Towards a More Practically Sound Formulation of Dynamic Problems and Performance Evaluation of Dynamic Search Methods

The commonly used methodology for the simulation of dynamic problems formulates them as intervals of static problems, in which the change occurs between two successive intervals. This study proposes a more practically sound formulation of steadily changing dynamic problems, a class of dynamic problems in which the problem landscape continuously, but smoothly, changes over time. The new formulation provides more flexibility for a dynamic optimizer to choose the trade-off between the change frequency and the change severity while the change rate is prescribed by the actual problem. Besides, this study introduces a novel performance indicator for dynamic optimization methods. Unlike conventional ones, this indicator considers the real-time change in the actual problem during a time step and the period in which the best solution should be implemented. The practical importance of this formulation and the proposed performance indicator are studied on a few carefully designed controlled experiments. Subsequently, more comprehensive numerical simulations are performed to investigate the dependency of the optimal change frequency on the employed prediction method and test problem.

[1]  Witold Pedrycz,et al.  Multidirectional Prediction Approach for Dynamic Multiobjective Optimization Problems , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics.

[2]  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.

[3]  Hussein A. Abbass,et al.  Tracking moving targets and the non- stationary traveling salesman problem , 2005 .

[4]  Mohammad Reza Meybodi,et al.  A multi-population differential evolution algorithm based on cellular learning automata and evolutionary context information for optimization in dynamic environments , 2020, Appl. Soft Comput..

[5]  Sylvain Serra,et al.  Dynamic optimization of the operation of a solar thermal plant , 2020 .

[6]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Dynamic Multi-objective Optimization and Decision-Making Using Modified NSGA-II: A Case Study on Hydro-thermal Power Scheduling , 2007, EMO.

[7]  Hui Li,et al.  Decomposition-based evolutionary dynamic multiobjective optimization using a difference model , 2019, Appl. Soft Comput..

[8]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  Prediction-Based Population Re-initialization for Evolutionary Dynamic Multi-objective Optimization , 2007, EMO.

[9]  Kay Chen Tan,et al.  A predictive gradient strategy for multiobjective evolutionary algorithms in a fast changing environment , 2010, Memetic Comput..

[10]  Oliver Kramer,et al.  Prediction in Nature-Inspired Dynamic Optimization , 2020 .

[11]  Shengxiang Yang,et al.  A Steady-State and Generational Evolutionary Algorithm for Dynamic Multiobjective Optimization , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[12]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Investigating the Normalization Procedure of NSGA-III , 2019, EMO.

[13]  Ruhul A. Sarker,et al.  Weighted pointwise prediction method for dynamic multiobjective optimization , 2021, Inf. Sci..

[14]  Ashish Bhaskar,et al.  A self-adaptive evolutionary algorithm for dynamic vehicle routing problems with traffic congestion , 2019, Swarm Evol. Comput..

[15]  X. Yao,et al.  Benchmark Problems for CEC2018 Competition on Dynamic Multiobjective Optimisation , 2018 .

[16]  Shengxiang Yang,et al.  The effect of diversity maintenance on prediction in dynamic multi-objective optimization , 2017, Appl. Soft Comput..

[17]  Shengxiang Yang,et al.  Evolutionary dynamic optimization: A survey of the state of the art , 2012, Swarm Evol. Comput..

[18]  Daryl Essam,et al.  A New Prediction Approach for Dynamic Multiobjective Optimization , 2019, 2019 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC).