Edge-Rotated Cone Orders in Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithms for Improved Convergence and Preference Articulation

The Pareto dominance relation is a special case of a cone order. Cone orders and the Pareto order are translation invariant and also multiplication invariant by any positive real. Employment of more general cone orders instead of the Pareto order gives rise to interesting exploration opportunities for algorithm design. In this paper, the standard Pareto dominance relation has been extended to cone dominance with a pointed convex obtuse cone, a superset of the Pareto dominance cone, i.e., the non-negative orthant, by rotating the edges of the Pareto order cone. The basic idea is in line with earlier work on cone-orders in multicriteria decision making and here, in particular, the cone-order is used (1) to increase solutions’ dominance area and hence improve the convergence speed of the algorithm and (2) to formulate trade-off constraints. The minima of the obtuse cone order are also Pareto optimal. However, not all minima of the Pareto order are also minima of the obtuse cone order. Therefore we use the edge-rotated cone in an alternating manner with the standard Pareto cone to guarantee coverage of the entire Pareto front. The edge-rotated cones have been integrated in several state-of-the-art multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) and proven to be able to improve the performance of MOEAs on multi-objective optimization problems with the linear, concave, convex and disconnected Pareto front. Furthermore, when the edges of the cone are rotated by different angles, the algorithm obtains solution sets located in different areas of the Pareto front. This behavior can be used to take the preference of the targeted region on the Pareto front into the algorithm. In particular, by using obtuse cones, regions where trade-off is very unbalanced can be discarded. This is quantified by showing a relationship between the angle and the trade-off rate corresponding to this angle.

[1]  Bernhard Sendhoff,et al.  Preference representation using Gaussian functions on a hyperplane in evolutionary multi-objective optimization , 2015, Soft Computing.

[2]  Murat Köksalan,et al.  A Territory Defining Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms and Preference Incorporation , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  P. Yu Cone convexity, cone extreme points, and nondominated solutions in decision problems with multiobjectives , 1974 .

[4]  Mario Köppen,et al.  Substitute Distance Assignments in NSGA-II for Handling Many-objective Optimization Problems , 2007, EMO.

[5]  Hartmut Schmeck,et al.  Angle-Based Preference Models in Multi-objective Optimization , 2017, EMO.

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

[7]  E. Zitzler,et al.  Directed Multiobjective Optimization Based on the Weighted Hypervolume Indicator , 2013 .

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

[9]  H. Trautmann,et al.  Preference-based Pareto optimization in certain and noisy environments , 2009 .

[10]  David L. Olson,et al.  Decision Aids for Selection Problems , 1995 .

[11]  Kiyoshi Tanaka,et al.  Controlling Dominance Area of Solutions in Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms and Performance Analysis on Multiobjective 0/1 Knapsack Problems , 2007 .

[12]  Ignacy Kaliszewski,et al.  Quantitative Pareto Analysis by Cone Separation Technique , 1994 .

[13]  Yali Wang,et al.  Improving Many-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms by Means of Edge-Rotated Cones , 2020, PPSN.

[14]  Kenli Li,et al.  An angle dominance criterion for evolutionary many-objective optimization , 2020, Inf. Sci..

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

[16]  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).

[17]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Reference point based multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms , 2006, GECCO.

[18]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms: introducing bias among Pareto-optimal solutions , 2003 .

[19]  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.

[20]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Diversity-Indicator Based Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm: DI-MOEA , 2019, EMO.

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

[22]  R. Lyndon While,et al.  A faster algorithm for calculating hypervolume , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[23]  Michael T. M. Emmerich,et al.  A Theoretical Analysis of Curvature Based Preference Models , 2013, EMO.

[24]  Dario Landa Silva,et al.  Obtaining Better Non-Dominated Sets Using Volume Dominance , 2007, 2007 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[25]  Heike Trautmann,et al.  Building and Using an Ontology of Preference-Based Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms , 2017, EMO.

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

[27]  M. Wiecek Advances in Cone-Based Preference Modeling for Decision Making with Multiple Criteria , 2007 .