Theory of the hypervolume indicator: optimal μ-distributions and the choice of the reference point

The hypervolume indicator is a set measure used in evolutionary multiobjective optimization to evaluate the performance of search algorithms and to guide the search. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms using the hypervolume indicator transform multiobjective problems into single objective ones by searching for a finite set of solutions maximizing the corresponding hypervolume indicator. In this paper, we theoretically investigate how those optimal μ--distributions-finite sets of μ solutions maximizing the hypervolume indicator-are spread over the Pareto front of biobjective problems. This problem is of high importance for practical applications as these sets characterize the preferences that the hypervolume indicator encodes, i.e., which types of Pareto set approximations are favored. In particular, we tackle the question whether the hypervolume indicator is biased towards certain regions. For linear fronts we prove that the distribution is uniform with constant distance between two consecutive points. For general fronts where it is presumably impossible to characterize exactly the distribution, we derive a limit result when the number of points grows to infinity proving that the empirical density of points converges to a density proportional to the square root of the negative of the derivative of the front. Our analyses show that it is not the shape of the Pareto front but only its slope that determines how the points that maximize the hypervolume indicator are distributed. Experimental results illustrate that the limit density is a good approximation of the empirical density for small μ. Furthermore, we analyze the issue of where to place the reference point of the indicator such that the extremes of the front can be found if the hypervolume indicator is optimized. We derive an explicit lower bound (possibly infinite) ensuring the presence of the extremes in the optimal distribution. This result contradicts the common belief that the reference point has to be chosen close to the nadir point: for certain types of fronts, we show that no finite reference point allows to have the extremes in the optimal μ-distribution.

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

[2]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  An evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization: the strength Pareto approach , 1998 .

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

[4]  Robin Charles Purshouse,et al.  On the evolutionary optimisation of many objectives , 2003 .

[5]  M. Fleischer,et al.  The Measure of Pareto Optima , 2003, EMO.

[6]  David W. Corne,et al.  Properties of an adaptive archiving algorithm for storing nondominated vectors , 2003, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

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

[8]  Nicola Beume,et al.  Design and Management of Complex Technical Processes and Systems by means of Computational Intelligence Methods Gradient-based / Evolutionary Relay Hybrid for Computing Pareto Front Approximations Maximizing the S-Metric , 2007 .

[9]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  The Hypervolume Indicator Revisited: On the Design of Pareto-compliant Indicators Via Weighted Integration , 2007, EMO.

[10]  Mark Fleischer,et al.  The measure of pareto optima: Applications to multi-objective metaheuristics , 2003 .

[11]  Joshua D. Knowles,et al.  ParEGO: a hybrid algorithm with on-line landscape approximation for expensive multiobjective optimization problems , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

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

[13]  Nikolaus Hansen,et al.  Evaluating the CMA Evolution Strategy on Multimodal Test Functions , 2004, PPSN.

[14]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Current trends in evolutionary multi-objective optimization , 2007 .

[15]  Stefan Roth,et al.  Covariance Matrix Adaptation for Multi-objective Optimization , 2007, Evolutionary Computation.

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

[17]  Joshua D. Knowles,et al.  Bounded archiving using the lebesgue measure , 2003, The 2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2003. CEC '03..

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

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

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

[21]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Finding Knees in Multi-objective Optimization , 2004, PPSN.

[22]  Eberhard Zeidler,et al.  Applied Functional Analysis: Main Principles and Their Applications , 1995 .

[23]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  An Adaptive Divide-and-ConquerMethodology forEvolutionary Multi-criterion Optimisation , 2003, EMO.

[24]  Nicola Beume,et al.  An EMO Algorithm Using the Hypervolume Measure as Selection Criterion , 2005, EMO.

[25]  Arturo Hernández-Aguirre,et al.  G-Metric: an M-ary quality indicator for the evaluation of non-dominated sets , 2008, GECCO 2008.

[26]  Indraneel Das On characterizing the “knee” of the Pareto curve based on Normal-Boundary Intersection , 1999 .

[27]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Scalable Test Problems for Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization , 2005, Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization.

[28]  Nicola Beume,et al.  On the Complexity of Computing the Hypervolume Indicator , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.