Anne Auger
ABSTRACT
The hypervolume indicator is a set measure used in evolutionary multiobjective optimization to evaluate the performance of search algorithms and to guide the search. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms using the hypervolume indicator transform multiobjective problems into single objective ones by searching for a finite set of solutions maximizing the corresponding hypervolume indicator. In this paper, we theoretically investigate how those optimal μ--distributions-finite sets of μ solutions maximizing the hypervolume indicator-are spread over the Pareto front of biobjective problems. This problem is of high importance for practical applications as these sets characterize the preferences that the hypervolume indicator encodes, i.e., which types of Pareto set approximations are favored.
In particular, we tackle the question whether the hypervolume indicator is biased towards certain regions. For linear fronts we prove that the distribution is uniform with constant distance between two consecutive points. For general fronts where it is presumably impossible to characterize exactly the distribution, we derive a limit result when the number of points grows to infinity proving that the empirical density of points converges to a density proportional to the square root of the negative of the derivative of the front. Our analyses show that it is not the shape of the Pareto front but only its slope that determines how the points that maximize the hypervolume indicator are distributed. Experimental results illustrate that the limit density is a good approximation of the empirical density for small μ. Furthermore, we analyze the issue of where to place the reference point of the indicator such that the extremes of the front can be found if the hypervolume indicator is optimized. We derive an explicit lower bound (possibly infinite) ensuring the presence of the extremes in the optimal distribution. This result contradicts the common belief that the reference point has to be chosen close to the nadir point: for certain types of fronts, we show that no finite reference point allows to have the extremes in the optimal μ-distribution.
- J. Bader and E. Zitzler. HypE: Fast Hypervolume-Based Multiobjective Search Using Monte Carlo Sampling. TIK Report 286, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory, ETH Zurich, Nov. 2008.Google Scholar
- N. Beume, C. M. Fonseca, M. Lopez-Ibanez, L. Paquete, and J. Vahrenhold. On the Complexity of Computing the Hypervolume Indicator. Technical Report CI-235/07, University of Dortmund, Dec. 2007.Google Scholar
- N. Beume, B. Naujoks, and M. Emmerich. SMS-EMOA:Multiobjective selection based on dominated hypervolume. European Journal on Operational Research, 181:1653--1669, 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Branke, K. Deb, H. Dierolf, and M. Osswald. Finding Knees in Multi-objective Optimization. In Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN VIII), pages 722--731. Springer, 2004.Google Scholar
- I. Das. On Characterizing the ''Knee'' of the Pareto Curve Based on Normal-Boundary Intersection. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization,18(2-3):107--115, 1999.Google Scholar
- K. Deb. Current Trends in Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization. International Journal for Simulation and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, 1:1--8, 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Deb, M. Mohan, andS. Mishra. Evaluatingthe ε-Domination Based Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm for a Quick Computation of Pareto-Optimal Solutions. Evolutionary Computation, 13(4):501--525, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Deb, L. Thiele, M. Laumanns, and E. Zitzler. Scalable Test Problems for Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization. In A. Abraham, R. Jain, and R. Goldberg, editors, Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization: Theoretical Advances and Applications, chapter 6, pages 105--145. Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
- M. Emmerich, N. Beume, andB. Naujoks. An EMO Algorithm Using the Hypervolume Measure as Selection Criterion. In Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO 2005), pages 62--76. Springer, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Emmerich, A. Deutz, andN. Beume. Gradient-Based/Evolutionary Relay Hybrid for Computing Pareto Front Approximations Maximizing the S-Metric. In Hybrid Metaheuristics, pages 140--156. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Fleischer. The measure of Pareto optima. Applications to multi-objective metaheuristics. In Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO 2003), pages 519--533. Springer, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Hansen and S. Kern. Evaluating the CMA Evolution Strategy on Multimodal Test Functions. In X. Y. et al., editor, Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN VIII), volume 3242 of LNCS, pages 282--291, Berlin, Germany, 2004. Springer.Google Scholar
- E. J. Hughes. Evolutionary Many-Objective Optimisation:Many once or one many?In Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2005), pages 222--227. IEEE Press, 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Igel, N. Hansen, and S. Roth. Covariance Matrix Adaptation for Multi-objective Optimization. Evolutionary Computation, 15(1):1--28, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Knowles. ParEGO: A Hybrid Algorithm With On-Line Landscape Approximation for Expensive Multiobjective Optimization Problems. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 10(1):50--66, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Knowles and D. Corne. Properties of an Adaptive Archiving Algorithm for Storing Nondominated Vectors. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 7(2):100--116, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. D. Knowles, D. W. Corne, and M. Fleischer. Bounded Archiving using the Lebesgue Measure. In Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2003, pages 2490--2497. IEEE Press, 2006.Google Scholar
- G. Lizarraga-Lizarraga, A. Hernandez-Aguirre, and S. Botello-Rionda. G-Metric:an M-ary quality indicator for the evaluation of non-dominated sets. In Genetic And Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 2008), pages 665--672. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. C. Purshouse. On the Evolutionary Optimisation of Many Objectives. PhD thesis, The University of Sheffeld, 2003.Google Scholar
- R. C. Purshouse and P. J. Fleming. An Adaptive Divide-and-Conquer Methodology for Evolutionary Multi-criterion Optimisation. In Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO 2003), pages 133--147. Springer, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Wagner, N. Beume, and B. Naujoks. Pareto-, Aggregation-, and Indicator-based Methods in Many-objective Optimization. In Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO 2007), pages 742--756. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Zeidler. Applied Functional Analysis: Main Principles and Their Applications. Applied Mathematical Sciences 109. Springer, 1995.Google Scholar
- E. Zitzler, D. Brockhoff, and L. Thiele. The Hypervolume Indicator Revisited:On the Design of Pareto-compliant Indicators Via Weighted Integration. In Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO 2007), pages 862--876. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Zitzler, K. Deb, and L. Thiele. Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results. Evolutionary Computation, 8(2):173--195, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Zitzler and S. Künzli. Indicator-Based Selection in Multiobjective Search. In Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN VIII), pages 832--842. Springer, 2004.Google Scholar
- E. Zitzler and L. Thiele. An Evolutionary Approach for Multiobjective Optimization: The Strength Pareto Approach. Technical Report 43, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory, ETH Zurich, May 1998.Google Scholar
- E. Zitzler and L. Thiele. Multiobjective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms -A Comparative Case Study. In Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN V), pages 292--301, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Zitzler, L. Thiele, M. Laumanns, C. M. Fonseca, and V. Grunert da Fonseca. Performance Assessment of Multiobjective Optimizers:An Analysis and Review. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 7(2):117--132, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Theory of the hypervolume indicator: optimal μ-distributions and the choice of the reference point
Recommendations
The Hypervolume Indicator: Computational Problems and Algorithms
Invited TutorialThe hypervolume indicator is one of the most used set-quality indicators for the assessment of stochastic multiobjective optimizers, as well as for selection in evolutionary multiobjective optimization algorithms. Its theoretical properties justify its ...
Hypervolume-based multiobjective optimization: Theoretical foundations and practical implications
In recent years, indicator-based evolutionary algorithms, allowing to implicitly incorporate user preferences into the search, have become widely used in practice to solve multiobjective optimization problems. When using this type of methods, the ...
Optimal µ-distributions for the hypervolume indicator for problems with linear bi-objective fronts: exact and exhaustive results
SEAL'10: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Simulated evolution and learningTo simultaneously optimize multiple objective functions, several evolutionary multiobjective optimization (EMO) algorithms have been proposed. Nowadays, often set quality indicators are used when comparing the performance of those algorithms or when ...
Comments