Study of preference relations in many-objective optimization

This paper presents a quantitative analysis of different preference relations proposed to deal with problems with a high number of objectives. Since the relations stress different subsets of the Pareto front, we based the comparison on the Tchebycheff distance of the approximation set to the "knee" of the Pareto front. Additionally, the convergence induced by the preference relations is studied by analyzing the generational distance observed at each generation of the search. The results show that some preference relations contribute to converge quickly to the Pareto front, but they promote the generation of solutions far from the knee region. Moreover, even if a preference relation generates solutions near the knee, there exists a trade-off between convergence and the extension of the Pareto front covered.

[1]  K. Deb,et al.  On Finding Pareto-Optimal Solutions Through Dimensionality Reduction for Certain Large-Dimensional Multi-Objective Optimization Problems , 2022 .

[2]  Kiyoshi Tanaka,et al.  Controlling Dominance Area of Solutions and Its Impact on the Performance of MOEAs , 2007, EMO.

[3]  Eckart Zitzler,et al.  Improving hypervolume-based multiobjective evolutionary algorithms by using objective reduction methods , 2007, 2007 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[4]  V. Pareto,et al.  Vilfredo Pareto. Cours d’Économie Politique , 1897 .

[5]  Xin Yao,et al.  How well do multi-objective evolutionary algorithms scale to large problems , 2007, 2007 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[6]  Indraneel Das On characterizing the “knee” of the Pareto curve based on Normal-Boundary Intersection , 1999 .

[7]  Rolf Drechsler,et al.  Multi-objected Optimization in Evolutionary Algorithms Using Satisfiability Classes , 1999, Fuzzy Days.

[8]  Soon-Thiam Khu,et al.  An Investigation on Preference Order Ranking Scheme for Multiobjective Evolutionary Optimization , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[9]  Peter J. Bentley,et al.  Finding Acceptable Solutions in the Pareto-Optimal Range using Multiobjective Genetic Algorithms , 1998 .

[10]  David W. Corne,et al.  Techniques for highly multiobjective optimisation: some nondominated points are better than others , 2007, GECCO '07.

[11]  Nicola Beume,et al.  Pareto-, Aggregation-, and Indicator-Based Methods in Many-Objective Optimization , 2007, EMO.

[12]  David W. Corne,et al.  Quantifying the Effects of Objective Space Dimension in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization , 2007, EMO.

[13]  Carlos A. Coello Coello,et al.  Objective reduction using a feature selection technique , 2008, GECCO '08.

[14]  Rolf Drechsler,et al.  Robust Multi-Objective Optimization in High Dimensional Spaces , 2007, EMO.

[15]  Charles Gide,et al.  Cours d'économie politique , 1911 .

[16]  M. Farina,et al.  On the optimal solution definition for many-criteria optimization problems , 2002, 2002 Annual Meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society Proceedings. NAFIPS-FLINT 2002 (Cat. No. 02TH8622).

[17]  Eckart Zitzler,et al.  Are All Objectives Necessary? On Dimensionality Reduction in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization , 2006, PPSN.

[18]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: classifications, analyses, and new innovations , 1999 .

[19]  Evan J. Hughes,et al.  Evolutionary many-objective optimisation: many once or one many? , 2005, 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.