## Abstract

This paper improves a recently developed multi-objective particle swarm optimizer () that incorporates dominance with decomposition used in the context of multi-objective optimization. Decomposition simplifies a multi-objective problem (MOP) by transforming it to a set of aggregation problems, whereas dominance plays a major role in building the leaders’ archive. introduces a new archiving technique that facilitates attaining better diversity and coverage in both objective and solution spaces. The improved method is evaluated on standard benchmarks including both constrained and unconstrained test problems, by comparing it with three state of the art multi-objective evolutionary algorithms: MOEA/D, OMOPSO, and dMOPSO. The comparison and analysis of the experimental results, supported by statistical tests, indicate that the proposed algorithm is highly competitive, efficient, and applicable to a wide range of multi-objective optimization problems.

## 1 Introduction

Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is a population-based metaheuristic (Kennedy and Eberhart, 1995) that simulates the behavior of a flock of birds in nature. The particles in the swarm move in the solution space searching for the regions where promising solutions are located. The particles communicate with each other to discover the social and personal information that direct their movement.

Many real-world applications often involve optimization of multiple, competing objectives in large search spaces (Talbi, 2009). It is therefore an important task to effectively and simultaneously address multiple optimization objectives by identifying a set of well-distributed Pareto optimal solutions that yield good values for each objective.

Population-based metaheuristics (e.g., PSO) have been developed to facilitate an efficient search in multi-dimensional solution spaces, the feasible regions within which are determined by a set of (often nonlinear) constraints. However, instead of obtaining an infinite number of Pareto optimal solutions, which is a time-consuming and resource-demanding task, it is often preferable to search for a set of representative solutions that closely approximate the true Pareto front being uniformly distributed along its length (Coello Coello et al., 2007).

Designing effective measures for diversification of solutions to a multi-objective problem (MOP) and for their uniform distribution along the Pareto optimal front is a challenging research problem (Reyes-Sierra and Coello Coello, 2006). Multi-objective metaheuristics can be classified into four categories: decomposition-based (scalar), criterion-based, dominance-based, and indicator-based approaches (discussed in detail by Talbi, 2009). It would be interesting therefore to ascertain whether/how these approaches can be combined or enhanced to achieve a better preservation of solution diversity, and as a consequence, a closer approximation of the Pareto optimal front. Hybridizing different search approaches has been reported (Zhou et al., 2011).

, originally proposed in Al Moubayed et al. (2012), utilizes a hybrid approach of dominance (e.g., Reyes-Sierra and Coello Coello, 2005) and decomposition (e.g., Zhang and Li, 2007). This approach achieves fast convergence to the true Pareto front without resorting to the use of genetic operators (e.g., mutation). Also, a better exploitation of the information discovered during the search enables the suggested multi-objective PSO approach to be applied to problems that necessitate complex system optimization. The version we proposed in Al Moubayed et al. (2012) only presented tentative ideas on how to achieve this hybrid approach. The work presented here differs in several major points: (1) the mechanism for leaders’ selection, (2) the archiving technique, (3) the objectives are no longer normalized using a sigmoid function, (4) the current paper also provides comprehensive experiments and analysis of the performance of the algorithms. From now on, will refer to the version presented in this work only.

introduces a bounded leaders’ archive based on the crowding distance in both objective and solution spaces to store the non-dominated particles. The leaders are then selected from the archive using the aggregation value as the selection criterion.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 surveys the related work. Section 3 describes and details the methods. The experimental setup and benchmarks used for testing the proposed algorithm are discussed in Section 4. The results, statistical and complexity analysis, and discussion are presented in Section 5. Section 6 concludes the paper.

## 2 Background and Related Work

### 2.1 Multi-Objective Optimization Problems

Solving a multi-objective optimization problem is challenging because an improvement in one objective often happens at the expense of deterioration in other objective(s). The optimization challenge therefore is to find the entire set of trade-off solutions that satisfy all conflicting objectives.

*n*is the dimension of solution space, and is the number of objectives. The search space (also called the solution space) refers to the space of decision variables, whereas the objective space is the space where the objective vectors lie.

