Multiobjectivization by Decomposition of Scalar Cost Functions

The term `multiobjectivization' refers to the casting of a single-objec-tive optimization problem as a multiobjective one, a transformation that can be achieved by the addition of supplementary objectives or by the decomposition of the original objective function. In this paper, we analyze how multiobjectivization by decompositionchanges the fitness landscape of a given problem and affects search. We find that decomposition has only one possible effect: to introduce plateaus of incomparable solutions. Consequently, multiobjective hillclimbers using no archive `see' a smaller (or at most equal) number of local optima on a transformed problem compared to hillclimbers on the original problem. When archived multiobjective hillclimbers are considered this effect may partly be reversed. Running time analyses conducted on four example functions demonstrate the (positive and negative) influence that both the multiobjectivization itself, and the use vs. non-use of an archive, can have on the performance of simple hillclimbers. In each case an exponential/polynomial divide is revealed.

[1]  Torben Hagerup,et al.  A Guided Tour of Chernoff Bounds , 1990, Inf. Process. Lett..

[2]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  Relative Building-Block Fitness and the Building Block Hypothesis , 1992, FOGA.

[3]  Martin Wattenberg,et al.  Stochastic Hillclimbing as a Baseline Mathod for Evaluating Genetic Algorithms , 1995, NIPS.

[4]  Marc Schoenauer,et al.  Rigorous Hitting Times for Binary Mutations , 1999, Evolutionary Computation.

[5]  Thomas Hanne,et al.  On the convergence of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[6]  David W. Corne,et al.  Approximating the Nondominated Front Using the Pareto Archived Evolution Strategy , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[7]  Richard A. Watson,et al.  Reducing Local Optima in Single-Objective Problems by Multi-objectivization , 2001, EMO.

[8]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  Design and Management of Complex Technical Processes and Systems by means of Computational Intelligence Methods Evolutionary Algorithms-How to Cope With Plateaus of Constant Fitness and When to Reject Strings of the Same Fitness , 2001 .

[9]  Joshua D. Knowles Local-search and hybrid evolutionary algorithms for Pareto optimization , 2002 .

[10]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization , 2003 .

[11]  I. Wegener,et al.  The Analysis of Evolutionary Algorithms on Sorting and Shortest Paths Problems , 2004 .

[12]  M. Jensen Helper-Objectives: Using Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms for Single-Objective Optimisation , 2004 .

[13]  Minimum spanning trees made easier via multi-objective optimization , 2006, Natural Computing.

[14]  Frank Neumann,et al.  Do additional objectives make a problem harder? , 2007, GECCO '07.

[15]  Pietro Simone Oliveto,et al.  Erratum: Simplified Drift Analysis for Proving Lower Bounds in Evolutionary Computation , 2008, PPSN.