arXiv:1612.06093v2 [] 18 Nov 2017

Transfer Learning based Dynamic Multiobjective
Optimization Algorithms
Min JIANG 1 , Zhongqiang HUANG 1 , Liming QIU 1 , Wenzhen HUANG 2 ,
Gary G. YEN 3, *
1 Department of Cognitive Science and Technology, Xiamen
University, China
2 Institute of Automation of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,
China
3 School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Oklahoma
State University, USA
* Corresponding authors: gyen@okstate.edu

Abstract
One of the major distinguishing features of the Dynamic Multiobjective Optimization Problems (DMOPs) is that optimization objectives will change over
time, thus tracking the varying Pareto-Optimal Front (POF) becomes a challenge. One of the promising solutions is reusing “experiences” to construct a
prediction model via statistical machine learning approaches. However, most
existing methods neglect the non-independent and identically distributed nature of data to construct the prediction model. In this paper, we propose an
algorithmic framework, called Tr-DMOEA, which integrates transfer learning
and population-based evolutionary algorithms (EAs) to solve the DMOPs.
This approach exploits the transfer learning technique as a tool to generate
an effective initial population pool via reusing past experience to speed up
the evolutionary process, and at the same time any population based multiobjective algorithms can benefit from this integration without any extensive
modifications. To verify this idea, we incorporate the proposed approach
into the development of three well-known evolutionary algorithms, nondominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II), multiojective particle swarm
1

optimization (MOPSO), and the regularity model-based multiobjective estimation of distribution algorithm (RM-MEDA). We employ twelve benchmark
functions to test these algorithms as well as compare them with some chosen
state-of-the-art designs. The experimental results confirm the effectiveness
of the proposed design for DMOPs.
Keywords: Dynamic multi-objective optimization, Domain adaption,
Dimensionality reduction, Transfer learning, Evolutionary Algorithm.

1

Introduction

One of the essential characteristics of Dynamic Multiobjective Optimization
Problems (DMOPs) [18] is that objective functions will vary over time or
under different environments. This underlying problem characteristic bears
significant implications for real-world applications [12]. A good example is
dynamic portfolio optimization problem, which is common in deregulated
electricity markets in which the operations of different power stations are
controlled and coordinated to maximize profit while minimizing risk. There
are various uncertainties in a deregulated electricity market, including spot
market prices, load obligations, and strip/option prices [54]. The values for
some of these factors change over time, and it is ordinary to optimize for the
market price every hour. However, the optimization approaches including
population-based metaheuristics often find extreme difficulty to address the
challenge since that the POF of a DMOP may change when the environment changes. Solving the DMOPs efficiently and effectively has become an
important research issue in evolutionary computation community [36, 13].
In recent years, a great deal of progress has been made and different
types of algorithms have been proposed. In all of these methods, one class
of approaches, the prediction based, has gained much attention. This class
of approaches allows evolutionary algorithm (EA) and machine learning to
be seamlessly integrated. After deriving a prediction model via machine
learning techniques, the EAs can sustain the needed performance even if the
environment changes over time. For example, in [45], the authors proposed
a memory-based EA which introduced two kinds of prediction models. The
first one used the linear/nonlinear regression model to predict when the environment would change while the second model was based on Markov chains
which was used to forecast changes. In [41], the authors suggested integrating motion information into an EA, such that the algorithm can track a
2

time-changing optimum. In [49], the authors proposed a Kalman-extended
genetic algorithm, and this algorithm was developed to determine when to
re-evaluate an existing individual, when to produce a new individual, and
which individual to re-evaluate.
The basic idea of these methods is “keeping track of good (partial) solutions in order to reuse them under periodically changing environment” [41].
If we consider this view from a statistical point of view, this idea implies
that the solutions of a dynamic optimization problem obey an identical distribution. In other words, the solutions which are used to construct the
prediction model and the solutions forecasted by the prediction model meet
the Independent Identical Distribution (IID) hypothesis to some extent. This
assumption undoubtedly simplifies the complexity of the problem, however
we have to understand there is an appreciable difference between the good,
but out-of-date solutions and the proper and newly generated solutions, especially under a dynamic environment. That is to say, the changing POF
may lead to the different distributions of the training samples and the predicted samples, and this problem is very difficult for the traditional machine
learning methods.
The findings from machine leaning community [38] already showed that a
prediction model built by traditional machine learning methods leaves much
room to be desired when the training samples and the predicted samples
fail to meet the IID hypothesis. Transfer learning [38] allows the distribution of data used in training and testing to be different and it is becoming
a useful weapon to overcome this difficulty. Therefore, the dynamic multiobjective optimization algorithms based on traditional machine learning
methods, especially the prediction based algorithms, can also have significant performance improvements by overcoming the limitation caused by the
IID, and transfer learning approach is a powerful tool we can use to improve
performance of EAs for DMOPs.
In this paper, we argue that integrating transfer leaning approaches [38]
into an EA can offer significant benefits to performance and robustness for designing better Dynamic Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms (DMOEAs).
We adopt a domain adaptation method1 , called transfer component analysis
[37], to construct a prediction model. This model uses the gained knowledge
of finding Pareto optimal solutions, but not the population, to generate an
initial population pool for the optimization function at the next time. Based
1

a branch of transfer learning.

3

on this initial population pool, the optima of the changed environment can
be found more efficiently and effectively. The proposed domain adaptation
learning approach can be easily incorporated into any evolutionary-based
multiobjective optimization algorithms. Please note that in this research,
the dynamic refers to that objective functions will vary over time or under
different environments.
Indeed, how to detect and identify dynamic changes is a crucial part of
solving dynamic multiobjective optimization problems. However, in this paper, our focus is placed solely on how EA can quickly re-optimize a given
dynamic optimization problem once the change is been detected and identified. This is in a similar spirit as those studies in fault tolerant control where
focus is placed exclusively on designing a controller capable of accommodating the dynamic changes, leaving the fault detection and identification to be
addressed separately.
The contribution of this research is the integration between transfer learning and classical evolutionary multiobjective optimization algorithms. This
combination provides two benefits. First, the advantages of the EAs are preserved in the improved design for DMOPs. Secondly, the proposed design
can significantly improve the search efficiency via reusing past experience
which is critical for solving the DMOPs. An algorithm requires too much
computing resources, often making it difficult to solve large-scale problems.
The experiments also validate the assumption that the population plays a
very important role for tracking dynamic optima, and [15, 14] proves it from
the theoretical point of view.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we will introduce some basic concepts of dynamic optimization problems first and
then discuss the existing works in this field. At the beginning of Section
3, we will present some background on transfer learning, domain adaptation learning, and then introduce the transfer component analysis method
in detail. After that we will propose the Transfer learning based Dynamic
Multi-Objective Evolutionary optimization Algorithm, Tr-DMOEA. In Section 4, we will present the experimental results of incorporating our approach
to improve three well-known MOEAs: NSGA-II, MOPSO and RM-MEDA,
specifically for DMOPs and all of the algorithms were tested on the IEEE
CEC 2015 benchmark problems set. In Section 5, we will draw a summary
of this paper and outline the future research directions.

4

2
2.1

Preliminary Studies and Related Research
Dynamic Multi-objective Optimazation

Formally, a dynamic multiobjective optimization problem is defined as:
Minimize F (x, t) = hf1 (x, t) , f2 (x, t) , ..., fM (x, t)i
s.t. x ∈ Ω
where x = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn i is the decision vector and t is the time or environment variable. fi (x, t) : Ω → R (i = 1, . . . , M ). Ω = [L1 , U1 ] ×
[L2 , U2 ] × · · · × [Ln , Un ]. Li , Ui ∈ R are the lower and upper bounds of the
i-th decision variable, respectively. Please note that dynamic environments
can be classified in different ways. For an in-depth description, the readers
are referred to [45].
Definition 1. [Dynamic Decision Vector Domination] At time t , a decision
vector x1 Pareto dominate another vector x2 , denoted by x1 t x2 , if and
only if :
(
∀i = 1, . . . , M, fi (x1 , t) ≤ fi (x2 , t)
.
(1)
∃i = 1, . . . , M, fi (x1 , t) < fi (x2 , t)
Definition 2. [ Dynamic Pareto-optimal Set ] Both x and x∗ are decision
vectors, and if a decision vector x∗ is said to be nondominated at time t if
and only if there is no other decision vector x such that x t x∗ at time t.
The Dynamic Pareto-Optimal Set (DPOS) is the set of all Pareto optimal
solutions at time t, that is:
DP OS = {x∗ | 6 ∃x, x t x∗ } .
Definition 3. [Dynamic Pareto-optimal Front] At time t, the Dynamic ParetoOptimal Front (DPOF) is the corresponding objective vectors of the DPOS.
DP OF = {F (x∗ , t) |x∗ ∈ DP OS} .
For an ideal dynamic multiobjective algorithm, it must be able to find a
set of solutions as close as possible to the changing Pareto-optimal Front and
at the same time, the set of solutions should be as diverse as possible.

5

2.2

Related Works

Much progress [36, 40, 2, 20] has been made in the DMOPs field in recent
years, and most existing algorithms can be classified into the following categories: Increasing/Maintaining Diversity methods, Memory based methods,
Multi-population based methods, and Prediction based methods.
The increasing diversity methods tend to add variety to the population
by using a certain type of methodology when the environment change was
detected. For example, Cobb et al. proposed the triggered hypermutation
method [10], and the basic idea of this method is that when change is identified, the mutation rate would be increased immediately, and this would
make the converged population divergent again. This approach calls for
some improvements, and one of them is that the mutation rate is in a state
of uncontrolled change during the whole process, and this ultimately results
in reduced performance of the algorithm. Therefore, Vavak et al. [50] presented a mutation operator, called variable local search (VLS), to address
the problem. The strategy that the VLS adopted was to gradually increase
the mutation rate. Yen et al. [53] proposed a dynamic EA which relocates
the individuals based on their change in function value due to the change in
the environment and the average sensitivities of their decision variables to
the corresponding change in the objective space. This approach can avoid
the drawbacks of previous methods to a certain extent.
Most of the methods in the maintaining diversity category assume that
avoiding population convergence can help the algorithm track the changing
optimum as soon as possible, and maintain diversity as one of the effective
means to that end. Grefenstette [22] proposed a Random Immigrants Genetic Algorithm (RIGA), and the method replaces some individuals in the
population randomly. The idea of the RIGA is that introducing new genetic
materials into the population can avoid the whole population converging toward a small area in the process of evolution. However, the drawback of
the primitive immigrant method was the fitness values of the introduced
individuals were usually low, so large amounts are eliminated during the selection stage, and as a result, it is very difficult to introduce different genes
into the population. For solving this problem, Yang [57, 32] proposed the
hybrid immigrants scheme, memory-based immigrants [55] and elitism-based
immigrants [55], and these methods are effective for dealing with periodically
changing DMOPs. However, if the knowledge about the dynamic environment is limited, they would obtain a greatly reduced efficiency.
6

