , 2002, Evolutionary Computation.

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

[24]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization , 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[25]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[26]  Andrzej Jaszkiewicz,et al.  On the computational efficiency of multiple objective metaheuristics. The knapsack problem case study , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[27]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Effectiveness of scalability improvement attempts on the performance of NSGA-II for many-objective problems , 2008, GECCO '08.

[28]  Tong Heng Lee,et al.  Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications , 2005, Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing.

[29]  Goldberg,et al.  Genetic algorithms , 1993, Robust Control Systems with Genetic Algorithms.

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

[31]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Evaluating the -Domination Based Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm for a Quick Computation of Pareto-Optimal Solutions , 2005, Evolutionary Computation.

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