In spite of the recent quick growth of the Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization (EMO) research field, there has been few trials to adapt the general variation operators to the particular context of the quest for the Pareto-optimal set. The only exceptions are some mating restrictions that take in account the distance between the potential mates - but contradictory conclusions have been reported. This paper introduces a particular mating restriction for Evolutionary Multi-objective Algorithms, based on the Pareto dominance relation: the partner of a non-dominated individual will be preferably chosen among the individuals of the population that it dominates. Coupled with the BLX crossover operator, two different ways of generating offspring are proposed. This recombination scheme is validated within the well-known NSGA-II framework on three bi-objective benchmark problems and one real-world bi-objective constrained optimization problem. An acceleration of the progress of the population toward the Pareto set is observed on all problems.
Scalarizing functions have been widely used to convert a multiobjective optimization problem into a single objective optimization problem. However, their use in solving (computationally) expensive multi- and many-objective optimization problems in Bayesian multiobjective optimization is scarce. Scalarizing functions can play a crucial role on the quality and number of evaluations required when doing the optimization. In this article, we study and review 15 different scalarizing functions in the framework of Bayesian multiobjective optimization and build Gaussian process models (as surrogates, metamodels or emulators) on them. We use expected improvement as infill criterion (or acquisition function) to update the models. In particular, we compare different scalarizing functions and analyze their performance on several benchmark problems with different number of objectives to be optimized. The review and experiments on different functions provide useful insights when using and selecting a scalarizing function when using a Bayesian multiobjective optimization method.
Highly non-linear machine learning algorithms have the capacity to handle large, complex datasets. However, the predictive performance of a model usually critically depends on the choice of multiple hyperparameters. Optimizing these (often) constitutes an expensive black-box problem. Model-based optimization is one state-of-the-art method to address this problem. Furthermore, resulting models often lack interpretability, as models usually contain many active features with non-linear effects and higher-order interactions. One model-agnostic way to enhance interpretability is to enforce sparse solutions through feature selection. It is in many applications desirable to forego a small drop in performance for a substantial gain in sparseness, leading to a natural treatment of feature selection as a multi-objective optimization task. Despite the practical relevance of both hyperparameter optimization and feature selection, they are often carried out separately from each other, which is neither efficient, nor does it take possible interactions between hyperparameters and selected features into account. We present, discuss and compare two algorithmically different approaches for joint and multi-objective hyperparameter optimization and feature selection: The first uses multi-objective model-based optimization to tune a feature filter ensemble. The second is an evolutionary NSGA-II-based wrapper-approach to feature selection which incorporates specialized sampling, mutation and recombination operators for the joint decision space of included features and hyperparameter settings. We compare and discuss the approaches on a variety of benchmark tasks. While model-based optimization needs fewer objective evaluations to achieve good performance, it incurs significant overhead compared to the NSGA-II-based approach. The preferred choice depends on the cost of training the ML model on the given data.
This paper deals with these problems by using a new decomposition-based algorithm called: "Fractal geometric decomposition base algorithm" (FDA). It is a deterministic metaheuristic developed to solve large-scale continuous optimization problems . It can be noticed, that we call large scale problems those having the dimension greater than 1000. In this research, we are interested in using FDA to deal with MOPs because in the literature decomposition based algorithms have been with more less success applied to solve these problems, their main problem is related to their complexity. In this work, the goal is to deal with this complexity problem by keeping the same level of efficiency. FDA is based on "divide-and-conquer" paradigm where the sub-regions are hyperspheres rather than hypercubes on classical approaches. In order to identify the Pareto optimal solutions, we propose to extend FDA using the scalarization approach. We called the proposed algorithm Mo-FDA.
This paper demonstrates that simple yet important characteristics of coevolution can occur in evolutionary algorithms when only a few conditions are met. We find that interaction-based fitness measurements such as fitness (linear) ranking allow for a form of coevolutionary dynamics that is observed when 1) changes are made in what solutions are able to interact during the ranking process and 2) evolution takes place in a multi-objective environment. This research contributes to the study of simulated evolution in a at least two ways. First, it establishes a broader relationship between coevolution and multi-objective optimization than has been previously considered in the literature. Second, it demonstrates that the preconditions for coevolutionary behavior are weaker than previously thought. In particular, our model indicates that direct cooperation or competition between species is not required for coevolution to take place. Moreover, our experiments provide evidence that environmental perturbations can drive coevolutionary processes; a conclusion that mirrors arguments put forth in dual phase evolution theory. In the discussion, we briefly consider how our results may shed light onto this and other recent theories of evolution.