CMA-PAES: Pareto archived evolution strategy using covariance matrix adaptation for Multi-Objective Optimisation | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore
Subscribe
ADVANCED SEARCH
Conferences >2012 12th UK Workshop on Comp...

CMA-PAES: Pareto archived evolution strategy using covariance matrix adaptation for Multi-Objective Optimisation

PDF
Shahin Rostami; Alex Shenfield
All Authors

Abstract:

The quality of Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimisation (EMO) approximation sets can be measured by their proximity, diversity and pertinence. In this paper we introduce...Show More

Metadata

Abstract:

The quality of Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimisation (EMO) approximation sets can be measured by their proximity, diversity and pertinence. In this paper we introduce a modular and extensible Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm (MOEA) capable of converging to the Pareto-optimal front in a minimal number of function evaluations and producing a diverse approximation set. This algorithm, called the Covariance Matrix Adaptation Pareto Archived Evolution Strategy (CMA-PAES), is a form of (μ + λ) Evolution Strategy which uses an online archive of previously found Pareto-optimal solutions (maintained by a bounded Pareto-archiving scheme) as well as a population of solutions which are subjected to variation using Covariance Matrix Adaptation. The performance of CMA-PAES is compared to NSGA-II (currently considered the benchmark MOEA in the literature) on the ZDT test suite of bi-objective optimisation problems and the significance of the results are analysed using randomisation testing.
Published in: 2012 12th UK Workshop on Computational Intelligence (UKCI)
Date of Conference: 05-07 September 2012
Date Added to IEEE Xplore: 22 October 2012
ISBN Information:
Print ISSN: 2162-7657
DOI: 10.1109/UKCI.2012.6335782
Conference Location: Edinburgh, UK
References is not available for this document.
Contents

I. Introduction

The quality of Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimisation (EMO) candidate solution sets can be measured by their proximity, diversity and pertinence. Proximity is a measure of the distance between the approximation set and the true Paretooptimal front

This notion of “Pareto” optimality was originally proposed by Francis Edgeworth in 1881 [1] and was later developed by the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto in 1896 who used the concept in his studies of economic efficiency and income distribution [2].

whilst diversity is a measure of the distribution of solutions along that front in multi-objective space. An ideal multi-objective optimiser converges to solutions that are uniformly spread along the true Pareto-optimal front [3]. In real-world optimisation problems this approximation set must also be pertinent [4] (that is relevant to the preferences expressed by the Decision Maker (DM)). A good Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm (MOEA) satisfies these goals adequately, presenting the DM with an approximation set of diverse trade-off solutions within the search space of their specified Region Of Interest (ROI). These measures of performance have been illustrated in figure 1. Proximity, diversity, and pertinence characteristics in an approximation set for a bi-objective problem.