Dynamic NSGA-II (DNSGA-II) [16] proposed by Deb et al. also shares a
similar idea, and this method handles the DMOPs by introducing diversity
when change is detected. There are two versions of the proposed DNSGAII and they are respectively known as DNSGA-II-A and DNSGA-II-B. In
the DNSGA-II-A, the population is replaced by some individuals with new
randomly created solutions, while in the DNSGA-II-B, diversity was guarded
by replacing a percentage of the population with mutated solutions.
Memory mechanism enables EAs to record past information, and when it
detects changes have occurred, stored information can be reused to improve
the performance of the algorithm. Existing research showed that memorybased approaches tend to be more effective on the DMOPs with periodically
changing environments.
Branke [6] proposed a direct memory scheme where the best individuals in
the population will be saved in an archive, and when the algorithm detects a
change, those saved individuals can be retrieved and returned to the population to replace the same number of individuals. In [21], the author proposed
a co-evolutionary multiobjective algorithm which hybridizes competitive and
cooperative mechanisms to solve the DMOPs. In this algorithm, the out-ofdate archived solutions are replaced by an external population. In [51], the
authors presented an algorithm called MS-MOEA to tackle the challenges
of DMOPs. In the method, adaptive genetic and differential operators were
used to speed up the convergence speed and a Gaussian local search operator
was employed to prevent from premature convergence. At the same time the
fast hyper-volume strategy [52] was proposed to achieve a better starting
population when changes occur frequently. The above methods meet some
problems, e.g. slow convergence and poor diversity, when the environment
changes. As a result the authors in [1] proposed an adaptive hybrid population management strategy using memory, local search and random strategies
to effectively handle environment dynamicity in DMOPs. The special feature
of this algorithm is that it can adjust the number of memory and random
solutions to be used according to the change severity.
The Multi-population strategy is considered as one efficient solution for
the DMOPs, especially for the multiple peaks and the competing peaks problems. Branke et al. [7] proposed the self-organizing scouts method, and this
method splits the population into scout and base populations, and the two
populations are responsible for exploitation and exploration respectively. In
other words, the base population searches for the optimal solution and if
the base population finds a peak, then the scout population is generated
7

to track the change of this new peak. Li and Yang [31] employed a multipopulation particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm to solve multiple
peaks problems. In their method, a population uses evolutionary programming, which shows a better global search ability when compared to other
EAs, to explore the most hopeful areas in the whole search space, and at
the same time, several subpopulations use the fast PSO algorithm to find
the local optima. Yang [56] used hierarchical clustering technique to divide
the population into different subpopulations, and the main advantage of this
design is that the initial individuals of the subpopulations can be generated
automatically according to the fitness landscape.
In general, a good dynamic optimization algorithm should be able to
track the changing optimal solution even under high severity and frequency
of changes. It must be able to reuse as much information available from previous generations to speedup the optimization search. As a result, in recent
years the prediction-based DMOPs algorithms have received much attention.
This class of methods predicts the state of the changing environment typically using the information that already exists and some forms of machine
learning techniques, and then makes a decision such that the algorithms can
accommodate the changes in advance. This is one of the reasons why the
prediction-based approaches can improve performance of an algorithm handling the DMOPs, compared with other types of approaches.
Bosman [5] believed that the decision made at one point would affect the
optima obtained in the future, so for the dynamic optimization problems,
he proposed an algorithmical framework which integrated machine learning,
statistic learning, and evolutionary computation, and this framework can
effectively predict what the state of environment is going to be. In [41], the
authors suggested that the state of an optimum should contain the location
and the speed information, so the Kalman filter technique can be used to
estimate the state of the system and the error. The authors proposed an EA
to measure the state of the past optimum and then use the Kalman filter to
obtain an estimated value of the optimum in the next time instance.
Stroud [49] proposed the Kalman-extended Genetic Algorithm (KGA),
and the basic idea of the KGA was that two types of uncertainties surrounded
the estimated value of an individual in a dynamical environment. The first
type of uncertainty is produced by the dynamic of the environment while the
second type was related to the evaluation of individuals. For the different
situations, the KGA has two different ways to update the covariances, and
uses the Kalman filter technique to predict the two uncertainties which allows
8

the algorithm to work well in a dynamic environment.
In [59], Zhou et al. presented an algorithm, called Population Prediction
Strategy (PPS), to predict a whole population instead of predicting some
isolated points. There are two key concepts here: center point and manifold.
Whenever a change is detected, the algorithm uses a sequence of center points
obtained from the search progress to predict the next center point, and at the
same time, the previous manifolds are used to estimate the next manifold.
The main problem of this method is that, it is difficult to obtain historical
information at the beginning stage, and this may lead to poor convergence.
Recently, there are some works exploiting knowledge reuse techniques
or machine learning in evolutionary computation that have been proposed.
In [26], the authors propose an approach based on transfer learning and genetic programming to solve complex image classification problems. The basic
idea of the proposed algorithm is that the knowledge learned from a simpler
subtask is used to solve a more complex subtask, and reusing knowledge
blocks are discovered from similar as well as different image classification
tasks during the evolutionary process. In [25], the authors present a genetic
programming-like representation to identify building blocks of knowledge in
a learning classifier system, and the proposed method can extract useful
building blocks from simpler and smaller problems and reuse them to learn
more complex multiplexer problem. In [19], the authors present an evolutionary memetic computing paradigm that is capable of learning and evolving
knowledge meme that traverses two different but related problem domains,
capacitated vehicle routing problem and capacitated arc routing problem,
for greater search efficiency. Experimental results show that evolutionary
optimization can benefit from this approach.
However, we are not exactly sure if the data we using to construct the prediction model and the data we are going to predict by the above model obey
a similar distribution. Conversely, the real-world applications repeatedly reminded us that, it is not wise to assume the IID hypothesis as a prerequisite,
especially for the DMOPs. Unfortunately, most of the existing methods often assume that the solutions at different times have an IID structure, and
we believe that this assumption is one of main reasons for the failure of existing DMOEA algorithms. After all, a poor prediction model is very likely
to bring the search process to a hopeless place, which means actual results
will be worse than a method which does not use predictive technique, if the
prediction model turn out to be inaccurate.
We believe that historical information about the POF or POS is very
9

useful, and the reason is that for a DMOP, the POSs or POFs at different
times may not be exactly the same, but they must be correlated. Therefore
we conjecture that an appropriate use of the information extracted from the
obtained POS or POF will bring great benefits to track the changing POF,
but at the same time, we must admit the rationality and the generality of
the assumption of non-independently and identically distributed data. From
these basic points of view, we propose a framework which integrates transfer
learning and EAs for solving the DMOPs. Two of the major advantages of
the proposed approach are as follows: at first, the proposed method does not
assume IID hypothesis as a prerequisite, and it is enabled to escape serious
consequences of an unsuitable model. Secondly, this approach is designed
to generate a population-building prediction model, so that any populationbased optimization algorithms may benefit from this integration without any
extensive modification.

3

Transfer Learning based Dynamic Multiobjective Optimization Algorithm

In this section, we propose a transfer learning based dynamic optimization
algorithm. Our motivation is that the solutions of a dynamic optimization problem under different environments obey different probability distributions, and these distributions are not identical but are correlated. If we
can map these different distributions into a latent space, and in this space
the distributions are as “similar” as possible, then we can use the available
solutions to generate an initial population, such that the solutions under a
new environment can be computed with low computational cost. In principle,
this design is a reuse process of the knowledge we already obtained.
Before giving the details of the proposed approach, we need to introduce
background information of the domain adaptation learning we will use it in
our design.

3.1

Transfer Component Analysis

Briefly speaking, Domain Adaptation Learning (DAL) [3, 39, 27], a branch
of transfer learning, is to reuse the knowledge acquired from a source domain
to perform a task in a target domain, which is related to, but distinct from
the source domain. In the context of this research, a domain includes a
10

sample space X and the corresponding marginal distribution P (X), where
X = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn } ⊆ X . We say that two domains are different, which
means they have different sample spaces and the marginal distributions are
different.
The researchers [4] believe that it is a promising solution using the DAL to
find a good representation to decrease the difference between the distributions
of source and target domains. Gretton et al. [23] noted that the distance
between two different distributions can be evaluated by a particular function,
and in the Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space (RKHS), the computational
cost of the evaluation can be reduced. Based on this observation, Gretton
et al. [23, 46] proposed a nonparametric distance estimation method called
Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) to differentiate distributions in the
RKHS [48]. The MMD measures the discrepancy between two distributions
by computing the difference of the mean values for the source domain and
target domain. The advantages of the MMD approach is its simplicity and
accuracy.
Definition 4. (Maximum Mean Discrepancy [23]) : Let p and q be two Borel
probability measures defined on a domain X ; and X = {x1 , · · · , xm } and
Y = {y1 , · · · , yn } be two observations drawn from p and q respectively. Let
F be a class of functions f : X → R, then the maximum mean discrepancy
(MMD) can be defined as:
!
m
n
1X
1X
MMD(F, p, q) := sup
f (xi ) −
f (yi ) .
m i=1
n i=1
f ∈F
In a Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space, f can be written as f (x) =
hφ(x), f i, where φ(x) : X → H. So the empirical estimate of MMD can be
rewritten as:
m

n

1X
1X
MMD(F, p, q) :=
φ(xi ) −
φ(yi )
m i=1
n i=1

2

.

(2)

H

By using the so-called “kernel trick”[43], we can rewrite Equation (2) as

MMD(F, p, q) :=

m X
n
X

tr[K̂(

i=1 j=1

11

1
1
Lii −
Lij
m×m
m×n

(3)

1
1
Lji +
Ljj )]
n×m
n×n
:= tr(K̂L),
−

where tr(A) refers to the trace of the matrix A, and the matrix


K̂X,X K̂X,Y
K̂ =
∈ R(m+n)×(m+n) .
K̂Y,X K̂Y,Y

(4)

K̂X,Y is a kernel matrix with ki,j = κ(xi , yj ) = φ(xi )T φ(yj ), where κ(·, ·)
is a kernel function and φ(·) is a feature mapping function. This matrix
reflects data similarity in the domains X and Y . K̂X,X , K̂Y,X and K̂Y,Y have
the similar meanings. Matrix L contains the coefficients to scale matrix
according to Equation (2) and its elements are as follows.

