12-MultiobjectiveEAs
Multiobjective Evolutionary
Algorithms
- Multiobjective optimization problems (MOP)
- EC approaches
- Evolutionary spaces
- Preserving diversity
Multi-Objective Problems
(MOPs)
- Wide range of problems can be categorized by the presence of a
number of n possibly conflicting objectives:
- buying a car: speed vs. price vs. reliability
- engineering design: lightness vs. strength
- Two problems:
- finding set of good solutions
- choice of best for particular application
An example: Buying a car


Two spaces
Decision (variable) space
Objective space
12-MultiobjectiveEAs/ch12-Multiobjective_Evolutionary_Algorithms-20142.jpg
Comparing solutions
Optimization task:Minimize both f1 and f2
Then:a is better than ba is better than ca is worse than ea and d are
incomparable
Objective space
12-MultiobjectiveEAs/ch12-Multiobjective_Evolutionary_Algorithms-20143.jpg
Dominance relation
- Solution x dominates solution y, (x y), if:
- x is better than y in at least one objective,
- x is not worse than y in all other objectives
12-MultiobjectiveEAs/ch12-Multiobjective_Evolutionary_Algorithms-20144.png
12-MultiobjectiveEAs/ch12-Multiobjective_Evolutionary_Algorithms-20145.jpg
solutions dominated by x
solutions dominating x
Pareto optimality
Solution x is non-dominated among a set of solutions Q if no solution
from Q dominates x
A set of non-dominated solutions from the entire feasible solution
space is the Pareto-optimal set , its members Pareto-optimal
solutions
Pareto-optimal front : an image of the Pareto-optimal set in the
objective space
Illustration of the concepts
Illustration of the concepts
A practical example: The beam design problem
Minimize weight and deflection of a beam (Deb, 2001) :
12-MultiobjectiveEAs/ch12-Multiobjective_Evolutionary_Algorithms-20146.jpg
Formal definition
Minimize
m inimize
subject to
where
(beam weight)
(beam deflection)
(maximum stress)
Feasible solutions
Decision (variable) space
12-MultiobjectiveEAs/ch12-Multiobjective_Evolutionary_Algorithms-20147.jpg
12-MultiobjectiveEAs/ch12-Multiobjective_Evolutionary_Algorithms-20148.jpg
Goal: Finding non-dominated solutions
12-MultiobjectiveEAs/ch12-Multiobjective_Evolutionary_Algorithms-20149.jpg
12-MultiobjectiveEAs/ch12-Multiobjective_Evolutionary_Algorithms-201410.jpg
Goal of multiobjective
optimizers
- Find a set of non-dominated solutions ( approximation set )
following the criteria of:
- convergence (as close as possible to the Pareto-optimal front),
- diversity (spread, distribution)
12-MultiobjectiveEAs/ch12-Multiobjective_Evolutionary_Algorithms-201411.png
Single- vs. multiobjective
optimization
Number of objectives |
one |
more than one |
Spaces |
single |
two: decision (variable) space,
objective space |
Comparison of candidate solutions |
x is better than y |
x dominates y |
Result |
one (or several equally good)
solution(s) |
Pareto-optimal set |
Algorithm goals |
convergence |
convergence, diversity |
Two approaches to multiobjective
optimization
Preference-based: traditional, using single objective optimization
methods
Ideal: possible with novel multiobjective optimization
techniques,enabling better insight into the problem
Preference-based approach
Given a multiobjective optimization problem,
use higher-level information on importance of objectives
to transform the problem into a singleobjective one,
and then solve it with a single objective optimization method
to obtain a particular trade-off solution.
An example approach:
Weighted-sum
Modified problem:
H yperplanes in the objective space !
12-MultiobjectiveEAs/ch12-Multiobjective_Evolutionary_Algorithms-201412.jpg
Ideal approach
Given a multiobjective optimization problem,
solve it with a multiobjective optimization method
to find multiple trade-off solutions,
and then use higher-level information
to obtain a particular trade-off solution.
Multiobjective optimization with
evolutionary algorithms
Population-based method
Can return a set of trade-off solutions (approximation set) in a
single run
Allows for the ideal approach to multiobjective optimization
EC approach: Advantages
Population-based nature of search means you can
simultaneously search for set of points approximating Pareto
front
Don’t have to make guesses about which combinations of weights might
be useful
Makes no assumptions about shape of Pareto front - can be convex /
discontinuous etc.
EC approach: Requirements
- Way of assigning fitness,
- usually based on dominance
- Preservation of diverse set of points
- similarities to multi-modal problems
- Remembering all the non-dominated points you have seen
- usually using elitism or an archive
EC approach: Fitness
Assignment
- Could use aggregating approach and change weights during evolution
- Different parts of population use different criteria
- e.g. VEGA, but no guarantee of diversity
- Dominance
- ranking or depth based
- fitness related to whole population
EC approach: Diversity
maintenance
- Usually done by niching techniques such as:
- fitness sharing
- adding amount to fitness based on inverse distance to nearest
neighbour (minimisation)
- (adaptively) dividing search space into boxes and counting
occupancy
- All rely on some distance metric in genotype / phenotype space
EC approach: Remembering Good
Points
- Could just use elitist algorithm
- e.g. ( + ) replacement
- Common to maintain an archive of non-dominated points
- some algorithms use this as second population that can be in
recombination etc.
- others divide archive into regions too, e.g. PAES
MOP - summary
MO problems occur very frequently
EAs are very good in solving MO problems
MOEAs are one of the most successful EC subareas