1 / 17

Evolutionary multi-objective algorithm design issues

Evolutionary multi-objective algorithm design issues. Karthik Sindhya , PhD. Postdoctoral Researcher Industrial Optimization Group Department of Mathematical Information Technology Karthik.sindhya@jyu.fi http://users.jyu.fi/~kasindhy/. Objectives The objectives of this lecture are to:

maik
Download Presentation

Evolutionary multi-objective algorithm design issues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Evolutionary multi-objective algorithm design issues KarthikSindhya, PhD Postdoctoral Researcher Industrial Optimization Group Department of Mathematical Information Technology Karthik.sindhya@jyu.fi http://users.jyu.fi/~kasindhy/

  2. Objectives The objectives of this lecture are to: • Address the design issues of evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithms • Fitness assignment • Diversity preservation • Elitism • Explore ways to handle Constraints

  3. References • K. Deb. Multi-Objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms. Wiley, Chichester, 2001. • E. Zitzler, M. Laumanns, S. Bleuler. A Tutorial on Evolutionary MultiobjectiveOptimization, in Metaheuristicsfor MultiobjectiveOptimisation, 3-38, Springer-Verlag, 2003.

  4. Algorithm design issues • The approximation of the Pareto front is itself multi-objective. • Convergence: Compute solutions as close as possible to Pareto front quickly. • Diversity: Maximize the diversity of the Pareto solutions. • It is impossible to describe • What a good approximation can be for a Pareto optimal front. • Proximity to the Pareto optimal front.

  5. Fitnessassignment • Unlike single objective, multiple objectives exists. • Fitness assignment and selection go hand in hand. • Fitness assignment can be classified in to following categories: • Scalarization based • E.g. Weighted sum, MOEA/D • Objective based • VEGA • Dominance based • NSGA-II

  6. Fitnessassignment • Scalarization based (Aggregation based): • Aggregate the objective functions to form a single objective. • Vary the parameters in the single objective function to generate multiple Pareto optimal solutions. Parameters - weights w1f1(x)+ w2f2(x),…, wkfk Or, max(wi(fi- zi )) • f1(x), f2(x),…, fk(x) F

  7. Fitnessassignment • Advantages – Weighted sum • Easy to understand and implement. • Fitness assignment is computationally efficient. • If time available is short can be used to quickly provide a Pareto optimal solution. • Disadvantages - Weighted sum • Non-convex Pareto optimal fronts cannot be handled.

  8. Fitnessassignment • Objective based • Switch between objectives in the selection phase. • Every time an individual is chosen for reproduction, a different objective decides. • E.g. Vector evaluated genetic algorithm (VEGA) proposed by David Schaffer. • First implementation of an evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithm. • Subpopulations are created and each subpopulation is evaluated with a different objective. Mating pool Population New population f1 Selection Reproduction f2 f3

  9. Fitnessassignment • Advantages • Simple idea and easy to implement. • Simple single objective genetic algorithm can be easily extended to handle multi-objective optimization problems. • Has tendency to produce solutions near the individual best for every objective. • An advantage when this property is desirable. • Disadvantages • Each solution is evaluated only with respect to one objective. • In multi-objective optimization algorithm all solutions are important. • Individuals may be stuck at local optima of individual objectives.

  10. Fitnessassignment • Dominance based • Pareto dominance based fitness ranking proposed by Goldberg in 1989. • Different ways • Dominance rank: Number of individuals by which an individual is dominated. • E.g. MOGA, SPEA2 • Dominance depth: The fitness is based on the front an individual belongs. • NSGA-II • Dominance count: Number of individuals dominated by an individual. • SPEA2

  11. Fitnessassignment 0 4 1 1 1 1 0 2 4 0 2 0 Dominance rank Dominance count 3 2 1 Dominance depth

  12. Diversitypreservation • Chance of an individual being selected • Increases: Low number of solutions in its neighborhood. • Decreases: High number of solutions in its neighborhood. • There are at least three types: • Kernel methods • Nearest neighbor • Histogram

  13. Diversitypreservation • Kernel methods: • Sum of f values, where f is a function of distance. • E.g. NSGA • Nearest neighbor • The perimeter of the cuboid formed by the nearest neighbors as the vertices. • E.g. NSGA-II f f f i-1 i i+1

  14. Diversitypreservation • Histogram • Number of elements in a hyperbox. • E.g. PAES

  15. Elitism • Elitism is needed to preserve the promising solutions No archive strategy Old population Offspring Old population Offspring New Archive New population New population Archive

  16. Constraint handling • Penalty function approach • For every solution, calculate the overall constraint violation, OCV (sum of Constraint violations). • Fm(xi) = fm(xi) + OCV • Solution - (xi), fm(xi)- mth objective value for xi, , Fm(xi) – Overall mthobjective value for xi . • OCV is added to each of the objective function values. • Use constraints as additional objectives • Usually used when feasible search space is very narrow.

  17. Constraint handling • Deb’s constraint domination strategy • A solution xiconstraint dominates a solution xj, if any is true: • xi is feasible and xj is not. • xi and xj are both infeasible, but xi has a smaller constraint violation. • xi and xj are feasible and xi dominates xj. • Advantages: • Penalty less approach. • Easy to implement and clearly distinguishes good from bad solutions. • Can handle, if population has only infeasible solutions. • Disadvantages: • Problem to maintain diversity of solutions. • Slightly infeasible and near optimal solutions are preferred over feasible solutions far from optima.

More Related