1

 m×m , xi , xj ∈ X
1
.
(5)
L(i, j) =
, xi , xj ∈ Y
n×n


1
− m×n , otherwise
On the basis of the MMD, Pan et al. proposed a dimension reduction
method [37] called Maximum Mean Discrepancy Embedding (MMDE) to
(1) find a low-dimensional space to reduce the difference between source and
targets distributions as well as (2) to preserve the main statistical properties,
maximization of data variance in the first extracted orthogonal components
of the original data X and Y . In MMDE, the kernel function κ is learned
(or optimized) from the data, which makes it computationally expensive,
so the authors in [37] proposed other dimension reduction-based methods
called Transfer Component Analysis (TCA) and its Semi-Supervised version
of TCA, SSTCA, to transform the problem of learning an entire kernel matrix
to a low-rank matrix W instead.
Now let us consider how to obtain the martix W by using the TCA
method. Suppose that W is a (m + n) × d matrix. For any vector x, let
φ(x) = W T κx ∈ Rd , where φ(·) is a feature mapping function. Let κx =
[κ(x1 , x), . . . , κ(xm , x), κ(y1 , x), . . . , κ(yn , x)]T , and the matrix K̂ in Equation
(4) can be transformed as follows.
K̂ = [φ(x1 ), . . . , φ(xm ), φ(y1 ), . . . , φ(yn )]T ×
[φ(x1 ), . . . , φ(xm ), φ(y1 ), . . . , φ(yn )]
12

= [W T κx1 , . . . , W T κxm , W T κy1 , . . . , W T κyn ]T ×
[W T κx1 , . . . , W T κxm , W T κy1 , . . . , W T κyn ]
= [κx1 , . . . , κxm , κy1 , . . . , κyn ]T W W T
[κx1 , . . . , κxm , κy1 , . . . , κyn ]
= KT W W T K
= KW W T K.

(6)

Please note that the matrix K is a symmetric matrix, so K T = K, and
then tr(K̂L) = tr(KW W T KL). According to the property of the trace of a
matrix, we can rewrite Equation (3) as follows.
MMD(F, p, q) =tr(K̂L)
=tr(KW W T KL)
=tr(W T KLKW ).

(7)

Now the optimization problem for the TCA algorithm can be written as
follows:
arg min
µ · tr(W T W ) + tr(W T KLKW )
W
(8)
subject to W T KHKW = I,
1
11T and I is a (m+n)×(m+n) identity matrix. W T W is
where H = I− m+n
a regularization term. 1 is a (m + n) × 1 all-ones matrix. m and n represent
the numbers of samples in the source and target domains, respectively. µ
is the tradeoff parameter. This optimization problem can be transformed
into a trace maximization problem. According to the method presented
in [42], the trace maximization problem can be solved by the Generalized
Eigenvalue Decomposition (GED), and the solution is composed of the d
leading eigenvectors. The pseudo-code of TCA is given in Algorithm 1.

3.2

Tr-DMOEA

Dynamic multiobjective optimization problem is a computationally expensive task. This implies that it requires a lot of computational resources to
search for the varying POS at a certain time. If the knowledge about the
POS and POF can be reused to predict future POFs or POSs under different environments, this usually implies performance improvement as well as
13

Algorithm 1: TCA
Input: Source domain X; target domain Y ; a kernel function κ(·, ·);
Output: Matrix W
1 Construct the Kernel Matrix K̂, the Matrix L, and the Matrix H
according to (4), (5) and (8) ;
2 Construct the Matrix W by using the d leading eigenvectors of
(KLK + µI)−1 KHK ;
3 return the matrix W ;

less computational resource consumption. As a result, we believe that the
prediction-based dynamic multiobjective optimization algorithm presents a
promising solution.
However, the existing algorithms generally neglect the assumption of NonIndependent Identically Distributed (Non-IID), and it is obvious that the
individuals under different environments obey different distributions. This
also means that those dynamic optimization algorithms based on the traditional machine learning approach leave much room for improvement. So we
put forward the use of the domain adaptation technique to develop a novel
DMOEA.
The approach developed is to map different distributions that the solutions obey at different times into a new latent space via the domain adaptation method. In the latent space, the MMD value of different distributions
will be as small as possible while variance of the data will be kept the same.
In other words, we will make those distributions that the solutions under different environments obey as similar as possible in the latent space, so we can
map the POF we have obtained into the space, and then use those mapped
solutions to construct a population which will be used to search for the POF
under a new environment.
In the following Tr-DMOEA algorithm, Ft is the current dynamic optimization function assuming its POF has already been found. Ft+1 is the
optimization function at the next time. The major part of the algorithm, TrIPG, utilizes the POF at time t and the transfer learning method to generate
a population which can be used to search for the POF at time t + 1. More
specifically, we take the obtained Pareto-optimal Front (POF) at time t as a
source domain; the feasible solutions of the next time, time t + 1, as the target domain, and then construct a mapping function ϕ by using the domain

14

adaptation approach. This mapping function will embed the distributions
that the source and target domain obey separately into a latent space, and
in that space the difference between the two distributions will become as
small as possible. From this, we can use the POF already found to generate
an initial population which can be used to search for the POF of the next
moment.
Algorithm 2: Tr-IPG: Transfer Learning based Initial Population Generator
Input: The Dynamic Optimization Function Ft+1 (·); the POF of the
function Ft (·) at time t, P OFt = {p1 , . . . pm }; a kernel function
κ(·, ·).
Output: A population Pop-init.
1
2

3

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Initialization;
For the optimization functions Ft (·) and Ft+1 (·), randomly generate
two sets of the solutions Xs and Yt ;
/* Remark 1 */
Calculate the objective values of the optimization functions Ft (Xs )
and Ft+1 (Yt );
W ← TCA({Ft (Xs )}, {Ft+1 (Yt )}, κ);
P LS ← ∅; /* Remark 2
*/
for every p ∈ P OFt do
κp ← [κ (Ft (Xs (1)), p) , . . . , κ (Ft+1 (Yt (nt )), p)]T
ϕ(p) ← W T κp ;
P LS = P LS ∪ {ϕ(p)};
end
for every l ∈ P LS do
x ← argminkϕ (Ft+1 (x)) − lk/* Remark3
*/
x

13
14
15

Pop-init = Pop-init ∪{x} ;
end
return Pop-init ;

In order to help the readers quickly grasp the basic idea of the algorithm
Tr-IPG, Figure 1 has been presented to illustrate the key elements of the
algorithm. This diagram describes the operational process from Line 6 to
Line 15 of the Tr-IPG.
Please note that the input to the TCA are the samples from the solutions
at time t and t + 1, and its output is a transformation matrix W . We can
15

Figure 1: The key steps of the Tr-IPG algorithm. Step 1: Map the obtained
POF into the latent space; Step 2: Find individuals for Ft+1 (·); Step 3:
Generate initial population pool for the problem Ft+1 (·).
use the matrix W to construct the latent space. The Step 1 (i.e., the upper
left corner of the diagram) depicts the process of mapping the POF at time
t into the latent space, and the Steps 2 and 3 describe how to search for an
initial population which can be used to solve the dynamic optimization at
time t + 1.
Remark 1. The numbers of the elements of Xs and Yt are
|Xs | = ns and |Yt | = nt . In general, more sampling often
result, but it also needs to pay a higher computational cost,
about how many solutions needed to be produced in this step
resources available.

predefined. Let
means a better
so the decision
depends on the

Remark 2. P LS is the acronym of Particle in the Latent Space and it can
be regared as a set of the mapped solutions in the latent space.
Remark 3. We want to find a decision variable x, such that in the latent
space, ϕ(Ft+1 (x)) is closet to l ∈ P LS in the latent space. This also means
that we need to solve a single objective optimization problem here, and any
single objective optimization algorithm can be applied to solve the problem.
In this research, we use the Interior Point Algorithm to solve the problem.
What the Tr-IPG algorithm outputs is a population, so it is not difficult to find that we can combine any type of population-based optimization
16

algorithms with the Tr-IPG to obtain a transfer learning based dynamic
multiobjective EA.
Remark 4. For the TCA algorithm, the major time is spent on eigenvalue
decomposition. It takes O(d(m1 + m2 )2 ) time when d nonzero eigenvectors
are to be extracted, where m1 and m2 are the numbers of the solutions which
are generated to construct the latent space. The Tr-IPG spends O(n1 ) time
to map an individuals in the P OFt to the latent space and we use the Interior
Point Algorithm to find an indidvidual in the objective space of Ft+1 (·). For
the primal dual interior point method, suppose√the constraint matrix A has
n rows and m columns, and n < m, it has O( mL) iterations and O(m3 L)
arithmetic operations, where L is total number of bits of the input.
Example 1. A specific numerical example is helpful in understanding how
the Tr-IPG algorithm works. For example, we employ the Tr-IPG algorithm
to solve the FDA4 problem, which is a three-objective dynamic optimization
problem. Let us suppose that the POF of the FDA4 problem [24] at time t,
P OFt , has been found and p ∈ P OFt . The Tr-IPG uses the TCA algorithm
to obtain a mapping function ϕ(·), and this mapping function is utilized to
map the p into a twenty-dimensional latent space2 , and it means that l = ϕ(p)
is a twenty-dimensional vector. After that the Tr-IPG algorithm will find a
solution x for the FDA4 problem at time t + 1, and this solution x satisfies
the requirement that it is nearest to l in the latent space. The Tr-IPG will
output the solution x as one of the individuals of the initial population which
can be used to solve the FDA4 problem at time t + 1.

4

Empirical Study

Practically speaking, the proposed approach is compatible with any type of
population-based optimization algorithms. As a case study, in our experiments, we select three well-represented algorithms with different operating
metaphors to verify our approach. The first one is the NSGA-II [17] and
it is a multiobjective genetic algorithm that applies nondominated sorting
and crowding distance. The second multiobjective optimization algorithm
is based on particle swarm optimization and it is simply called as MOPSO
2
The dimensionality of the latent space depends on the parameters of the TCA algorithm.

17

Algorithm 3: Tr-DMOEA: Transfer Learning based Dynamic Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm
Input: The Dynamic Optimization Function F (X); a population based
multiobjective algorithm MOA; a kernel function κ(·, ·).
Output: the POFs of F (X).
1
2
3
4

5
6
7

Initialization ;
Use MOA to solve F0 (X) to get a P OF0 ;
for t = 1 to n do
Next-Pop = Tr-IPG(Ft (·), P OF(t−1) , κ(·, ·)) ; /* When a change
occurred, we use Tr-IPG to generate an init
population. */
P OFt = MOA(Next-Pop) ;
return P OFt ;
end

[11]. The third one is the RM-MEDA [58], which is a regularity model based
multiobjective estimation of distribution algorithm.
The three corresponding algorithms with the proposed transfer learning
are called Tr-NSGA-II, Tr-MOPSO, and Tr-RM-MEDA, respectively for dynamic optimization. It should be noted that the original designs, NSGA-II,
MOPSO, and RM-MEDA are not appropriate for dynamic optimization. It
is not difficult to find that these three algorithms belong to different categories, but all of them are well-developed, so it can strengthen the persuasive
power and the confidence level to incorporate the proposed technology. At
the same time, we also compare the new algorithms with other state-of-art
designs.
One thing we need to emphasize is that in all our experiments, the parameters are set the same. In other words, for these twelve test functions
and three different algorithms, we have used the same parameters and do
not tune the parameters in TCA under different configurations for a better
performance.

18

4.1

Performance Metrics, Testing Functions and Settings

In this research, we use four performance metrics, the Inverted Generational
Distance (IGD) and its variants, the Reactivity measure (React) and its
variants, to evaluate the quality of the solutions obtained by these competing
algorithms.
1. The inverted generational distance (IGD) [44] is a metric to quantify
the performance of a multiobjective optimization algorithm. Let P ∗ be
the set of uniformly distributed Pareto optimal solutions in the POF
and P represent the POF obtained by the algorithm, the definition of
the IGD is
P
∗
∗
∗ minv∈P kv − vk
∗
.
(9)
IGD(P , P, C) = v ∈P
|P ∗ |
If we want the value of IGD to be as small as possible, the P should
be close enough to P ∗ . In other words, the IGD depicts the difference between the ideal POF and the POF obtained by the competing
algorithms.
Please note that the definition of the IGD is slightly different from the
original one, and the major difference is the parameter C in Equation
(9). The parameter C is a combination of the benchmark functions
parameters. We call it as configuration of the benchmark functions.
The configurations we used in our experiments are described in Table
2.
2. One variant of the IGD, called MIGD, can also be used to evaluate
dynamic multiobjective optimization algorithms [34, 33] , and it takes
the average of the IGD values in some time steps over a run as the
performance metric, given by
MIGD(P ∗ , P, C) =

1 X
IGD(Pt∗ , Pt , C),
|T | t∈T

(10)

where Pt∗ and P t represent the points set of the ideal POF and the
approximate POF obtained by the algorithm at time t. We also want
to evaluate those algorithms under different environments, so a novel
19

metric, DMIGD, is defined based on the MIGD, and the definition of
the DMIGD is as follows:
DMIGD(P ∗ , P, C) =

1 X
MIGD(Pt∗ , Pt , C),
|E| C∈E

(11)

where |E| is the number of the different environments experienced. In
our experiments, we choose eight different configurations. As a result,
|E| equals to eight. What we want to point out is that the DMIGD
can evaluate a dynamic optimization algorithm from a high-level view
and it bears a significant difference with the MIGD since the MIGD
just considers the dynamics in one environment.
3. The reactivity measure (React) [47] is used to measure the robustness
of an algorithm, and its definition is as follows:


acc(t0 )
React (t, C) = min t0 − t|t < t0 ∈ N,
≥1−ε ,
acc(t)
HV (P OF (t))
where acc(t) = max
implies the accuracy rate of computing
HV (P OF )
the POF at time t, and HV refers to the value of Hypervolume [35].
The React describes how quickly a dynamic optimization algorithm can
recover from a change, or convergence speed after changes. The value
of the React is the smaller the better. We also want to evaluate the
algorithms on a macro-scale, so we derive two additional metrics based
on the React,

MReact (T, C) =

DMReact (T, C) =

1 X
React (t, C),
|T | t∈T
1 X
MReact (T, C).
|E|

(12)

C∈E

The MReact value can be considered as an average of the React values
at different time points, but under the same configuration; DMReact is an
average of the MReact values over different configurations considered.
In the experiments, we apply the IEEE CEC 2015 Benchmark problems
set in Table 1 as test functions and the problem set has twelve testing functions [24]. In the definitions, the decision variables are x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) and
20

j k
t = n1t ττTt , where nt , τT , and τt are the severity of change, maximum number of iterations, and frequency of change, respectively. Table 2 describes
the different combinations of nt , τt , and τT . Please note that for each nt -τT
combination, there will be ττTt environment changes. In other words, in all of
our experiments, there are altogether twenty changes for the twelve dynamic
problems.

Figure 2: The true POFs of the twelve testing functions. The red, green
and blue lines depict the true POFs at the time steps zero, one and two,
respectively.
The POFs of the testing functions have different shapes and each function
belongs to a certain DMOPs type. Fig. 2 describes the true POFs of the
twelve testing functions and we let the functions change three times. Type
I implies POS changes, but POF does not change; Type II means that the
POS and the POF change as well; Type III refers to the condition where
the POF changes, but the POS does not change. From Table 1, we can
find that the POF of the functions could be non-convex, convex, isolated,
deceptive, continuous or discontinuous. FDA4 and FDA5 are 3-objective
functions while all of the remaining are 2-objective functions.
The dimensions of the decision variables are from 10 to 30-dimension.
Please note that the A, B and C values for the functions FDA5iso , FDAdec ,
DMOP2iso and DMOP2dec are set to G(t), 0.001 and 0.05 respectively.
In all of the experiments, we set the population size to 200 and in each
generation every algorithm will generate no more than 200 solutions. As
mentioned above, we force each benchmark function to change 20 times, and
in every change, we let the population carry out 50 iterations.
21

For the TCA parameters, we set the Gaussian kernel function to the
default value and the expected dimensionality was set to be 20. The value
of µ was set to 0.5.
Table 1: The Benchmark Func- Table 2: Configurations of the Benchmark
Functions Parameters
tions
Name
FDA4
FDA5
FDA5iso
FDA5dec
DIMP2
DMOP2
DMOP2iso
DMOP2dec
DMOP3
HE2
HE7
HE9

4.2
4.2.1

Dim.
12
12
12
12
10
10
10
10
10
30
10
10

# of Obj.
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Type
TYPE I
TYPE II
TYPE II
TYPE II
TYPE I
TYPE II
TYPE II
TYPE II
TYPE I
TYPE III
TYPE III
TYPE III

C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8

nt

Tt

10
10
10
10
1
1
20
20

5 100
10 200
25 500
50 1000
10 200
50 1000
10 200
50 1000

TT

Experimental Results
IGD Metric

For each benchmark function, we perform tests under eight different configurations which are listed in Table 2. Each function will change 20 times, and
after each change the algorithms would return a POS, and then we calculated
the IGD, MIGD, and DMIGD values, respectively.
The detailed results of these experiments are described in twelve tables,
and Supplemental Material contains those tables. These tables recorded the
MIGD values of the algorithms running on different testing functions under
different environments. In these tables, the “ROC” refers to the ratio of
change of the MIGD values and we used bold face to identify those experiments where performance has been improved.
For the convenience of the readers and at the same time owing to space
constraints, we summarize these experimental results in three tables, Table
3, Table 4 And Table 5. These three tables illustrate the rate of change of the
three new algorithms compared to their original designs. For example, the
value of the first row (under C1 configuration) and the first column (under
FDA4) of Table 3 is 61.32, and this shows that the Tr-NSGA-II algorithm

22

Table 3: The Ratio of Change of MIGD Value between Tr-NSGA-II and
NSGA-II
ROC(%)

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8
61.02

FDA4

61.32 62.15

59.42

59.60

78.57

79.75

56.17

FDA5

41.13 37.80

-14.36

14.45

37.12

39.04

20.39 33.09

FDA5iso

-48.91

-17.37

-31.83

-31.98

-20.14

-28.66

-2.44

-6.15

FDA5dec

19.83 17.09

26.06

40.23

22.52

3.07

51.88

41.34

DIMP2

30.70 42.41

39.57

34.61

47.30

38.69

37.57

44.54

DMOP2

74.97 66.52

78.43

67.01 -676.29 88.96

61.22

72.65

DMOP2iso

-4.84

-4.46

-6.81

-3.18

-7.54

-13.79

-2.98

-2.48

DMOP2dec

44.91 51.25

44.39

40.13

23.26

42.45

45.66

25.58

DMOP3

72.70 73.61

83.50

57.65 -514.50

4.32

74.18

76.29

HE2

2.73

-17.45

1.67

5.86

67.45

77.01

28.07

-19.57

HE7

57.10 58.57

59.45

61.57

53.47

58.34

57.77

61.98

HE9

14.79 13.02

16.64

12.99

14.98

14.61

16.14

15.49

improves the NSGA-II algorithm by 61.32% when dealing with the FDA4
problem under the Configuration C1.
Please note that our experimental results are obtained without explicitly
tuning the parameters one by one, and if we adjust the parameters separately for different algorithms, we have reason to believe that we can get
better experimental results. The reason that we did not tune the parameters specifically for getting better results is that the twelve test functions are
not exactly the same, so we can set different parameters to obtain the best
performance for each test function. For example, we can construct different latent spaces for the twelve benchmark functions individually via setting
different parameters of the TCA method. However, we think that this oneby-one-adjustment strategy does not effectively explain the advantages of
our approach since almost all algorithms can obtain a better performance
via such parameter-tuning, and this makes no contribution to explain the
superiority of the proposed algorithm.
We tabulate all the experimental results and obtain the following observations. For the NSGA-II, the overall effective rate of the Tr-NSGA-II was 78%
(i.e., 75 cases with improving performance out of 96 total tests), of which 33

23

Table 4: The Ratio of Change of MIGD Value between Tr-MOPSO and
MOPSO
ROC(%)

C1

C2

FDA4

18.01

16.44

FDA5

43.09

FDA5iso

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

15.85 17.34

14.15

13.09

18.98 18.88

56.21

25.44 21.56

60.00

57.88

29.65 23.78

-11.03

-7.58

-2.12

-1.49

-12.51

-5.11

-6.98

FDA5dec

17.54

30.66

50.61 23.97

10.64

11.78

28.18 20.68

DIMP2

86.54

88.36

93.05 94.73

73.76

87.17

83.68 89.37

DMOP2

92.85

96.77

96.51 94.93

-478.53

78.24

26.14 84.36

DMOP2iso

-0.26

2.55

1.64

2.82

-0.01

-0.04

-0.58

DMOP2dec

89.96

93.98

93.92 96.53

92.54

92.10

97.14 96.66

DMOP3

-296.04

54.28

19.34

HE2

14.04

34.03

11.11 34.34

38.46

36.01

-1.96

14.06

HE7

2.88

-3.40

-1.78

-0.49

13.96

8.11

-14.43

-9.12

HE9

-11.81

-11.45

-12.29

-14.04

-37.00

-33.30

-16.15

-13.57

-8.00

3.31

28.14 -1371.99 94.39 51.00 26.72

testing cases increased by more than 50%, 38 increased by 5% -50% and 4
cases improved by 0 - 5%; for the MOPSO, the total effective rate was 70%
(i.e., 67 cases with improving performance out of 96 total tests), including
29 testing cases improved by more than 50%, 33 performance improved by
5% - 50%, and five improved by 0 - 5%; For the RM-MEDA, the total effective rate was 73% (i.e., 70 cases with improving performance out of 96 total
tests), including 23 of the test cases increasing by more than 50%, 39 lifting
5% to 50%, and 8 improved by 0 - 5%.
These experimental results demonstrate that the transfer learning technique can improve the performance of the existing multiobjective EAs appreciably without significant modifications for solving the DMOPs. On the
other hand, we would like to point out that most of the testing cases of performance degradation came from two functions - FDA5iso and DMOP2iso . The
common characteristic of these two functions is the isolated POFs, so we
suspect that the reason why the performance is poor for the two benchmark
functions is inappropriate parameters settings.
We also compare the DMIGD value with some chosen state-of-the-art designs, including Multidimensional Bayesian Network based Estimation Distribution Algorithm (MBN-EDA) [30], Random immigrants strategy based mul24

Table 5: The Ratio of Change MIGD Value between Tr-RM-MEDA and
RM-MEDA
ROC(%)

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

FDA4

21.47

22.74

22.42

22.91

25.75

27.71

22.32

23.08

FDA5

54.07

59.96

61.66

57.40

76.55

69.49

56.24

54.71

FDA5iso

-0.29

-0.09

0.08

-0.30

1.81

-0.06

-0.63

-0.08

FDA5dec

39.69

33.15

37.16

35.83

65.97

65.59

41.72

45.66

DIMP2

5.91

-8.53

-2.03

-3.49

-1.08

1.01

-2.33

-4.57

DMOP2

-827.79

-52.71

37.53

33.36

-3.34

-1.67

21.07

-13.04

DMOP2iso

-0.01

-0.09

-0.05

-0.06

0.01

-0.01

0.07

-0.09

DMOP2dec

53.72

64.32

51.05

60.02

1.39

3.85

57.93

49.28

DMOP3

24.65

22.08

-25.15

0.49

-0.45

-0.79

10.75

27.48

HE2

86.81

87.01

86.74

88.01

89.99

89.59

88.42

87.91

HE7

13.31

21.82

21.40

20.29

19.23

14.87

21.32

22.57

HE9

7.48

7.61

6.95

6.91

8.35

7.53

6.74

5.43

tiobjective Differential evolutionary algorithm with Decomposition (RND)
and the Kalman Filter prediction based DMOEA (MOEA/D-KF) [34, 33],
and the results are depicted in Table 6. The experimental results show that
the transfer learning based algorithms have much better performance over
different problem characteristics in these benchmark functions. Even compared with chosen state-of-the-art algorithms, these transfer learning based
algorithms can be much more efficient.
4.2.2

React Metric

Table 7 depicts the DMReact values of all competing algorithms. We found
that the Tr-NSGA-II and Tr-MOPSO have shown improvements, which suggest that, at least at this parameters setting, the proposed approach can
improve the adaptability of the NSGA-II and the MOPSO under dynamic
environments. However the robustness of the RM-MEDA seems to be reduced, and one reason we envision is that the TCA method have coincidently
reduced the diversity of the solutions. So how to improve the diversity and
the robustness at the same time is an interesting topic for the future research. The optimal choice of the parameter setting will be a topic in our
25

future research.
Table 6: DMIGD Values of Different Algorithms

5

DMIGD

NSGA-II

Tr-NSGA-II

MOPSO

Tr-MOPSO

RM-MEDA

Tr-RM-MEDA

MBN-EDA

FDA4

0.2634

0.0858

0.0732

0.0609

0.0680

0.0520

0.43

0.1698

0.1913

FDA5

0.3301

0.2306

0.2131

0.1196

0.2089

0.0776

0.51

0.5323

0.4963

FDA5iso

0.1048

0.1292

0.1106

0.1181

0.0650

0.0649

0.64

0.1433

0.1465

FDA5dec

0.5923

0.4559

0.2746

0.2139

0.5779

0.3275

1.27

0.5403

0.5476

DIMP2

3.8986

2.3502

2.3684

0.2937

4.8892

4.9769

6.97

17.9537

22.9536

DMOP2

0.4202

0.3439

0.2129

0.2538

4.5942

4.7130

1.4

1.4329

3.0619

DMOP2iso

0.0325

0.0358

0.0319

0.0318

0.0290

0.0290

2.56

0.0315

0.0316

DMOP2dec

0.6303

0.3930

0.4192

0.0254

0.1449

0.0940

2.89

9.0504

9.2188

DMOP3

0.8851

1.0133

0.2851

0.2650

4.5897

4.6177

1.38

0.0697

0.0836

HE2

0.2096

0.1501

0.0847

0.0640

0.8451

0.1017

0.83

0.0744

0.0745

HE7

0.0946

0.0390

0.0582

0.0583

0.0428

0.0342

0.21

0.1787

0.2365

HE9

0.2954

0.2508

0.2459

0.2887

0.2565

0.2383

0.36

0.3432

0.4108

RND

MOEA/D-KF

Conclusion and Future Works

In this paper, we propose an approach of exploiting a transfer learning technique to enhance the performance of dynamic multiobjective evolutionary
algorithms. Our idea is that the solutions of a given DMOP at different
times have different distributions, though there are some relationships between these probability distributions, they are not identical. This is a typical non-independent identically distributed (Non-IID) problem, and classical
machine learning methods are difficult to solve it.
For this reason, it is not surprise to understand why the traditional dynamic optimization algorithms designed based on classical machine learning
find it hard to achieve satisfactory performance. To overcome these problems,
we employ the techniques from the transfer learning to develop an algorithmic
framework, which creates benefits for a variety of population-based dynamic
multiobjective evolutionary algorithms.
In our approach, we consider different probability distributions that the
solutions obey at various times as the source and target domains, respectively. We can exploit the gained POF from the source domain to improve
26

Table 7: DMReact Value of the Algorithms
DMREACT NSGA-II

Tr-NSGA-II MOPSO

Tr-MOPSO

RM-MEDA

Tr-RM-MEDA

FDA4

1.9803

1.7664

1.4934

1.2895

1.5033

1.7072

FDA5

1.7204

1.5625

1.4375

1.3092

2.9638

1.6086

FDA5iso

1.7105

1.4539

1.6283

1.7039

1.0329

1.0066

FDA5dec

1.7928

1.8224

1.5132

1.9375

2.5000

2.5263

DIMP2

2.2697

2.2763

1.4013

1.1151

1.9243

2.0197

DMOP2

2.1645

1.9671

1.5592

1.8487

1.5789

1.7467

DMOP2iso

1.4375

1.4836

1.4704

1.3586

1.3355

1.4605

DMOP2dec

2.2961

2.0164

1.5461

2.1809

1.9309

2.1316

DMOP3

1.7039

1.3816

1.5329

1.3026

1.0987

1.1349

HE2

2.0428

1.9474

1.0987

1.2862

2.1086

1.4572

HE7

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

HE9

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.3125

1.0000

1.0000

computational efficiency in searching for the POF at the next time instance.
To achieve this goal, the transfer learning technique is applied to find a latent
space where the global feature, MMD value, of the source and target domains
is as small as possible. Meanwhile the major statistical characteristics of the
data, i.e., the variance will remain unchanged. In this way, we can use the
obtained POS to construct an initial population which can be employed by
any population-based optimization algorithms to find the POS of the next
time instance.
We applied the proposed idea to improve three well-known multidobjective optimization algorithms: NSGA-II, MOPSO, and RM-MEDA. The
enhanced algorithms are compared with the original designs and some chosen competing algorithms on a well-adopted benchmark set which involves
twelve testing functions. Almost all the experimental results validate that
introducing the transfer leaning technique into the dynamic optimization algorithm can greatly improve the quality of the solutions and robustness of
the algorithms. This line of research proposed herein can be regarded as a
new avenue for designing effective and efficient evolutionary algorithms for
DMOPs. A rich body of machine learning techniques can inspire further innovations in solving real-world application [9, 29, 8, 28] with various degrees
of complexities and uncertainties.

27

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (No.61003014 and No.61673328) and Foundation of Xiamen University’s President (No. 20720150150). The first author also wants to thank
China Scholarship Council (No. 20150631505) and Oklahoma State University for providing funding and facilities to support his research as a visiting
scholar. We are very grateful to Miss Arrchana Muruganantham for providing the code of [34] and Mr. Minmin Wang for experimental assistance.

References
[1] R. Azzouz, S. Bechikh, and L. B. Said. A dynamic multi-objective evolutionary algorithm using a change severity-based adaptive population
management strategy. Soft Comput, aug 2015.
[2] R. Azzouz, S. Bechikh, and L. B. Said. Dynamic multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms: a survey. In Recent Advances
in Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization, pages 31–70. Springer Nature, aug 2016.
[3] S. Ben-David, J. Blitzer, K. Crammer, A. Kulesza, F. Pereira, and J. W.
Vaughan. A theory of learning from different domains. Machine learning,
79(1-2):151–175, 2010.
[4] S. Ben-David, J. Blitzer, K. Crammer, F. Pereira, et al. Analysis of
representations for domain adaptation. Advances in neural information
processing systems, 19:137, 2007.
[5] P. A. N. Bosman. Learning and anticipation in online dynamic optimization. In Studies in Computational Intelligence, pages 129–152. Springer
Science mathplus Business Media, 2007.
[6] J. Branke. Memory enhanced evolutionary algorithms for changing optimization problems. In Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary
Computation. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
[7] J. Branke, T. Kaussler, C. Smidt, and H. Schmeck. A Multi-population
approach to dynamic optimization problems. In Evolutionary Design
28

and Manufacture, pages 299–307. Springer Science mathplus Business
Media, 2000.
[8] F. Chao, F. Chen, Y. Shen, W. He, Y. Sun, Z. Wang, C. Zhou,
and M. Jiang. Robotic free writing of chinese characters via human–
robot interactions.
International Journal of Humanoid Robotics,
11(01):1450007, 2014.
[9] F. Chao, M. H. Lee, M. Jiang, and C. Zhou. An infant developmentinspired approach to robot hand-eye coordination. International Journal
of Advanced Robotic Systems, 11, 2014.
[10] H. G. Cobb. An investigation into the use of hypermutation as an adaptive operator in genetic algorithms having continuous, time-dependent
nonstationary environments. Technical Report Technical Report AIC90-001, 1990.
[11] C. C. Coello and M. S. Lechuga. Mopso: A proposal for multiple objective particle swarm optimization. In Evolutionary Computation, 2002.
CEC’02. Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on, volume 2, pages 1051–
1056. IEEE, 2002.
[12] C. Cruz, J. R. González, and D. A. Pelta. Optimization in dynamic environments: a survey on problems methods and measures. Soft Comput,
15(7):1427–1448, dec 2010.
[13] M. Daneshyari and G. G. Yen. Cultural-based particle swarm for dynamic optimisation problems. International Journal of Systems Science,
43(7):1284–1304, 2012.
[14] D. Dang, T. Jansen, and P. K. Lehre. Populations can be essential in
tracking dynamic optima. Algorithmica, pages 1–21, 2016.
[15] D.-C. Dang, T. Jansen, and P. K. Lehre. Populations can be essential in dynamic optimisation. In Proceedings of the 2015 on Genetic
and Evolutionary Computation Conference - GECCO,. Association for
Computing Machinery (ACM), 2015.
[16] K. Deb, U. B. R. N., and S. Karthik. Dynamic multi-objective optimization and decision-Making using modified NSGA-II: a case study on

29

hydro-thermal power scheduling. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
pages 803–817. Springer Science mathplus Business Media.
[17] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. A fast and elitist
multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, 6(2):182–197, 2002.
[18] M. Farina, K. Deb, and P. Amato. Dynamic multiobjective optimization
problems: test cases approximations, and applications. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 8(5):425–442, oct 2004.
[19] L. Feng, Y.-S. Ong, M.-H. Lim, and I. W. Tsang. Memetic search
with interdomain learning: A realization between cvrp and carp. IEEE
Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 19(5):644–658, 2015.
[20] C.-K. Goh and K. C. Tan. Dynamic evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization in Uncertain
Environments, pages 125–152. Springer Science mathplus Business Media.
[21] C.-K. Goh and K. C. Tan. A competitive-cooperative coevolutionary
paradigm for dynamic multiobjective optimization. IEEE Transactions
on Evolutionary Computation, 13(1):103–127, feb 2009.
[22] J. Grefenstette. Genetic algorithms for changing environments. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature 2, pages 137–144. Elsevier, 1992.
[23] A. Gretton, K. M. Borgwardt, M. Rasch, B. Schölkopf, and A. J. Smola.
A kernel method for the two-sample-problem. In Advances in neural
information processing systems, pages 513–520, 2006.
[24] M. Helbig and A. Engelbrecht. Benchmark functions for cec 2015 special session and competition on dynamic multi-objective optimization.
Technical report, 2015.
[25] M. Iqbal, W. N. Browne, and M. Zhang. Reusing building blocks of extracted knowledge to solve complex, large-scale boolean problems. IEEE
Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 18(4):465–480, 2014.
[26] M. Iqbal, B. Xue, H. Al-Sahaf, and M. Zhang. Cross-domain reuse of
extracted knowledge in genetic programming for image classification.
IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, to be published.
30

[27] M. Jiang, W. Huang, Z. Huang, and G. G. Yen. Integration of global
and local metrics for domain adaptation learning via dimensionality reduction. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 47(1):38–51, 2017.
[28] M. Jiang, Y. Yu, X. Liu, F. Zhang, and Q. Hong. Fuzzy neural network
based dynamic path planning. In 2012 International Conference on
Machine Learning and Cybernetics, volume 1, pages 326–330. IEEE,
2012.
[29] M. Jiang, C. Zhou, and S. Chen. Embodied concept formation and
reasoning via neural-symbolic integration. Neurocomputing, 74(1):113–
120, 2010.
[30] H. Karshenas, R. Santana, C. Bielza, and P. Larranaga. Multiobjective
estimation of distribution algorithm based on joint modeling of objectives and variables. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation,
18(4):519–542, 2014.
[31] C. Li and S. Yang. Fast Multi-Swarm Optimization for Dynamic Optimization Problems. In 2008 Fourth International Conference on Natural
Computation. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE),
2008.
[32] M. Mavrovouniotis and S. Yang. Genetic algorithms with adaptive immigrants for dynamic environments. In 2013 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers
(IEEE), jun 2013.
[33] A. Muruganantham, K. Tan, and P. Vadakkepat. Evolutionary Dynamic Multiobjective Optimization Via Kalman Filter Prediction. IEEE
Transactions on Cybernetics, 46(12):2862–2873, Dec 2016.
[34] A. Muruganantham, K. C. Tan, and P. Vadakkepat. Solving the IEEE
CEC 2015 dynamic benchmark problems using Kalman filter based dynamic multiobjective evolutionary algorithm. In Proceedings in Adaptation Learning and Optimization, pages 239–252. Springer Science mathplus Business Media, nov 2015.
[35] A. J. Nebro, F. Luna, E. Alba, B. Dorronsoro, J. J. Durillo, and A. Beham. Abyss: Adapting scatter search to multiobjective optimization.
IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 12(4):439–457, 2008.
31

[36] T. T. Nguyen, S. Yang, and J. Branke. Evolutionary dynamic optimization: A survey of the state of the art. Swarm and Evolutionary
Computation, 6:1–24, oct 2012.
[37] S. J. Pan, I. W. Tsang, J. T. Kwok, and Q. Yang. Domain adaptation via
transfer component analysis. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks,
22(2):199–210, 2011.
[38] S. J. Pan and Q. Yang. A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Transactions
on, Knowledge and Data Engineering, 22(10):1345–1359, 2010.
[39] V. M. Patel, R. Gopalan, R. Li, and R. Chellappa. Visual domain
adaptation: an overview of recent advances. IEEE signal processing
magazine, 32:53–69, 2015.
[40] C. Raquel and X. Yao. Dynamic multi-objective optimization: a survey
of the state-of-the-art. In Studies in Computational Intelligence, pages
85–106. Springer Science mathplus Business Media, 2013.
[41] C. Rossi, M. Abderrahim, and J. C. Dı́az. Tracking moving optima using
Kalman-based predictions. Evolutionary Computation, 16(1):1–30, mar
2008.
[42] B. Scholkopft and K.-R. Mullert. Fisher discriminant analysis with kernels. In Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE Signal Processing Society Workshop Neural Networks for Signal Processing IX, Madison, WI, USA,
pages 23–25, 1999.
[43] J. Shawe-Taylor and N. Cristianini. Kernel methods for pattern analysis.
Cambridge university press, 2004.
[44] M. R. Sierra and C. A. C. Coello. Improving pso-based multi-objective
optimization using crowding, mutation and -dominance. In International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, pages
505–519. Springer, 2005.
[45] A. Simões and E. Costa. Prediction in evolutionary algorithms for dynamic environments. Soft Comput, 18(8):1471–1497, oct 2013.
[46] A. Smola, A. Gretton, L. Song, and B. Schölkopf. A hilbert space
embedding for distributions. In Algorithmic Learning Theory, pages
13–31. Springer, 2007.
32

[47] M. C. Sola. Parallel processing for dynamic multi-objective optimization. PhD thesis, Ph. D. thesis, Universidad de Granada, Dept. of Computer Architecture and Computer Technology, Universidad de Granada,
Spain, 2010.
[48] I. Steinwart. On the influence of the kernel on the consistency of support
vector machines. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2:67–93,
2002.
[49] P. Stroud. Kalman-extended genetic algorithm for search in nonstationary environments with noisy fitness evaluations. IEEE Transactions on
Evolutionary Computation, 5(1):66–77, 2001.
[50] F. Vavak, T. C. Fogarty, and K. Jukes. A genetic algorithm with variable range of local search for tracking changing environments. In Parallel
Problem Solving from Nature — PPSN IV, pages 376–385. Springer Science mathplus Business Media, 1996.
[51] Y. Wang and B. Li. Multi-strategy ensemble evolutionary algorithm for
dynamic multi-objective optimization. Memetic Comp., 2(1):3–24, sep
2009.
[52] L. While, P. Hingston, L. Barone, and S. Huband. A faster algorithm
for calculating hypervolume. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, 10(1):29–38, 2006.
[53] Y. Woldesenbet and G. Yen. Dynamic evolutionary algorithm with
variable relocation. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation,
13(3):500–513, jun 2009.
[54] J. Xu, P. B. Luh, F. B. White, E. Ni, and K. Kasiviswanathan. Power
portfolio optimization in deregulated electricity markets with risk management. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 21(4):1653–1662, 2006.
[55] S. Yang. Genetic algorithms with memory- and elitism-based immigrants
in dynamic environments. Evolutionary Computation, 16(3):385–416,
Sep 2008.
[56] S. Yang and C. Li. A clustering particle swarm optimizer for locating and
tracking multiple optima in dynamic environments. IEEE Transactions
on Evolutionary Computation, 14(6):959–974, dec 2010.
33

[57] S. Yang and R. Tinós. A hybrid immigrants scheme for genetic algorithms in dynamic environments. International Journal of Automation
and Computing, 4(3):243–254, jul 2007.
[58] Q. Zhang, A. Zhou, and Y. Jin. Rm-meda: A regularity model-based
multiobjective estimation of distribution algorithm. IEEE Transactions
on Evolutionary Computation, 12(1):41–63, 2008.
[59] A. Zhou, Y. Jin, and Q. Zhang. A population prediction strategy for
evolutionary dynamic multiobjective optimization. IEEE Transactions
on Cybernetics, 44(1):40–53, jan 2014.

34

6

supplemental Materials

This part includes twelve tables. These tables recorded the MIGD values
of the six algorithms, NSGA-II, Tr-NSGA-II, MOPSO, Tr-MOPSO, RMMEDA and Tr- RM-MEDA, running on the twelve testing functions under
eight environments, from C1 to C8. In these tables, the “ROC” refers to the
ratio of change and we used bold face to identify those experiments where
performance has been improved.
Table 8: FDA4
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8

MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR

NSGA-II

Tr-NSGA-II

0.2276
1.8246E-05
0.2244
4.8821E-05
0.2123
6.7454E-05
0.2121
1.3541E-05
0.3982
4.6983E-04
0.4151
5.8715E-05
0.2003
2.9321E-10
0.2174
1.6242E-04

0.0881
9.2507E-07
0.0849
2.8997E-07
0.0861
6.7844E-07
0.0857
1.2315E-06
0.0853
1.9502E-07
0.0840
3.7560E-07
0.0878
7.0748E-06
0.0847
5.8681E-07

ROC (%)

61.3188
62.1480
59.4203
59.6021
78.5738
79.7524
56.1683
61.0192

MOPSO

Tr-MOPSO

0.0764
7.7743E-05
0.0760
7.7034E-05
0.0756
6.4871E-05
0.0766
6.4677E-05
0.0624
4.8391E-05
0.0616
5.8574E-05
0.0789
1.3014E-04
0.0779
9.0152E-05

0.0627
1.3804E-08
0.0635
3.6274E-08
0.0636
2.1779E-09
0.0633
1.3470E-07
0.0536
7.7322E-07
0.0535
1.5520E-09
0.0639
4.5717E-10
0.0632
3.5372E-08

ROC (%)

18.0104
16.4435
15.8521
17.3353
14.1528
13.0936
18.9788
18.8763

RM-MEDA

0.0678
5.2059E-07
0.0678
3.3605E-07
0.0673
1.7372E-07
0.0684
1.6080E-07
0.0673
4.6476E-07
0.0693
2.2626E-08
0.0674
4.1111E-07
0.0687
9.4215E-09

Tr-RM-MEDA
0.0533
3.2465E-07
0.0524
4.7269E-07
0.0522
1.7532E-07
0.0527
1.5401E-07
0.0500
5.0149E-11
0.0501
6.8992E-08
0.0523
8.7830E-08
0.0529
3.9562E-09

ROC (%)

21.4710
22.7386
22.4152
22.9059
25.7460
27.7051
22.3155
23.0764

Table 9: FDA5
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8

MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR

NSGA-II

Tr-NSGA-II

0.2400
1.5776E-03
0.2309
4.9722E-05
0.2283
1.9969E-07
0.2254
3.4071E-04
0.6507
1.4819E-04
0.6709
2.0832E-03
0.1884
2.4646E-05
0.2057
1.9567E-05