When minimizing *F*(*x*), for example, a domination relationship is defined between the solutions as follows: let , if and only if for all , and there is at least one *j* for which *f _{j}*(

*x*)<

*f*(

_{j}*y*). Thus, is a Pareto optimal solution if there is no other solution such that . Therefore, the Pareto optimality of a solution guarantees that any enhancement of one objective would result in the worsening of at least one other objective. The concept of gives a set of solutions called the Pareto optimal set

*P*. The image of the Pareto optimal set in the objective space (i.e.,

*F*(

*P*)) is called the Pareto front (PF; Reyes-Sierra and Coello Coello, 2006).

Solving MOPs is highly dependent on the structure of the PF, in addition to the number of the objectives, as the number of optimal solutions necessary to find a good approximation of the PF tends to grow with an increase in the number of objectives. A multi-objective evolutionary algorithm aims at producing an approximated PF with uniform diversity that fully covers the PF.

### 2.2 Multi-Objective Particle Swarm Optimization

PSO is a population-based metaheuristic yielding competitive solutions in many application domains (Wang et al., 2004; Jaishia and Ren, 2007). Several multi-objective PSO (MOPSO) methods have recently been developed and their performance has been demonstrated on real-life problems and standard benchmarks (Reyes-Sierra and Coello Coello, 2006; Baltar and Fontane, 2006). In MOPSO, each particle in a swarm represents a potential solution in the solution space.

*pbest*and

_{i}*lbest*are the best personal performance and the best local performance of

_{i}*particle*respectively;

_{i}*r*

_{1}and

*r*

_{2}are vectors of normally distributed random values,

*w*is the inertia weight,

*C*

_{1}and

*C*

_{2}are the learning factors, and . is the element by element product. (The asterisk stands for vector multiplication, and the periods for scalar multiplication.)

### 2.3 Decomposition-Based Evolutionary Algorithms

Decomposition-based evolutionary approaches rely mainly on an aggregation function that converts the MOP into a single-objective problem by assigning a weight to each objective (i.e., objectives are not necessarily equally important). Different weight assignments yield different aggregation functions, which are used to transform the MOP into a set of distinct single-objective problems. The original MOP is then addressed by simultaneously solving these subproblems.

*m*is the number of objectives.

Each individual in MOEA/D has a fixed size neighborhood throughout the optimization process. The neighbors are the *T* individuals that have the smallest distance between their own and the corresponding individual's . The population is evolved by mating each individual with a randomly selected member of its neighborhood. The resulting solution replaces a neighbor only when it has a better aggregation value calculated using the neighbor's . As only the fittest individuals survive, the last population of the evolution process presents the approximation of the PF. The advantages of this approach in terms of mathematical soundness, algorithmic structure, and computational cost are explained in Li and Zhang (2009). What follows is a brief description of some decomposition-based MOEA using PSO.

#### 2.3.1 MOPSO/D

MOPSO/D (Peng and Zhang, 2008) is a multi-objective optimization method that uses the MOEA/D framework to solve continuous MOPs. MOPSO/D substitutes the GA in MOEA/D with PSO. It relies fully on decomposition to update the personal and global information. Each particle is associated with one local best, so an update of a particle position can trigger position update in its neighbors’ local best(s) resulting in duplications and making the algorithm prone to falling into local optima. Hence, mutation is employed.

#### 2.3.2 SDMOPSO

In SDMOPSO (Al Moubayed et al., 2010), the particle's global best is found among the solutions located within a certain neighborhood. SDMOPSO tackles the drawback of MOPSO/D by allowing particle position update only if it leads to a better aggregation value (i.e., the value of the aggregation function). Duplicated global bests are avoided by restricting the number of updates to a predefined small number (e.g., two). Although SDMOPSO shows significant improvement over MOPSO/D, the particles may still fall into a local optima if they were unable to find better locations to move to.

#### 2.3.3 dMOPSO

dMOPSO (Martínez and Coello Coello, 2011) uses decomposition to update the leaders’ archive and to select the swarm leader(s). The archive stores the particles with the best aggregation values for each particle in the swarm, whereas the particles’ personal memory store the position with the best aggregated value found so far. To maintain the diversity of the swarm and to avoid local optima, dMOPSO re-initializes the particles’ memory using a Gaussian normal distribution when the particle exceeds a certain age (i.e., number of iterations with no update). This may lead to losing all the experience gained throughout the exploration process, as well as adding more complexity to the algorithm. Besides, it uses decomposition as a way to substitute dominance. With the absence of dominance, the decomposition strategy is confined to leading the swarm into a limited number of destinations equal to the swarm size (the number of vectors). With complicated Pareto fronts (i.e., disconnected) and the limited size of the swarm, dMOPSO might fail to cover the entire PF.

*p*is assigned a value, , based on its location in the objective space: for a bi-objective problem, where

_{i}*f*

_{1}and

*f*

_{2}are the objective values of

*p*. Using this definition: all the particles where

_{i}*f*

_{1}=

*af*

_{2}, that is, they are located in the objective space on a line with slope

*a*, would have the same . for the corresponding particle

*p*is the one that has with the closest distance to . The clustered particles in the swarm have similar , making them move in the same direction, as a result of selecting a set of clustered leaders. This might reduce the coverage and diversity of the PF. Hence, -MOPSO requires a large swarm (Parsopoulos and Vrahatis, 2008). The particles in a decomposition approach, on the other hand, are guided to distinct directions using unique and evenly distributed values.

_{i}## 3 Methods

### 3.1 Archiving Based on Crowding Distance in Objective and Solution Spaces

Dominance-based approaches to multi-objective optimization use the concept of dominance and Pareto optimality to guide the search process. The majority of dominance-based MOPSOs use a fixed-size leaders’ archive to store trade-off solutions found through the optimization process (Coello Coello et al., 2007). Thus, the selected leaders significantly influence the optimization process; maintaining the archive and selecting the leaders is, therefore, a major challenge for a MOPSO.

MOPSO aims at minimizing the distance between the solutions in the archive and the true PF, while maximizing the diversity of these solutions in the objective space. Several density estimators are employed to tackle these challenges. Some commonly used techniques are listed below (Talbi, 2009).

#### 3.1.1 Kernel

Kernel methods (Fonseca and Fleming, 1993) define the neighborhood of a solution using a kernel function that takes the distance between two solutions as the argument. The density estimator of a solution is represented by the sum of the kernel function values (usually referred to as crowding distance). The individuals with the lowest crowding distance are preferred.

#### 3.1.2 Adaptive Grid

The adaptive grid method (Knowles and Corne, 2000) divides the objective space recursively when the front bounds grow/shrink beyond a certain amount to reduce computational overhead. The objective space is divided using a grid so that the crowding of the solutions is measured by the crowding of their images in the objective space within the grid. This allows the system to remove or replace solutions at the highly populated cells.

#### 3.1.3 Niche Count

(Deb and Goldberg, 1989). The neighborhoods are defined using a niche, that is, a circular space with a predefined radius around the particle. The neighbors are the ones located within its niche. Particles/individuals with a less populated niche are preferred.

#### 3.1.4 ε-dominance

-dominance (Laumanns et al., 2002) determines how much better a solution should be to replace another that requires locally dividing each dimension in the objective space into small cells of size . loosly defines the resolution of the approximated PF produced using MOPSO.

#### 3.1.5 Nearest Neighbor

In this method (Deb et al., 2002) for each solution, the nearest neighbor density estimator calculates the average distance between two individuals of the Pareto front on either side of the current solution along each of the objectives. The non-dominated individuals with the highest distance are favored.

Most archiving techniques maintain the quantity and diversity of the solutions in the objective space without taking into account the diversity of these solutions in the solution space, which might result in discarding potentially important regions there. In earlier work (Al Moubayed et al., 2011), we tackled this issue using an approach based on clustering both in objective and solution spaces. The major drawback of this approach is its computational complexity. The archiving technique suggested in this paper provides a relatively simple solution that uses a density estimator in both the solution and the objective spaces.

*p*is the

_{i}*i*particle's decision variable vector. is a vector of the crowding distances in the solution and objective spaces.