Select All
1.
F. Y. Edgeworth, Mathematical psychics: An essay on the application of mathematics to the moral sciences. CK Paul, 1881, no. 10.
Google Scholar
2.
C. Coello, "Theoretical and numerical Constraint-Handling techniques used with evolutionary algorithms: A survey of the state of the art," 2002.
Google Scholar
3.
K. Deb, "Multi-Objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms," 2001.
Google Scholar
4.
R. Purshouse and P. Fleming, "On the evolutionary optimization of many conflicting objectives," Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 770-784, 2007.
View Article
Google Scholar
5.
N. Hansen and A. Ostermeier, "Adapting arbitrary normal mutation distributions in evolution strategies: The covariance matrix adaptation," in Evolutionary Computation, 1996., Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on, 1996, pp. 312-317.
View Article
Google Scholar
6.
J. Knowles and D. Corne, "The pareto archived evolution strategy: a new baseline algorithm for pareto multiobjective optimisation." IEEE, 1999, pp. 98-105.
Google Scholar
7.
C. Darwin, "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life," New York: D. Appleton, 1859.
CrossRef Google Scholar
8.
G. Mendel, "Experiments in plant hybridization (1865)," in Read at the meetings of February 8th, and March 8th, 1865.
Google Scholar
9.
S. Wright, "The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution," in Proc of the 6th International Congress of Genetics, vol. 1, 1932, pp. 356-366.
Google Scholar
10.
J. H. Holland, Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press, 1975.
Google Scholar
11.
D. E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, 1st ed. Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1989.
Google Scholar
12.
I. Rechenberg, "Cybernetic solution path of an experimental Problem",(Royal aircraft establishment translation no. 1122, BF toms, trans.)," Farnsborough Hants: Ministery of Aviation, Royal Aircraft Establishment, 1965.
Google Scholar
13.
H. P. Schwefel, "Projekt MHD-Staustrahlrohr: experimentelle optimierung einer zweiphasenduse, teil i," Technischer Bericht 11.034/68, 35, AEG Forschungsinstitut, Berlin, Germany, Tech. Rep., 1968.
Google Scholar
14.
N. Hansen, S. D. MÃijller, and P. Koumoutsakos, "Reducing the time complexity of the derandomized evolution strategy with covariance matrix adaptation (CMA-ES)," Evolutionary Computation, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1-18, 2003.
View Article
Google Scholar
15.
A. Auger and N. Hansen, "A restart CMA evolution strategy with increasing population size," in Evolutionary Computation, 2005. The 2005 IEEE Congress on, vol. 2, 2005, pp. 1769-1776.
View Article
Google Scholar
16.
-, "Performance evaluation of an advanced local search evolutionary algorithm," in Evolutionary Computation, 2005. The 2005 IEEE Congress on, vol. 2, 2005, pp. 1777-1784.
View Article
Google Scholar
17.
W. Jakob, M. Gorges-Schleuter, and C. Blume, "Application of genetic algorithms to task planning and learning," Parallel problem solving from nature, vol. 2, pp. 291-300, 1992.
Google Scholar
18.
C. Coello, "A comprehensive survey of evolutionary-based multiobjective optimization techniques," Knowledge and Information systems, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 269-308, 1999.
CrossRef Google Scholar
19.
-, "Evolutionary multi-objective optimization: a historical view of the field," Computational Intelligence Magazine, IEEE, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 28-36, 2006.
View Article
Google Scholar
20.
J. Knowles and D. Corne, "Approximating the nondominated front using the pareto archived evolution strategy," Evolutionary computation, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 149-172, 2000.
View Article
Google Scholar
21.
D. Corne, J. Knowles, and M. Oates, "The pareto envelope-based selection algorithm for multiobjective optimization," in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature PPSN VI, 2000, pp. 839-848.
CrossRef Google Scholar
22.
K. Deb, S. Agrawal, A. Pratap, and T. Meyarivan, "A fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II," Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 1917, pp. 849-858, 2000.
CrossRef Google Scholar
23.
C. Igel, N. Hansen, and S. Roth, "Covariance matrix adaptation for multi-objective optimization," Evolutionary Computation, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1-28, 2007.
View Article
Google Scholar
24.
E. Zitzler and L. Thiele, An evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization: The strength pareto approach. Citeseer, 1998.
Google Scholar
25.
T. Voss, N. Hansen, and C. Igel, "Improved step size adaptation for the MO-CMA-ES," in Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, 2010, pp. 487-494.
CrossRef Google Scholar
26.
Q. Zhang and H. Li, "MOEA/D: a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition," Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 712-731, 2007.
View Article
Google Scholar
27.
P. A. N. Bosman and D. Thierens, "The balance between proximity and diversity in multiobjective evolutionary algorithms," Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 174-188, 2003.
View Article
Google Scholar
28.
K. A. De Jong, "Analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems," 1975.
Google Scholar
29.
K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan, "A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II," IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 182-197, 2002.
View Article
Google Scholar
30.
E. Zitzler, K. Deb, and L. Thiele, "Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical results," Evolutionary Computation, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 173-195, Jun. 2000.
View Article
Google Scholar

Contact IEEE to Subscribe
More Like This
Evolutionary Bilevel Optimization Based on Covariance Matrix Adaptation

IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation

Published: 2019

Covariance Matrix adaptation based on Opposition learning for multimodal optimization

2019 Chinese Control And Decision Conference (CCDC)

Published: 2019

Show More

References

References is not available for this document.

IEEE Account

Purchase Details

Profile Information

Need Help?

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.
© Copyright 2025 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.