A comparative study of the effect of parameter scalability in multi-objective metaheuristics

Some real-world optimization problems have hundreds or even thousands of decision variables. However, the effect that the scalability of parameters has in modern multi-objective metaheuristic algorithms has not been properly studied (the current benchmarks are normally adopted with ten to thirty decision variables). In this paper, we adopt a benchmark of parameter-wise scalable problems (the ZDT test problems) and analyze the behavior of six multi-objective metaheuristics on these test problems when using a number of decision variables that goes from 8 up to 2048. The computational effort required by each algorithm in order to reach the true Pareto front is also analyzed. Our study concludes that a particle swarm algorithm provides the best overall performance, although it has difficulties in multifrontal problems.

[1]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Scalable Test Problems for Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization , 2005, Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization.

[2]  R. K. Ursem.  Multi-objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms , 2009 .

[3]  Christian Blum,et al.  Metaheuristics in combinatorial optimization: Overview and conceptual comparison , 2003, CSUR.

[4]  Antonio J. Nebro,et al.  A Cellular Genetic Algorithm for Multiobjective Optimization , 2006 .

[5]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[6]  Francisco Luna,et al.  jMetal: a Java Framework for Developing Multi-Objective Optimization Metaheuristics , 2006 .

[7]  J. Periaux,et al.  Evolutionary Methods for Design, Optimization and Control with Applications to Industrial Problems , 2001 .

[8]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems (Genetic and Evolutionary Computation) , 2006 .

[9]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  MOEA/D: A Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[10]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  SPEA2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm , 2001 .

[11]  Carlos A. Coello Coello,et al.  Improving PSO-Based Multi-objective Optimization Using Crowding, Mutation and epsilon-Dominance , 2005, EMO.

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

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

[14]  F. Glover,et al.  Handbook of Metaheuristics , 2019, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science.

[15]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Non-linear Dimensionality Reduction Procedures for Certain Large-Dimensional Multi-objective Optimization Problems: Employing Correntropy and a Novel Maximum Variance Unfolding , 2007, EMO.

[16]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[17]  C. Coello,et al.  Improving PSO-based Multi-Objective Optimization using Crowding , Mutation and �-Dominance , 2005 .

[18]  Martin J. Oates,et al.  PESA-II: region-based selection in evolutionary multiobjective optimization , 2001 .

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

[20]  R. Lyndon While,et al.  A Scalable Multi-objective Test Problem Toolkit , 2005, EMO.

[21]  Xin Yao,et al.  Performance Scaling of Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithms , 2003, EMO.

[22]  Tadahiko Murata,et al.  Cellular Genetic Algorithm for Multi-Objective Optimization , 2001 .

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

[24]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems , 2002, Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation.