Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the choice of neighborhood sampling to build effective search operators for constrained MOPs

  • Regular Research Paper
  • Published:
Memetic Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For the treatment of multi-objective optimization problems (MOPs) sto-chas-tic search algorithms such as multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) are very popular due to their global set based approach. Multi-objective stochastic local search (MOSLS) represents a powerful tool within MOEAs which is crucial for the guidance of the populations’ individuals. The success of variation operators in evolutionary algorithms is related to survival chances of their new generated individuals. Though individual feasibility determines directly the survival chances, in MOEAs, regular variation operators do not consider any information from the constraints. Recently, an initial study has been done for unconstrained MOPs revealing that a pressure both toward and along the Pareto front is inherent in MOSLS by which the behavior of many MOEAs in different stages of the search could be explained to a certain extent. In the present paper we go further to study the implications of MOSLS for the constrained case and propose the construction of subspace based movements during the search; we identify how neighborhood samples have to be chosen such that a movement along the Pareto front is achieved, for points near the Pareto set of a given constrained MOP. Next, we present two applications of these insights, namely (i) to explore the behavior of a population based algorithm that is merely using this proposed neighborhood sampling and (ii) to build a specialized mutation operator for effectively explore search regions on constrained MOPs, where the constraints are given explicitly. Numerical results indicate that these ideas yield competitive results in most cases. We conjecture that these insights are valuable for the future design of specialized search operators for memetic algorithms dealing with constrained multi-objective search spaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The codes for MTS and GDE were taken from PlatEMO, which is an open source and free MATLAB-based platform for evolutionary multi-objective optimization. PlatEMO includes more than 50 multi-objective evolutionary algorithms and more than 100 multi-objective test problems, along with several widely used performance indicators. PlatEMO was proposed on [26].

References

  1. Alvarado S, Lara A, Sosa V, Schütze O (2016) An effective mutation operator to deal with multi-objective constrained problems: Spm. In: 2016 13th international conference on electrical engineering, computing science and automatic control (CCE), IEEE, pp 1–6

  2. Beume N, Naujoks B, Emmerich M (2007) SMS-EMOA: multiobjective selection based on dominated hypervolume. Eur J Oper Res 181(3):1653–1669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.08.008

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown M, Smith RE (2005) Directed multi-objective optimization. Int J Comput Syst Signals 6(1):3–17

    Google Scholar 

  4. Coello CAC, Van Veldhuizen DA, Lamont GB (2002) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems, vol 242. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Deb K, Deb D (2014) Analysing mutation schemes for real-parameter genetic algorithms. Int J Artif Intell Soft Comput 4(1):1–28

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Deb K, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Zitzler E (2002) Scalable multi-objective optimization test problems. In: Proceedings of the congress on evolutionary computation (CEC-2002), (Honolulu, USA), pp 825–830

  9. Hillermeier C (2001) Nonlinear multiobjective optimization: a generalized homotopy approach, vol 135. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Karush W (1939) Minima of functions of several variables with inequalities as side constraints. Ph.D. thesis, Masters thesis, Department of Mathematics, University of Chicago

  11. Kuhn HW, Tucker AW (1951) Nonlinear programming. In: Proceedings of the second Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, pp 481–492. University of California Press, Berkeley, California

  12. Kukkonen S, Lampinen J (2005) Gde3: The third evolution step of generalized differential evolution. In: The 2005 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, 2005, vol 1. IEEE, pp 443–450

  13. Li J, Tan Y (2015) Orienting mutation based fireworks algorithm. In: IEEE Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC) 2015, IEEE, pp 1265–1271

  14. Martin B, Goldsztejn A, Granvilliers L, Jermann C (2013) Certified parallelotope continuation for one-manifolds. SIAM J Numer Anal 51(6):3373–3401

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Martin B, Goldsztejn A, Granvilliers L, Jermann C (2014) On continuation methods for non-linear bi-objective optimization: towards a certified interval-based approach. J Glob Optim 64(1):1–14

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Michalewicz Z, Schoenauer M (1996) Evolutionary algorithms for constrained parameter optimization problems. Evol Comput 4(1):1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nocedal J, Wright SJ (1999) Numerical optimization 2nd. Springer Series in Operations Research, Springer, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Recchioni MC (2003) A path following method for box-constrained multiobjective optimization with applications to goal programming problems. Math Methods Oper Res 58:69–85

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Rozenberg G, Bäck T, Kok JN (eds) (2012) Handbook of natural computing. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92910-9

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Rudolph G, Schütze O, Grimme C, Domínguez-Medina C, Trautmann H (2016) Optimal averaged hausdorff archives for bi-objective problems: theoretical and numerical results. Comput Optim Appl 64(2):589–618

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Schütze O, Esquivel X, Lara A, Coello Coello CA (2012) Using the averaged Hausdorff distance as a performance measure in evolutionary multiobjective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 16(4):504–522. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2011.2161872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schütze O, Laumanns M, Tantar E, Coello CAC, Talbi EG (2010) Computing gap free Pareto front approximations with stochastic search algorithms. Evol Comput 18(1):65–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schütze O, Martín A, Lara A, Alvarado S, Salinas E, Coello Coello CA (2015) The directed search method for multi-objective memetic algorithms. Comput Optim Appl 63:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-015-9774-0

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Shalamov V, Filchenkov A, Chivilikhin D (2016) Small-moves based mutation for pick-up and delivery problem. In: Proceedings of the 2016 on genetic and evolutionary computation conference companion, ACM, pp 1027–1030

  25. Teytaud F, Teytaud O (2016) Qr mutations improve many evolution strategies: A lot on highly multimodal problems. In: Proceedings of the 2016 on genetic and evolutionary computation conference companion, ACM, pp 35–36

  26. Tian Y, Cheng R, Zhang X, Jin Y (2017) Platemo: a matlab platform for evolutionary multi-objective optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.00879

  27. Zhang Q, Li H (2007) MOEA/D: a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 11(6):712–731. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2007.892759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zitzler E, Deb K, Thiele L (2000) Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evol Comput 8(2):173–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zitzler E, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Fonseca CM, Da Fonseca VG (2003) Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(2):117–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

L. Uribe acknowledges support from CONACyT through a scholarship to persue her PhD studies at ESFM-IPN. A. Sosa and S. Alvarado acknowledge support from CONACyT through a scholarship to persue their PhD studies at the Computer Science Department of CINVESTAV-IPN.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ESFM, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City, Mexico

    Adriana Lara & Lourdes Uribe

  2. Computer Science Department, Cinvestav-IPN, Mexico City, Mexico

    Sergio Alvarado, Víctor Adrián Sosa & Oliver Schütze

  3. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA

    Honggang Wang

Authors
  1. Adriana Lara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lourdes Uribe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sergio Alvarado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Víctor Adrián Sosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Honggang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Oliver Schütze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adriana Lara.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A. Lara acknowledges support from Project SIP20181450.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lara, A., Uribe, L., Alvarado, S. et al. On the choice of neighborhood sampling to build effective search operators for constrained MOPs. Memetic Comp. 11, 155–173 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12293-018-0273-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12293-018-0273-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation