Maintaining Diversity in The Bounded Pareto-Set: A Case of Opposition Based Solution Generation Scheme

For more than two decades, stand-alone evolutionary multi-objective optimization (EMO) methods have been adequately demonstrated to find a set of trade-off solutions near Pareto-front for various multi-objective optimization problems. Despite a long-standing existence of classical generative single-objective based methods, a very few EMO studies have combined the two approaches for a better gain. In this paper, we investigate the effect of seeding the initial population of an EMO algorithm with extreme solutions obtained using a single-objective method. Our proposed approach is further aided with an opposition based offspring creation mechanism which strategically places new solutions on the current Pareto frontier by a simple, yet a novel arbitration policy that utilizes the relative distances from the extreme solutions in the current population members. We conduct an extensive simulation of our proposed approach on a wide variety of two and three-objective benchmark MOP test problems. Results are shown to be remarkably better than the original EMO approach in terms of hyper-volume metric. The results are interesting and should motivate EMO researchers to integrate single-objective focused optimization and an opposition-based concept with diversity-preserving EMO procedures for an overall better performance.

[1]  Charles Audet,et al.  Analysis of Generalized Pattern Searches , 2000, SIAM J. Optim..

[2]  Ville Tirronen,et al.  Enhancing Differential Evolution frameworks by scale factor local search - Part I , 2009, 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  Andrzej P. Wierzbicki,et al.  The Use of Reference Objectives in Multiobjective Optimization , 1979 .

[4]  Shahryar Rahnamayan,et al.  Learning opposites with evolving rules , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE).

[5]  M.M.A. Salama,et al.  Opposition-Based Differential Evolution , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[6]  Hamid R. Tizhoosh,et al.  Opposition-Based Learning: A New Scheme for Machine Intelligence , 2005, International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modelling, Control and Automation and International Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies and Internet Commerce (CIMCA-IAWTIC'06).

[7]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  SPEA2: Improving the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm For Multiobjective Optimization , 2002 .

[8]  Fang Liu,et al.  MOEA/D with opposition-based learning for multiobjective optimization problem , 2014, Neurocomputing.

[9]  James S. Welsh,et al.  Using redundant fitness functions to improve optimisers for humanoid robot walking , 2011, 2011 11th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots.

[10]  Dan Simon,et al.  Probabilistic properties of fitness-based quasi-reflection in evolutionary algorithms , 2015, Comput. Oper. Res..

[11]  Shiu Yin Yuen,et al.  A directional mutation operator for differential evolution algorithms , 2015, Appl. Soft Comput..

[12]  Zhijian Wu,et al.  Enhancing particle swarm optimization using generalized opposition-based learning , 2011, Inf. Sci..

[13]  M. J. D. Powell,et al.  A fast algorithm for nonlinearly constrained optimization calculations , 1978 .

[14]  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.

[15]  Lucas Bradstreet,et al.  A Fast Way of Calculating Exact Hypervolumes , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[16]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Toward an Estimation of Nadir Objective Vector Using a Hybrid of Evolutionary and Local Search Approaches , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

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