On the Performance of Generational and Steady-State MOEA/D in the Multi-Objective 0/1 Knapsack Problem

The multi-objective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition (MOEA/D) has attracted the attention of several investigators working on multi-objective optimization. At each iteration, MOEA/D generates an offspring solution from a parent’s neighborhood. The new solution is evaluated, and, according to the decomposition approach, it can replace one or more solutions from the neighborhood, maintaining the population updated. In this sense, MOEA/D can be considered as a steady-state algorithm that maintains updated its population once a new solution is generated. In this work, we investigate the performance of MOEA/D in the multi-objective 0/1 knapsack problem considering a steady-state version and a proposed generational version. We explore the benefits of the generational version proposed in this paper. According to results, we show that the proposed approach can obtain a suitable performance in the multi-objective 0/1 knapsack problem employing between two and eight objective functions. Additionally, we propose a two-stage hybrid algorithm that employs the two different approaches of MOEA/D (i.e., the steady-state and generational versions). Our results reveal that the proposed hybrid approach can outperform the original MOEA/D in the many-objective settings of the 0/1 knapsack problem.

[1]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  A decomposition-based multi-objective Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm for continuous optimization problems , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Granular Computing.

[2]  Rajarshi Das,et al.  A Study of Control Parameters Affecting Online Performance of Genetic Algorithms for Function Optimization , 1989, ICGA.

[3]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Simultaneous use of different scalarizing functions in MOEA/D , 2010, GECCO '10.

[4]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  A Study on the Specification of a Scalarizing Function in MOEA/D for Many-Objective Knapsack Problems , 2013, LION.

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

[6]  H. Kita,et al.  Failure of Pareto-based MOEAs: does non-dominated really mean near to optimal? , 2001, Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No.01TH8546).

[7]  Tobias Friedrich,et al.  Approximating the least hypervolume contributor: NP-hard in general, but fast in practice , 2008, Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

[9]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of Selection Schemes Used in Genetic Algorithms , 1990, FOGA.

[10]  Yong-Chang Jiao,et al.  MOEA/D with Uniform Design for the Multiobjective 0/1 Knapsack Problem , 2011, 2011 Seventh International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Security.

[11]  John J. Grefenstette,et al.  Optimization of Control Parameters for Genetic Algorithms , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[12]  Hiroyuki Sato,et al.  Inverted PBI in MOEA/D and its impact on the search performance on multi and many-objective optimization , 2014, GECCO.

[13]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Evolutionary many-objective optimization by NSGA-II and MOEA/D with large populations , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[14]  Saúl Zapotecas Martínez,et al.  Geometric Particle Swarm Optimization for Multi-objective Optimization Using Decomposition , 2016, GECCO.

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

[16]  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.

[17]  Saúl Zapotecas Martínez,et al.  A multi-objective particle swarm optimizer based on decomposition , 2011, GECCO '11.

[18]  Terence C. Fogarty,et al.  Comparison of steady state and generational genetic algorithms for use in nonstationary environments , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[19]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  Nonlinear multiobjective optimization , 1998, International series in operations research and management science.

[20]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  The performance of a new version of MOEA/D on CEC09 unconstrained MOP test instances , 2009, 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[21]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  MOEA/D-ACO: A Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Using Decomposition and AntColony , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics.

[22]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION 1 RM-MEDA: A Regularity Model-Based Multiobjective Estimation of , 2022 .

[23]  J. R. McDonald,et al.  Generational and Steady-State Genetic Algorithms for Generator Maintenance Scheduling Problems , 1997, ICANNGA.

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

[25]  D. Noever,et al.  Steady-State vs . Generational Genetic Algorithms : A Comparison of Time Complexity and Convergence Properties , 2022 .

[26]  Shengxiang Yang,et al.  A Steady-State and Generational Evolutionary Algorithm for Dynamic Multiobjective Optimization , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[27]  M. Agha,et al.  Experiments with Mixtures , 1992 .

[28]  Saúl Zapotecas Martínez,et al.  Multi-objective grey wolf optimizer based on decomposition , 2019, Expert Syst. Appl..

[29]  Saúl Zapotecas Martínez,et al.  Geometric Differential Evolution in MOEA/D: A Preliminary Study , 2015, MICAI.

[30]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Behavior of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms on Many-Objective Knapsack Problems , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[31]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Adaptation of Scalarizing Functions in MOEA/D: An Adaptive Scalarizing Function-Based Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm , 2009, EMO.

[32]  Fang Liu,et al.  MOEA/D with Adaptive Weight Adjustment , 2014, Evolutionary Computation.

[33]  Stéphane Bonnevay,et al.  Hybrid Metaheuristics based on MOEA/D for 0/1 multiobjective knapsack problems: A comparative study , 2012, 2012 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[34]  Terence Soule,et al.  Comparing genetic robustness in generational vs. steady state evolutionary algorithms , 2006, GECCO.

[35]  Swagatam Das,et al.  Decomposition-based modern metaheuristic algorithms for multi-objective optimal power flow - A comparative study , 2014, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..

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