A domination relationship and dominance-based ranking are applied to the created crowding space. The particle with the worst rank is then replaced, with one selected randomly in the case of a tie. This is used in many MOEAs to sort the solutions in the objective space (Zitzler, Laumanns, et al., 2003). Figure 1 demonstrates an example of the dominance-depth ranking used. The mutually non-dominated solutions of the leaders’ archive are ranked in the crowding space using their crowding values.

Algorithm 1 outlines the proposed archiving algorithm, where the operator *r*(*A*) assigns a ranking value to the set *A*, is defined in Equation (6), and is the empty set.

### 3.2 *D*^{2}MOPSO

^{2}MOPSO

Decomposition assists the optimization process to find potential solutions that are evenly distributed along the PF (Zhang and Li, 2007). By associating each particle with a distinct aggregation problem (i.e., value), the direction of exploration activity of each particle is focused on a specific region in the objective space and is aimed at reducing the distance to the reference point.

Substituting entirely the dominance approach with decomposition in MOPSO (i.e., using the aggregation value instead of dominance as the leaders’ selection criterion) might lead to premature convergence as each particle is strictly directed to one destination. At some point during the optimization process, the particles would be unable to update their positions and personal best memory as the local best and neighborhood information become static. In addition, solving an MOP with complicated PF raises a serious challenge, as some vectors direct the corresponding particles to unattainable areas. In such cases, part of the swarm would be exploring undesirable regions in the objective space for a considerable number of evaluations. Figure 2 demonstrates this problem, where only eight out of 20 particles are directed toward the true PF. One may suggest adjusting the initialization of vectors to cover only attainable regions. This solution, however, only works if the true PF is known a priori, which is not the case for most, if not all, real-life problems.

Another limitation of decomposition relates to how it operates in high-dimensional objective spaces. It struggles to produce a sufficient number of non-dominated solutions that cover the entire PF as the space to be covered by the swarm/population using vectors grows exponentially with the number of dimensions. This requires decomposition-based approaches to use a large swarm/population in order to offer a good PF coverage, therefore increasing the number of necessary function evaluations, which can be a disadvantage for real-life problems with expensive or difficult-to-obtain evaluations.

To overcome all these drawbacks within the MOPSO framework, integrates both dominance and decomposition. The bounded leaders’ archive, discussed in Section 3.1, uses dominance to store only non-dominated particles. The personal best values are updated, and the leaders are selected using the decomposition's aggregation function.

*d*

_{1}and the direction error of the weighted vector

*d*

_{2}from the solution in the objective space

*F*(

*x*), defined as: where

uses PBI to transform the optimization objective defined by Equation (1) into *N* scalar optimization problems, where *N* is the swarm size. By changing the weights and using the reference point defined above, Pareto optimal solutions may be approximated. The following steps summarize .

#### 3.2.1 Initialization

starts by initializing the swarm with *N* particles and *N* vectors. Every particle is assigned a unique vector that gives the best aggregated fitness value (e.g., minimum in case of a minimization problem) for the initialized particle. The initial value of the particle's memory *pbest* is its own information (*pbest _{i}*=

*x*), as it lacks any exploration experience at the beginning of the search process. The initial velocity of the particle is set to zero (). The leaders’ archive is set to a fixed size, and is initialized by the non-dominated particles in the swarm. The reference point is the vector in the objective space with the best objective values found so far.

_{i}#### 3.2.2 Evolution

*t*), the particle determines the next move by calculating the new velocity and new position using Equations (9) and (10), which involve

*pbest*and the information about a global leader selected from the leaders’ archive: where

*pbest*is the personal best performance of

_{i}*particle*,

_{i}*lbest*is a leader selected from the archive, are uniformly distributed random variables, is the inertia weight, and

_{i}*C*

_{1}=

*C*

_{2}=2.0 are the learning factors. These parameters are defined following other recent MOPSOs (Reyes-Sierra and Coello Coello, 2005; Al Moubayed et al., 2010; Martínez and Coello Coello, 2011; Peng and Zhang, 2008).