0.1413
5.1236E-06
0.1437
2.2216E-04
0.2611
2.0216E-04
0.1929
1.9428E-05
0.4092
1.2949E-03
0.4090
7.0414E-04
0.1499
3.2471E-08
0.1377
5.2939E-04

ROC (%)

41.1326
37.7968
-14.3646
14.4507
37.1174
39.0381
20.3940
33.0929

MOPSO

Tr-MOPSO

0.2077
4.5041E-03
0.2721
3.4133E-02
0.1660
1.3965E-04
0.1545
9.5470E-04
0.2825
1.6887E-04
0.3015
2.8644E-03
0.1654
1.0135E-04
0.1547
1.8381E-05

0.1182
5.1385E-09
0.1191
3.8575E-06
0.1238
2.5556E-06
0.1212
2.9989E-08
0.1130
1.7385E-05
0.1270
1.0997E-03
0.1164
6.6345E-05
0.1179
2.1885E-05

35

ROC (%)

43.0924
56.2091
25.4400
21.5557
60.0003
57.8789
29.6483
23.7802

RM-MEDA

0.1741
3.1584E-04
0.1973
1.7169E-03
0.2091
1.5582E-03
0.1863
9.5869E-06
0.2978
4.1144E-03
0.2682
2.0990E-03
0.1726
4.3048E-05
0.1661
2.7332E-04

Tr-RM-MEDA
0.0800
1.3341E-06
0.0790
2.6424E-07
0.0802
2.8186E-07
0.0793
7.8247E-08
0.0698
4.0474E-07
0.0818
1.6960E-04
0.0755
6.5608E-10
0.0752
4.7222E-08

ROC (%)

54.0663
59.9575
61.6615
57.4027
76.5526
69.4866
56.2418
54.7071

Table 10: FDA5iso
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8

MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR

NSGA-II

Tr-NSGA-II

0.0990
7.4915E-06
0.1062
1.7928E-04
0.0999
5.3260E-06
0.0959
3.9586E-06
0.1245
1.0807E-04
0.1098
3.2348E-06
0.0950
1.4644E-06
0.1081
3.9038E-04

0.1474
2.1071E-03
0.1246
1.5697E-03
0.1318
4.5014E-04
0.1266
9.6354E-05
0.1496
2.2636E-06
0.1413
1.4977E-04
0.0973
1.9496E-05
0.1148
5.5916E-04

ROC (%)

-48.9093
-17.3705
-31.8317
-31.9813
-20.1368
-28.6611
-2.4419
-6.1528

MOPSO

Tr-MOPSO

0.1143
4.7170E-09
0.1137
1.9681E-05
0.1169
2.2940E-08
0.1156
2.3902E-05
0.1026
2.1496E-07
0.1053
1.6652E-05
0.1062
2.3870E-06
0.1100
2.5876E-06

0.1270
1.2904E-04
0.1223
3.2967E-05
0.1194
4.5508E-06
0.1174
1.6925E-04
0.1155
7.3640E-05
0.1107
1.4460E-10
0.1136
1.1739E-06
0.1188
9.8240E-05

ROC (%)

-11.0275
-7.5808
-2.1164
-1.4932
-12.5111
-5.1149
-6.9763
-8.0000

RM-MEDA

0.0666
3.7265E-09
0.0662
5.3824E-09
0.0669
1.7117E-07
0.0659
4.5401E-09
0.0624
4.0145E-06
0.0611
1.2519E-08
0.0651
5.1521E-08
0.0653
2.1896E-09

Tr-RM-MEDA
0.0668
2.6494E-08
0.0663
3.0749E-08
0.0669
2.6062E-09
0.0661
1.5496E-08
0.0613
1.0112E-07
0.0612
2.1923E-09
0.0655
1.9050E-07
0.0654
6.6672E-09

ROC (%)

-0.2884
-0.0852
0.0839
-0.2978
1.8057
-0.0557
-0.6285
-0.0824

Table 11: FDA5dec
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8

MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR

NSGA-II

Tr-NSGA-II

0.3701
1.6658E-03
0.3640
2.5492E-03
0.4321
1.9916E-02
0.4584
1.5253E-03
1.1684
6.3473E-04
1.1842
1.1343E-02
0.4179
4.7462E-03
0.3431
1.8925E-05

0.2967
4.1428E-07
0.3018
1.1655E-03
0.3194
8.9818E-06
0.2740
1.6655E-04
0.9052
4.1290E-02
1.1479
4.5164E-02
0.2011
5.6786E-05
0.2013
2.4026E-03

ROC (%)

19.8300
17.0947
26.0648
40.2280
22.5197
3.0703
51.8789
41.3357

MOPSO

Tr-MOPSO

ROC (%)

0.1706

17.5353

0.1465

30.6647

0.1403

50.6122

0.1431

23.9749

0.4083

10.6388

0.4237

11.7771

0.1363

28.1784

0.1423

20.6783

0.2068
1.1357E-04
0.2113
4.5714E-03
0.2840
4.2669E-05
0.1882
4.4340E-05
0.4569
4.1138E-03
0.4802
4.8785E-03
0.1897
2.8357E-05
0.1794
9.9454E-04

36

RM-MEDA

0.6791
6.6137E-04
0.6170
1.6537E-04
0.6352
2.5114E-03
0.6393
5.9788E-04
0.3726
6.1639E-06
0.3802
3.4097E-03
0.6260
1.7293E-04
0.6739
3.7766E-03

Tr-RM-MEDA
0.4096
3.0126E-04
0.4124
5.1870E-06
0.3992
4.9007E-04
0.4102
4.2766E-04
0.1268
1.4866E-05
0.1308
7.1229E-04
0.3648
1.9517E-05
0.3662
1.9394E-04

ROC (%)

39.6884
33.1499
37.1567
35.8319
65.9669
65.5900
41.7235
45.6626

Table 12: DIMP2
NSGA-II

C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8

MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR

3.6287
1.8027E-01
4.0771
4.7095E-02
4.1530
1.1714E-01
3.6302
1.6550E-01
4.4689
1.2814E-01
3.5897
9.8967E-03
3.7563
2.4725E-04
3.8851
2.5013E-01

Tr-NSGA-II

ROC (%)

2.5147

30.6992

2.3481

42.4074

2.5097

39.5693

2.3739

34.6066

2.3552

47.2980

2.2009

38.6900

2.3449

37.5743

2.1546

44.5419

MOPSO

Tr-MOPSO

ROC (%)

0.4010

86.5408

0.2857

88.3599

0.1475

93.0529

0.1476

94.7278

0.4857

73.7642

0.2932

87.1703

0.3306

83.6751

0.2581

89.3735

2.9797
5.3940E-02
2.4547
1.8199E+00
2.1233
3.1945E-02
2.7988
1.1552E+00
1.8512
2.7176E-01
2.2850
2.5271E-01
2.0250
6.1787E-03
2.4292
5.2389E-01

RM-MEDA

5.2097
1.7667E-02
4.8282
1.1118E-03
4.8860
2.2842E-01
4.6559
5.6086E-05
4.9163
8.7425E-02
5.0086
2.7665E-01
4.7298
1.6563E-03
4.8794
3.5292E-02

Tr-RM-MEDA

ROC (%)

4.9018

5.9113

5.2399

-8.5262

4.9851

-2.0293

4.8186

-3.4948

4.9695

-1.0823

4.9583

1.0050

4.8399

-2.3276

5.1023

-4.5683

Table 13: DMOP2
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8

MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR

NSGA-II

Tr-NSGA-II

0.1367
8.3806E-05
0.1097
3.4897E-04
0.1392
1.5812E-03
0.1234
3.4172E-04
0.2939
1.5190E-04
2.3484
7.5218E+00
0.0967
5.6724E-05
0.1136
8.9671E-04

0.0342
2.2300E-07
0.0367
5.6430E-06
0.0300
2.4597E-07
0.0407
1.5152E-04
2.2819
8.0239E+00
0.2593
1.3435E-03
0.0375
9.6483E-05
0.0311
1.3546E-05

ROC (%)

74.9665
66.5239
78.4328
67.0124
-676.2864
88.9568
61.2215
72.6521

MOPSO

Tr-MOPSO

0.1472
1.4966E-05
0.2784
1.7974E-02
0.2780
2.3922E-05
0.1821
8.6546E-03
0.3241
1.1403E-01
0.4015
1.8818E-02
0.0252
6.0961E-08
0.0668
4.3184E-03

ROC (%)

0.0105
6.4208E-06 92.8490
0.0090
9.0819E-07 96.7735
0.0097
2.0104E-06 96.5132
0.0092
1.1422E-07 94.9274
1.8752
6.3602E+00 -478.5327
0.0874
8.9815E-06 78.2424
0.0186
2.2825E-04 26.1430
0.0104
3.9726E-06 84.3618

37

RM-MEDA

0.0039
8.9592E-08
0.0043
1.6877E-06
0.0047
4.4530E-07
0.0041
1.1866E-07
18.3749
9.8567E-03
18.3544
5.7303E-03
0.0035
6.1515E-08
0.0034
5.6020E-08

Tr-RM-MEDA
0.0366
2.9249E-04
0.0066
2.7414E-05
0.0029
4.7458E-08
0.0027
2.5738E-08
18.9887
1.3102E-01
18.6601
3.1135E-02
0.0028
7.2391E-08
0.0038
3.1823E-08

ROC (%)

-827.7905
-52.7081
37.5324
33.3552
-3.3402
-1.6652
21.0670
-13.0372

Table 14: DMOP2iso
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8

MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR

NSGA-II

Tr-NSGA-II

0.0026
1.4710E-12
0.0026
7.0355E-10
0.0026
1.4253E-09
0.0026
4.3446E-11
0.1212
1.4153E-05
0.1232
1.4552E-05
0.0025
5.2352E-10
0.0026
1.1559E-10

0.0027
7.0791E-10
0.0027
2.1892E-10
0.0027
2.3627E-09
0.0027
5.6923E-09
0.1304
1.2108E-05
0.1402
2.1830E-06
0.0026
3.4636E-10
0.0026
8.7427E-10

ROC (%)

-4.8403
-4.4605
-6.8106
-3.1781
-7.5446
-13.7891
-2.9765
-2.4833

MOPSO

Tr-MOPSO

0.0048
9.0873E-09
0.0050
8.0595E-09
0.0049
9.2590E-09
0.0051
8.3902E-13
0.1127
5.5578E-08
0.1127
4.6055E-08
0.0048
1.3988E-08
0.0050
1.6665E-08

0.0049
3.2098E-10
0.0049
6.0198E-11
0.0048
1.0770E-08
0.0050
3.4667E-09
0.1127
6.6161E-10
0.1128
1.7908E-08
0.0049
2.4884E-09
0.0049
3.8434E-08

ROC (%)

