Framework for Many-Objective Test Problems with Both Simple and Complicated Pareto-Set Shapes
Test problems have played a fundamental role in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the existing Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization (EMO) algorithms. A range of test problems exist which have enabled the research community to understand how the performance of EMO algorithms is affected by the geometrical shape of the Pareto front (PF), i.e., PF being convex, concave or mixed. However, the shapes of the Pareto Set (PS) of most of these test problems are rather simple (linear or quadratic), even though the real-world engineering problems are expected to have complicated PS shapes. The state-of-the-art in many-objective optimization problems (those involving four or more objectives) is rather worse. There is a dearth of test problems (even those with simple PS shapes) and the algorithms that can handle such problems. This paper proposes a framework for continuous many-objective test problems with arbitrarily prescribed PS shapes. The behavior of two popular EMO algorithms namely NSGAII and MOEA/D has also been studied for a sample of the proposed test problems. It is hoped that this paper will promote an integrated investigation of EMO algorithms for their scalability with objectives and their ability to handle complicated PS shapes with varying nature of the PF.
KeywordsEvolutionary Many-objective Optimization Pareto-set shapes
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 5.Deb, K., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Zitzler, E.: Scalable Test Problems for Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization. In: Abraham, A., Jain, R., Goldberg, R. (eds.) Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization: Theoretical Advances and Applications, pp. 105–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Kasprzak, E., Lewis, K.: An approach to facilitate decision trade-offs in pareto solution sets. Journal of Engineering Valuation and Cost Analysis 3, 173–187 (2000)Google Scholar
- 9.Okabe, T., Jin, Y., Olhofer, M., Sendhoff, B.: On test functions for evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In: Yao, X., Burke, E.K., Lozano, J.A., Smith, J., Merelo-Guervós, J.J., Bullinaria, J.A., Rowe, J.E., Tiňo, P., Kabán, A., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) PPSN 2004. LNCS, vol. 3242, pp. 792–802. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Deb, K., Sinha, A., Kukkonen, S.: Multi-objective test problems, linkages, and evolutionary methodologies. In: Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), pp. 1141–1148 (2006)Google Scholar
- 12.Li, H., Zhang, Q.: A multiobjective differential evolution based on decomposition for multiobjective optimization with variable linkages. In: Runarsson, T.P., Beyer, H.-G., Burke, E.K., Merelo-Guervós, J.J., Whitley, L.D., Yao, X. (eds.) PPSN 2006. LNCS, vol. 4193, pp. 583–592. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Ishibuchi, H., Hitotsuyanagi, Y., Tsukamoto, N., Nojima, Y.: Many-objective test problems to visually examine the behavior of multiobjective evolution in a decision space. In: Schaefer, R., Cotta, C., Kołodziej, J., Rudolph, G. (eds.) PPSN XI. LNCS, vol. 6239, pp. 91–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
- 17.Hughes, E.: Evolutionary many-objective optimisation: many once or one many? In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 1, pp. 222–227. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
- 20.Purshouse, R.C., Fleming, P.J.: Evolutionary many-objective optimization: An exploratory analysis. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 2066–2073 (2003)Google Scholar
- 21.Ishibuchi, H., Tsukamoto, N., Nojima, Y.: Evolutionary many-objective optimization: A short review. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 2424–2431 (2008)Google Scholar
- 24.Veldhuizen, D.A.V., Lamont, G.B.: Multiobjective evolutionary algorithm research: A history and analysis. Technical Report TR-98-03, 1998, Dept. Elec. Comput. Eng., Graduate School of Eng., Air Force Inst. Technol., Wright-Patterson, AFB, OH (1998)Google Scholar