*i*is the particle index, and

*d*is the index of the decision variable within the decision variables vector. min

_{d}and max

_{d}are the lower and upper boundaries of decision variable

*d*, respectively.

*lbest*is the selected leader for the corresponding

_{i}*particle*), each particle selects the leader that gives the best aggregation value using the particle's and the aggregation function in Equation (7).

_{i}#### 3.2.3 Termination

The algorithm terminates when the maximum number of iterations is reached. The content of the external archive is used to approximate the PF. If the external archive is not used, then the leaders’ archive is considered.

Algorithm 3 lists the pseudocode for , where *CheckBoundaries* validates the decision variables and adjusts them when necessary.

can solve both constrained and unconstrained continuous MOPs. An additional step is required when creating and updating the leaders’ archive to accommodate constrained problems. The constraints are evaluated for each particle so that the leaders’ archive update process is biased toward particles that do not violate the constraints (or that breach the constraints to a lesser degree).

Algorithm 4 outlines the update of the leaders’ archive with a new particle *S*, where is the size of leaders’ archive; checks if the particle has violated the constraints; evaluates the constraints; and is correct if *S* has caused the removal of at least one particle from the archive or if it was not dominated by any other particle.

### 3.3 Novelty of *D*^{2}MOPSO

^{2}MOPSO

Dominance and decomposition are commonly used approaches in multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (Coello Coello et al., 2007; Li and Zhang, 2009; Deb et al., 2002; Reyes-Sierra and Coello Coello, 2005), but, to our knowledge, they have mostly been used separately. Nasir et al. (2011) introduced the concept of fuzzy dominance and only used decomposition when one solution fails to dominate the other in terms of fuzzy dominance level. is designed to take advantage of both concepts so that decomposition is used to select the leaders from a dominance-based archive. maintains the algorithmic simplicity of MOPSO by not utilizing any genetic or sampling operators. also uses a novel archiving technique that maintains diversity in both the objective and the solution spaces. Table 1 compares among five state of the art decomposition-based MOEAs.

. | MOEA/D . | MOPSO/D . | SDMOPSO . | dMOPSO . | . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Decomposition | x | x | x | x | x |

Dominance | - | - | x | - | x |

Mutation | x | x | - | - | - |

Memory reinitialization | - | - | - | x | - |

nbest | x | x | x | - | - |

lbest | - | - | - | x | x |

Leaders’ archive | - | x | x | x | x |

. | MOEA/D . | MOPSO/D . | SDMOPSO . | dMOPSO . | . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Decomposition | x | x | x | x | x |

Dominance | - | - | x | - | x |

Mutation | x | x | - | - | - |

Memory reinitialization | - | - | - | x | - |

nbest | x | x | x | - | - |

lbest | - | - | - | x | x |

Leaders’ archive | - | x | x | x | x |

## 4 Experiments

### 4.1 Selected Test Problem

is tested on 27 (five constrained and 22 unconstrained) standard MOPs. The selected test problems cover diverse MOPs with convex, concave, connected, and disconnected PFs, with two or three optimization objectives. These problems were frequently used to verify the performance of several algorithms in the field of multi-objective optimization (Nebro et al., 2008; Coello Coello et al., 2007; Li and Zhang, 2009; Deb et al., 2002; Reyes-Sierra and Coello Coello, 2005; Al Moubayed et al., 2010, 2011; Martínez and Coello Coello, 2011).

The following unconstrained bi-objective problems are selected: Shaffer (Deb and Agrawal, 1994), Fonseca (Fonseca and Fleming, 1998), and Kursawe (Kursawe, 1991) in addition to the bi-objective version of WFG toolkit (WFG1-8 and WFG9) proposed in Huband et al. (2005). For three-objective problems, the following MOPs are used: Viennet2 and Viennet3 (Viennet et al., 1996), in addition to the DTLZ family (DTLZ1–6 and DTLZ7) proposed in Deb et al. (2005), which cover scalable MOPs with the number of decision variables of 7, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, and 22.