-0.2598
2.5526
1.6411
2.8216
-0.0139
-0.0400
-0.5804
3.3136

RM-MEDA

0.0019
5.4961E-14
0.0019
4.1426E-12
0.0019
5.3240E-13
0.0019
2.7556E-12
0.1104
3.0130E-12
0.1104
7.9401E-16
0.0019
4.2732E-12
0.0019
6.8648E-12

Tr-RM-MEDA
0.0019
1.0336E-11
0.0019
3.8878E-13
0.0019
3.5049E-12
0.0019
1.2409E-13
0.1104
7.3002E-12
0.1104
2.4929E-12
0.0019
1.5004E-12
0.0019
2.1063E-12

ROC (%)

-0.0057
-0.0855
-0.0549
-0.0609
0.0017
-0.0004
0.0712
-0.0935

Table 15: DMOP2dec
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8

MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR

NSGA-II

Tr-NSGA-II

0.3575
5.4036E-03
0.4193
3.3718E-03
0.3923
2.2371E-03
0.4062
1.5897E-03
1.2991
5.5417E-02
1.5098
2.8521E-02
0.3701
3.8975E-03
0.2878
1.7600E-03

0.1969
8.4656E-04
0.2044
1.3931E-06
0.2182
3.4360E-06
0.2432
1.2597E-03
0.9970
7.5395E-06
0.8689
1.6001E-03
0.2011
4.6698E-03
0.2142
1.8550E-04

ROC (%)

44.9115
51.2453
44.3910
40.1262
23.2553
42.4497
45.6631
25.5755

MOPSO

Tr-MOPSO

0.3054
5.7504E-02
0.2230
7.8028E-05
0.2267
3.7621E-03
0.4104
6.8751E-02
0.6897
1.4321E-03
0.6992
2.3515E-01
0.4014
2.3974E-05
0.3977
2.0118E-02

0.0307
4.0371E-05
0.0134
1.0865E-06
0.0138
4.9494E-08
0.0142
2.4467E-06
0.0514
1.1253E-05
0.0553
2.8605E-05
0.0115
9.5240E-08
0.0133
7.5405E-07

38

ROC (%)

89.9592
93.9837
93.9166
96.5336
92.5402
92.0972
97.1391
96.6628

RM-MEDA

0.1104
4.5859E-05
0.1465
2.0992E-04
0.0912
2.5922E-05
0.1104
1.6155E-04
0.2322
1.6904E-05
0.2301
3.4389E-05
0.1315
5.0617E-05
0.1066
5.8950E-05

Tr-RM-MEDA
0.0511
4.4133E-06
0.0523
4.1956E-05
0.0446
8.8813E-07
0.0441
4.1179E-05
0.2290
1.2066E-04
0.2213
7.2266E-06
0.0553
4.0637E-05
0.0540
8.2834E-05

ROC (%)

53.7191
64.3164
51.0528
60.0153
1.3929
3.8511
57.9290
49.2849

Table 16: DMOP3
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8

MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR

NSGA-II

Tr-NSGA-II

0.1084
7.3738E-05
0.1359
2.3903E-04
0.1486
1.0447E-06
0.0922
7.5602E-05
0.3562
1.0547E-03
5.9830
8.8697E+00
0.1395
3.9562E-04
0.1174
1.1919E-04

0.0296
7.9556E-06
0.0359
2.2027E-04
0.0245
3.2505E-05
0.0390
2.6008E-08
2.1887
7.7773E+00
5.7247
8.1335E+00
0.0360
5.3965E-06
0.0278
1.0728E-04

ROC (%)

72.7002
73.6077
83.5041
57.6545
-514.5040
4.3171
74.1808
76.2864

MOPSO

Tr-MOPSO

ROC (%)

0.0105
0.0416
1.6573E-05 2.4358E-03 -296.0364
0.0143
0.0065
54.2790
4.9260E-05 5.5000E-09
0.0077
0.0062
19.3390
3.1252E-07 8.9046E-09
0.0090
0.0064
28.1404
7.6625E-09 1.0967E-08
0.1310
1.9281
-1371.9864
4.5042E-04 6.4553E+00
2.0842
0.1169
94.3914
7.5217E+00 2.9454E-06
0.0155
0.0076
51.0026
1.0151E-04 2.2629E-08
0.0086
0.0063
26.7219
1.9468E-06 2.4955E-07

RM-MEDA

0.0033
4.5813E-11
0.0031
6.8391E-09
0.0030
3.3853E-09
0.0030
1.0279E-08
18.3638
3.4346E-03
18.3348
8.5653E-03
0.0029
4.1482E-09
0.0033
3.5712E-07

Tr-RM-MEDA

ROC (%)

0.0025

24.6490

0.0024

22.0849

0.0038

-25.1478

0.0030

0.4896

18.4456

-0.4455

18.4792

-0.7879

0.0026

10.7489

0.0024

27.4789

Table 17: HE2
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8

MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR

NSGA-II

Tr-NSGA-II

0.1942
1.2666E-03
0.1522
1.3660E-04
0.1572
1.6637E-06
0.1875
5.7780E-04
0.2700
9.1661E-04
0.3545
1.2909E-03
0.2078
4.0462E-06
0.1531
2.3195E-04

0.1889
1.7182E-04
0.1788
6.1378E-04
0.1546
4.0007E-05
0.1765
4.0523E-05
0.0879
1.4581E-04
0.0815
1.5771E-04
0.1495
1.0892E-04
0.1830
5.1881E-04

ROC (%)

2.7314
-17.4533
1.6659
5.8589
67.4516
77.0146
28.0723
-19.5666

MOPSO

Tr-MOPSO

0.0795
1.9892E-04
0.1019
2.6750E-03
0.0784
3.2323E-04
0.0949
1.7837E-03
0.0967
2.5397E-04
0.0894
2.3229E-04
0.0638
9.4058E-07
0.0728
4.2019E-05

0.0683
1.6164E-05
0.0672
1.4320E-05
0.0697
1.1259E-05
0.0623
4.6907E-07
0.0595
1.3812E-05
0.0572
9.3198E-08
0.0650
6.6609E-06
0.0626
2.7083E-07

39

ROC (%)

14.0445
34.0322
11.1071
34.3376
38.4635
36.0087
-1.9613
14.0586

RM-MEDA

0.8809
9.0862E-05
0.9015
3.6855E-04
0.9025
1.0819E-04
0.8906
1.1358E-04
0.6971
1.1198E-06
0.6974
2.5975E-05
0.8962
7.6239E-07
0.8944
3.6057E-04

Tr-RM-MEDA

ROC (%)

0.1162

86.8097

0.1171

87.0121

0.1196

86.7433

0.1068

88.0113

0.0697

89.9980

0.0726

89.5874

0.1038

88.4222

0.1082

87.9062

Table 18: HE7
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8

MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR

NSGA-II

Tr-NSGA-II

0.0971
1.4370E-06
0.0988
1.8807E-06
0.1012
1.0019E-05
0.1036
3.2259E-05
0.0779
2.4013E-05
0.0781
7.6260E-06
0.0939
3.4045E-05
0.1059
2.5446E-06

0.0417
1.7339E-06
0.0409
2.0477E-06
0.0410
2.4940E-10
0.0398
1.9226E-06
0.0362
9.3120E-08
0.0326
6.2165E-08
0.0396
1.9975E-06
0.0403
4.2571E-06

ROC (%)

57.1039
58.5736
59.4455
61.5666
53.4686
58.3400
57.7739
61.9792

MOPSO

Tr-MOPSO

0.0612
2.9389E-04
0.0588
7.8924E-05
0.0600
5.2104E-05
0.0596
3.2056E-05
0.0613
7.4316E-05
0.0579
1.5637E-05
0.0523
1.2234E-05
0.0547
2.3103E-06

0.0594
3.4081E-06
0.0608
6.3404E-08
0.0611
1.3924E-06
0.0598
3.3301E-06
0.0528
1.4570E-05
0.0532
2.0849E-05
0.0599
1.8850E-06
0.0597
2.1898E-06

ROC (%)

2.8756
-3.3986
-1.7770
-0.4940
13.9572
8.1117
-14.4283
-9.1221

RM-MEDA

0.0438
1.7793E-04
0.0440
1.7464E-04
0.0449
1.5950E-04
0.0440
1.7977E-04
0.0397
1.1893E-04
0.0391
1.4266E-04
0.0433
1.3745E-04
0.0436
1.5031E-04

Tr-RM-MEDA
0.0354
4.5205E-06
0.0344
1.9297E-06
0.0353
1.9108E-07
0.0351
1.4912E-06
0.0321
4.0164E-06
0.0333
6.3904E-06
0.0340
4.2448E-07
0.0337
4.0268E-06

ROC (%)

19.3090
21.8204
21.4040
20.2879
19.2266
14.8676
21.3226
22.5674

Table 19: HE9
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8

MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR
MIGD
VAR

NSGA-II

Tr-NSGA-II

0.3028
2.9107E-05
0.3009
2.0520E-06
0.3057
2.2473E-05
0.3029
4.6335E-05
0.2670
1.1548E-06
0.2669
3.1621E-06
0.3050
8.0651E-05
0.3051
2.4933E-05

0.2580
1.5525E-06
0.2617
5.9900E-06
0.2548
2.2159E-05
0.2635
8.2176E-05
0.2270
1.5988E-06
0.2279
2.7471E-05
0.2558
1.5958E-05
0.2579
3.7407E-06

ROC (%)

14.7877
13.0234
16.6490
12.9993
14.9754
14.6107
16.1353
15.4894

MOPSO

Tr-MOPSO

0.2648
8.0165E-06
0.2712
7.1836E-07
0.2675
1.6559E-06
0.2655
1.0313E-06
0.1877
5.1013E-06
0.1908
4.2148E-08
0.2551
3.2539E-07
0.2645
1.2709E-07

0.2961
3.5768E-05
0.3023
4.6393E-05
0.3004
2.1955E-05
0.3028
2.9225E-05
0.2572
1.0775E-04
0.2544
2.3717E-05
0.2963
4.7023E-05
0.3003
1.0673E-05

40

ROC (%)

-11.8097
-11.4461
-12.2867
-14.0407
-37.0047
-33.2995
-16.1533
-13.5733

RM-MEDA

0.2653
4.0274E-08
0.2637
3.1215E-07
0.2634
1.4103E-06
0.2639
3.7052E-06
0.2365
1.3658E-05
0.2356
2.7905E-07
0.2626
3.7952E-06
0.2609
5.5975E-07

Tr-RM-MEDA
0.2455
3.9133E-07
0.2437
2.4694E-07
0.2451
3.2609E-07
0.2457
2.2156E-05
0.2168
5.3162E-10
0.2179
5.3859E-06
0.2449
1.0545E-05
0.2467
5.4257E-09

ROC (%)

7.4804
7.6087
6.9490
6.9055
8.3525
7.5252
6.7409
5.4267

