HEMO: A Sustainable Multi-objective Evolutionary Optimization Framework

The capability of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) to handle premature convergence is critically important when applied to real-world problems. Their highly multi-modal and discrete search space often makes the required performance out of reach to current MOEAs. Examining the fundamental cause of premature convergence in evolutionary search has led to proposing of a generic framework, named Hierarchical Fair Competition (HFC)[9], for robust and sustainable evolutionary search. Here an HFC-based Hierarchical Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization framework (HEMO) is proposed, which is characterized by its simultaneous maintenance of individuals of all degrees of evolution in hierarchically organized repositories, by its continuous inflow of random individuals at the base repository, by its intrinsic hierarchical elitism and hyper-grid-based density estimation. Two experiments demonstrate its search robustness and its capability to provide sustainable evolutionary search for difficult multi-modal problems. HEMO makes it possible to do reliable multi-objective search without risk of premature convergence. The paradigmatic transition of HEMO to handle premature convergence is that instead of trying to escape local optima from converged high fitness populations, it tries to maintain the opportunity for new optima to emerge from the bottom up as enabled by its hierarchical organization of individuals of different fitnesses.

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

[2]  Dan Boneh,et al.  On genetic algorithms , 1995, COLT '95.

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

[4]  Martin J. Oates,et al.  The Pareto Envelope-Based Selection Algorithm for Multi-objective Optimisation , 2000, PPSN.

[5]  Jianjun Hu,et al.  Adaptive Hierarchical Fair Competition (AHFC) Model For Parallel Evolutionary Algorithms , 2002, GECCO.

[6]  Martin J. Oates,et al.  PESA-II: region-based selection in evolutionary multiobjective optimization , 2001 .

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

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

[9]  Erik D. Goodman,et al.  The hierarchical fair competition (HFC) model for parallel evolutionary algorithms , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600).

[10]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  The Design of Innovation: Lessons from and for Competent Genetic Algorithms , 2002 .

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

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

[13]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Sizing Populations for Serial and Parallel Genetic Algorithms , 1989, ICGA.

[14]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization , 2003 .

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

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

[17]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Controlled Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithms for Better Convergence , 2001, EMO.