To cover constrained bi-objective MOPs: three bi-constraints problems: Srinivas (Srinivas and Deb, 1994), Constr.Ex (Deb et al., 2002) and Tanaka (Tanaka et al., 1995) are used in addition to the six- and eleven-constraint problems Osyczka2 (Osyczka and Kundu, 1995) and Golinski (Kurpati et al., 2002). A three-objectives three-constraint problem, Viennet4 (Viennet et al., 1996) is also examined.

### 4.2 Experimental Setup

is compared to MOEA/D (Li and Zhang, 2009), dMOPSO (Martínez and Coello Coello, 2011), and OMOPSO (Reyes-Sierra and Coello Coello, 2005).^{1}

Thirty independent runs are performed for each test problem. For the bi-objective problems, 300 iterations per run and 150 particles per generation are used for all algorithms. For the three-objective problems, 600 iterations and 600 individuals are used. All algorithms under comparison adopt real encoding, perform the same number of objective function evaluations, and use the same aggregation function with .

MOEA/D uses differential evolution crossover (DE; probability = 1.0 and differential weight = 0.5), polynomial mutation (probability = 1/number of decision variables), mutation distribution index equal to 20, and neighborhood size set to 30.

dMOPSO sets the age threshold to 2; *C*_{1} and *C*_{2} are assigned random values in the range [1.2, 2.0]. dMOPSO uses a global set of size *N*, where *N* is the swarm size (the number of vectors): *N*=150 for bi-objective problems, and *N*=600 for three-objective ones.

OMOPSO uses turbulence probability of 0.5. *C*_{1} and *C*_{2} were set to random values in the range [1.5, 2.0], -crowding archive with 0.0075 and leaders’ archive of size *N*.

Both OMOPSO and dMOPSO set *r*_{1} and *r*_{2} to random values in [0, 1], and *w* to a random value in [0.1, 0.5].^{2}

uses the parameters explained in the previous section with equal to 100 for the bi-objective problems and to 300 for the three-objective problems.

### 4.3 Performance Metrics

To validate our approach, three indicators (Talbi, 2009), that estimate the convergence and diversity of the solutions are used.

*I*

_{IGD}, (Van Veldhuizen and Lamont, 1998) measures the uniformity of distribution of the obtained solutions in terms of dispersion and extension. The average distance is calculated for each point of the actual PF, denoted as

*A*, and the nearest point of the approximated PF, denoted as

*B*.

*I*

_{hv}, (Zitzler and Thiele, 1998) measures the volume of the objective space that is dominated by a PF approximation (

*B*).

*I*

_{hv}uses a reference point which denotes an upper bound over all objectives. is defined as the worst objective value found in the true PF

*A*(i.e., is dominated by all solutions in

*A*). Using the Lebesgue measure (),

*I*

_{hv}is defined as: where

*x*is the volume between the origin and

*b*.

*A*) has to be translated in the objective space to weakly dominate the actual PF

*B*. The indicator is defined as:

Table 2 summarizes the main features of the performance measures used in this paper. In order to calculate accurate measures and produce informative plots, the objective values are normalized by the true PF. In other words, the minimum and maximum of each objective value of the true PF are used to normalize the objective values of the approximated PF.

## 5 Results and Discussion

### 5.1 Numeric Comparison

Tables 4, 5, and 6 contain the results of applying *I*_{hv}, *I*_{IGD} and , respectively, to the bi-objective problems, whereas Tables 7, 8, and 9 and Tables 10, 11, and 12 show the results for the three-objective and constrained problems, respectively. Tables 10, 11, and 12 include results produced using , MOEA/D, and OMOPSO. The rest of the tables present results from the four discussed methods: , MOEA/D, dMOPSO, and OMOPSO.^{3} The results of each problem contain three pieces of information: Med., the median value of the indicator over 30 runs; Iqr., the interquartile ranges of the indicator value over 30 runs; *p*, the *p* value of a Wilcoxon signed-rank test applied to 30 runs of and the corresponding algorithm. A non-parametric statistical test is applied as the values are not guaranteed to follow the Gaussian normal distribution (the Shapiro-Wilk normality test shows that some values do follow a Gaussian distribution, but others do not).

