On the choice of neighborhood sampling to build effective search operators for constrained MOPs

For the treatment of multi-objective optimization problems (MOPs) sto-chas-tic search algorithms such as multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) are very popular due to their global set based approach. Multi-objective stochastic local search (MOSLS) represents a powerful tool within MOEAs which is crucial for the guidance of the populations’ individuals. The success of variation operators in evolutionary algorithms is related to survival chances of their new generated individuals. Though individual feasibility determines directly the survival chances, in MOEAs, regular variation operators do not consider any information from the constraints. Recently, an initial study has been done for unconstrained MOPs revealing that a pressure both toward and along the Pareto front is inherent in MOSLS by which the behavior of many MOEAs in different stages of the search could be explained to a certain extent. In the present paper we go further to study the implications of MOSLS for the constrained case and propose the construction of subspace based movements during the search; we identify how neighborhood samples have to be chosen such that a movement along the Pareto front is achieved, for points near the Pareto set of a given constrained MOP. Next, we present two applications of these insights, namely (i) to explore the behavior of a population based algorithm that is merely using this proposed neighborhood sampling and (ii) to build a specialized mutation operator for effectively explore search regions on constrained MOPs, where the constraints are given explicitly. Numerical results indicate that these ideas yield competitive results in most cases. We conjecture that these insights are valuable for the future design of specialized search operators for memetic algorithms dealing with constrained multi-objective search spaces.

[1]  Alexandre Goldsztejn,et al.  On continuation methods for non-linear bi-objective optimization: towards a certified interval-based approach , 2014, Journal of Global Optimization.

[2]  Carlos A. Coello Coello,et al.  The directed search method for multi-objective memetic algorithms , 2015, Computational Optimization and Applications.

[3]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms for Constrained Parameter Optimization Problems , 1996, Evolutionary Computation.

[4]  Stephen J. Wright,et al.  Numerical Optimization (Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering) , 2000 .

[5]  Viacheslav Shalamov,et al.  Small-Moves Based Mutation For Pick-Up And Delivery Problem , 2016, GECCO.

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

[7]  Oliver Schütze,et al.  An effective mutation operator to deal with multi-objective constrained problems: SPM , 2016, 2016 13th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computing Science and Automatic Control (CCE).

[8]  Dmitry Podkopaev,et al.  Special issue on global optimization with multiple objectives , 2016, J. Glob. Optim..

[9]  Martin Brown,et al.  Directed Multi-Objective Optimization , 2005, Int. J. Comput. Syst. Signals.

[10]  Olivier Teytaud,et al.  QR Mutations Improve Many Evolution Strategies: A Lot On Highly Multimodal Problems , 2016, GECCO.

[11]  Alexandre Goldsztejn,et al.  Certified Parallelotope Continuation for One-Manifolds , 2013, SIAM J. Numer. Anal..

[12]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Analysing mutation schemes for real-parameter genetic algorithms , 2014, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Soft Comput..

[13]  Claus Hillermeier,et al.  Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization , 2001 .

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

[15]  Jouni Lampinen,et al.  GDE3: the third evolution step of generalized differential evolution , 2005, 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

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

[17]  Carlos A. Coello Coello,et al.  Using the Averaged Hausdorff Distance as a Performance Measure in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[18]  Warren Hare,et al.  A proximal bundle method for nonsmooth nonconvex functions with inexact information , 2015, Computational Optimization and Applications.

[19]  C. Hillermeier Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization: A Generalized Homotopy Approach , 2001 .

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

[21]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms , 2001, Wiley-Interscience series in systems and optimization.

[22]  Ying Tan,et al.  Orienting mutation based fireworks algorithm , 2015, 2015 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC).

[23]  Grzegorz Rozenberg,et al.  Handbook of Natural Computing , 2011, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[24]  Heike Trautmann,et al.  Optimal averaged Hausdorff archives for bi-objective problems: theoretical and numerical results , 2016, Comput. Optim. Appl..

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

[26]  Maria Cristina Recchioni,et al.  A path following method for box-constrained multiobjective optimization with applications to goal programming problems , 2003, Math. Methods Oper. Res..

[27]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems , 2002, Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation.

[28]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Computing Gap Free Pareto Front Approximations with Stochastic Search Algorithms , 2010, Evolutionary Computation.

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

[30]  H. L. Le Roy,et al.  Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability; Vol. IV , 1969 .