Improving the diversity preservation of multi-objective approaches used for single-objective optimization

The maintenance of a proper diversity is an important issue for the correct behavior of Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs). The loss of diversity might lead to stagnation in suboptimal regions, producing the effect known as “premature convergence”. Several methods to avoid premature convergence have been previously proposed. Among them, the use of Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEAs) is a promising approach. Several ways of using MOEAs for single-objective optimization problems have been devised. The use of an additional objective based on calculating the diversity that each individual introduces in the population has been successfully applied by several researchers. Several ways of measuring the diversity have also been tested. In this work, the main weaknesses of some of the previously presented approaches are analyzed. Considering such drawbacks, a new scheme whose aim is to maintain a better diversity than previous approaches is proposed. The proposed approach is empirically validated using a set of well-known single-objective benchmark problems. Our preliminary results indicate that the proposed approach provides several advantages in terms of premature convergence avoidance. An analysis of the convergence in the average-case is also carried out. Such an analysis reveals that the better ability of our proposed approach to deal with premature convergence produces a reduction in the convergence speed in the average-case for several of the benchmark problems adopted.

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

[2]  Richard J. Duro,et al.  Real-Valued Multimodal Fitness Landscape Characterization for Evolution , 2010, ICONIP.

[3]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Introduction to Evolutionary Computing , 2003, Natural Computing Series.

[4]  Hussein A. Abbass,et al.  Searching under Multi-evolutionary Pressures , 2003, EMO.

[5]  Enrique Alba,et al.  Design Issues in a Multiobjective Cellular Genetic Algorithm , 2007, EMO.

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

[7]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Editorial scalability of evolutionary algorithms and other metaheuristics for large-scale continuous optimization problems , 2011, Soft Comput..

[8]  Joshua D. Knowles,et al.  Multiobjectivization by Decomposition of Scalar Cost Functions , 2008, PPSN.

[9]  Jean-Baptiste Mouret Novelty-Based Multiobjectivization , 2011 .

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

[11]  Mauricio G. C. Resende,et al.  A Greedy Randomized Adaptive Search Procedure for Maximum Independent Set , 1994, Oper. Res..

[12]  Larry J. Eshelman,et al.  The CHC Adaptive Search Algorithm: How to Have Safe Search When Engaging in Nontraditional Genetic Recombination , 1990, FOGA.

[13]  Samir W. Mahfoud Crowding and Preselection Revisited , 1992, PPSN.

[14]  Anabela Simões,et al.  Memory-based CHC algorithms for the dynamic traveling salesman problem , 2011, GECCO '11.

[15]  Alexandros Agapitos,et al.  An Investigation of Fitness Sharing with Semantic and Syntactic Distance Metrics , 2012, EuroGP.

[16]  Zi-xing Cai,et al.  A novel genetic algorithm preventing premature convergence by chaos operator , 2000 .

[17]  Gara Miranda,et al.  Metco: a Parallel Plugin-Based Framework for Multi-Objective Optimization , 2009, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

[18]  Hussein A. Abbass,et al.  Multiobjective optimization for dynamic environments , 2005, 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.