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | dMOPSO . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Fonseca2 | Med. | 2.41e–004 | 5.03e–004 | 6.49e–004 | 1.20e–003 |

Iqr. | 1.38e–005 | 1.89e–006 | 5.55e–006 | 1.28e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Kursawe | Med. | 6.74e–005 | 1.30e–003 | 2.02e–004 | 3.78e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.76e–005 | 1.51e–005 | 8.75e–006 | 1.98e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Schaffer | Med. | 9.88e–005 | 1.27e–002 | 6.26e–003 | 1.81e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.89e–005 | 6.73e–003 | 2.16e–006 | 1.22e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG1 | Med. | 1.45e–004 | 1.86e–003 | 4.73e–003 | 3.77e–003 |

Iqr. | 2.96e–004 | 3.65e–004 | 4.75e–005 | 8.92e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG2 | Med. | 1.82e–005 | 1.16e–003 | 7.94e–004 | 1.13e–004 |

Iqr. | 9.42e–006 | 3.32e–005 | 9.78e–005 | 2.42e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG3 | Med. | 6.84e–004 | 6.84e–004 | 1.52e–003 | 6.84e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.42e–007 | 2.51e–008 | 1.11e–006 | 7.58e–008 | |

p | — | 4.20e–010 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG4 | Med. | 4.87e–005 | 1.95e–004 | 2.85e–004 | 2.71e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.98e–005 | 4.55e–005 | 3.91e–005 | 6.67e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG5 | Med. | 5.31e–004 | 5.39e–004 | 5.39e–004 | 5.70e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.48e–006 | 2.05e–007 | 2.23e–006 | 1.16e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG6 | Med. | 1.53e–005 | 8.55e–005 | 1.86e–004 | 1.98e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.14e–006 | 6.44e–007 | 2.32e–005 | 3.65e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG7 | Med. | 1.48e–005 | 9.24e–005 | 1.79e–004 | 1.60e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.01e–006 | 3.30e–007 | 1.45e–005 | 1.95e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG8 | Med. | 1.03e–003 | 8.70e–004 | 6.80e–004 | 1.04e–003 |

Iqr. | 1.37e–004 | 1.50e–004 | 1.65e–004 | 1.23e–005 | |

p | — | 2.88e–006 | 8.89e–010 | 3.03e–002 | |

WFG9 | Med. | 6.26e–005 | 1.16e–004 | 1.85e–004 | 2.22e–004 |

Iqr. | 9.63e–006 | 2.52e–005 | 8.82e–006 | 3.04e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | dMOPSO . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Fonseca2 | Med. | 2.41e–004 | 5.03e–004 | 6.49e–004 | 1.20e–003 |

Iqr. | 1.38e–005 | 1.89e–006 | 5.55e–006 | 1.28e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Kursawe | Med. | 6.74e–005 | 1.30e–003 | 2.02e–004 | 3.78e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.76e–005 | 1.51e–005 | 8.75e–006 | 1.98e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Schaffer | Med. | 9.88e–005 | 1.27e–002 | 6.26e–003 | 1.81e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.89e–005 | 6.73e–003 | 2.16e–006 | 1.22e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG1 | Med. | 1.45e–004 | 1.86e–003 | 4.73e–003 | 3.77e–003 |

Iqr. | 2.96e–004 | 3.65e–004 | 4.75e–005 | 8.92e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG2 | Med. | 1.82e–005 | 1.16e–003 | 7.94e–004 | 1.13e–004 |

Iqr. | 9.42e–006 | 3.32e–005 | 9.78e–005 | 2.42e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG3 | Med. | 6.84e–004 | 6.84e–004 | 1.52e–003 | 6.84e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.42e–007 | 2.51e–008 | 1.11e–006 | 7.58e–008 | |

p | — | 4.20e–010 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG4 | Med. | 4.87e–005 | 1.95e–004 | 2.85e–004 | 2.71e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.98e–005 | 4.55e–005 | 3.91e–005 | 6.67e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG5 | Med. | 5.31e–004 | 5.39e–004 | 5.39e–004 | 5.70e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.48e–006 | 2.05e–007 | 2.23e–006 | 1.16e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG6 | Med. | 1.53e–005 | 8.55e–005 | 1.86e–004 | 1.98e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.14e–006 | 6.44e–007 | 2.32e–005 | 3.65e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG7 | Med. | 1.48e–005 | 9.24e–005 | 1.79e–004 | 1.60e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.01e–006 | 3.30e–007 | 1.45e–005 | 1.95e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG8 | Med. | 1.03e–003 | 8.70e–004 | 6.80e–004 | 1.04e–003 |

