Component-level study of a decomposition-based multi-objective optimizer on a limited evaluation budget

Decomposition-based algorithms have emerged as one of the most popular classes of solvers for multi-objective optimization. Despite their popularity, a lack of guidance exists for how to configure such algorithms for real-world problems, based on the features or contexts of those problems. One context that is important for many real-world problems is that function evaluations are expensive, and so algorithms need to be able to provide adequate convergence on a limited budget (e.g. 500 evaluations). This study contributes to emerging guidance on algorithm configuration by investigating how the convergence of the popular decomposition-based optimizer MOEA/D, over a limited budget, is affected by choice of component-level configuration. Two main aspects are considered: (1) impact of sharing information; (2) impact of normalisation scheme. The empirical test framework includes detailed trajectory analysis, as well as more conventional performance indicator analysis, to help identify and explain the behaviour of the optimizer. Use of neighbours in generating new solutions is found to be highly disruptive for searching on a small budget, leading to better convergence in some areas but far worse convergence in others. The findings also emphasise the challenge and importance of using an appropriate normalisation scheme.

[1]  H. Ishibuchi,et al.  On the effect of normalization in MOEA/D for multi-objective and many-objective optimization , 2017 .

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

[3]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  An overview of population-based algorithms for multi-objective optimisation , 2015, Int. J. Syst. Sci..

[4]  Thomas Stützle,et al.  Comparing Decomposition-Based and Automatically Component-Wise Designed Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms , 2015, EMO.

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

[6]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  Decomposition-Based Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm With an Ensemble of Neighborhood Sizes , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

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

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

[9]  Joshua D. Knowles,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization on a Budget of 250 Evaluations , 2005, EMO.

[10]  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.

[11]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  Multiobjective optimization Test Instances for the CEC 2009 Special Session and Competition , 2009 .

[12]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  Why Use Elitism And Sharing In A Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm? , 2002, GECCO.

[13]  Yaochu Jin,et al.  Surrogate-assisted evolutionary computation: Recent advances and future challenges , 2011, Swarm Evol. Comput..

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

[15]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  Expensive Multiobjective Optimization by MOEA/D With Gaussian Process Model , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.