Iqr. | 1.37e–004 | 1.50e–004 | 1.65e–004 | 1.23e–005 | |

p | — | 2.88e–006 | 8.89e–010 | 3.03e–002 | |

WFG9 | Med. | 6.26e–005 | 1.16e–004 | 1.85e–004 | 2.22e–004 |

Iqr. | 9.63e–006 | 2.52e–005 | 8.82e–006 | 3.04e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | dMOPSO . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Fonseca2 | Med. | 3.14e–001 | 3.12e–001 | 3.09e–001 | 3.07e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.93e–005 | 4.01e–007 | 1.08e–004 | 5.22e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Kursawe | Med. | 4.04e–001 | 3.92e–001 | 3.96e–001 | 3.90e–001 |

Iqr. | 4.91e–004 | 3.44e–004 | 7.25e–004 | 9.11e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Schaffer | Med. | 8.33e–001 | 7.09e–001 | 8.22e–001 | 8.32e–001 |

Iqr. | 2.94e–005 | 9.82e–002 | 6.75e–006 | 7.99e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG1 | Med. | 6.31e–001 | 3.81e–001 | 1.19e–001 | 1.57e–001 |

Iqr. | 2.71e–002 | 5.41e–002 | 2.56e–003 | 5.57e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG2 | Med. | 5.65e–001 | 5.53e–001 | 5.55e–001 | 5.61e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.64e–004 | 2.32e–003 | 1.25e–003 | 8.64e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG3 | Med. | 4.44e–001 | 4.42e–001 | 2.77e–001 | 4.42e–001 |

Iqr. | 5.39e–005 | 6.79e–006 | 2.32e–004 | 1.65e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG4 | Med. | 2.20e–001 | 2.10e–001 | 2.01e–001 | 2.07e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.20e–003 | 3.41e–003 | 2.38e–003 | 1.03e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG5 | Med. | 1.99e–001 | 1.96e–001 | 1.95e–001 | 1.93e–001 |

Iqr. | 4.50e–005 | 1.80e–005 | 8.42e–005 | 6.89e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG6 | Med. | 2.13e–001 | 2.11e–001 | 2.01e–001 | 2.07e–001 |

Iqr. | 8.21e–005 | 1.44e–005 | 1.52e–003 | 6.16e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG7 | Med. | 2.14e–001 | 2.11e–001 | 2.01e–001 | 2.07e–001 |

Iqr. | 6.64e–005 | 5.73e–006 | 1.47e–003 | 7.03e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG8 | Med. | 1.48e–001 | 1.52e–001 | 1.65e–001 | 1.46e–001 |

Iqr. | 2.67e–003 | 1.44e–003 | 7.46e–003 | 1.07e–003 | |

p | — | 6.53e–008 | 2.23e–009 | 3.52e–007 | |

WFG9 | Med. | 2.41e–001 | 2.39e–001 | 2.31e–001 | 2.32e–001 |

Iqr. | 9.93e–004 | 1.99e–003 | 6.12e–004 | 9.57e–004 | |

p | — | 4.20e–010 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | dMOPSO . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Fonseca2 | Med. | 3.14e–001 | 3.12e–001 | 3.09e–001 | 3.07e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.93e–005 | 4.01e–007 | 1.08e–004 | 5.22e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Kursawe | Med. | 4.04e–001 | 3.92e–001 | 3.96e–001 | 3.90e–001 |

Iqr. | 4.91e–004 | 3.44e–004 | 7.25e–004 | 9.11e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Schaffer | Med. | 8.33e–001 | 7.09e–001 | 8.22e–001 | 8.32e–001 |

Iqr. | 2.94e–005 | 9.82e–002 | 6.75e–006 | 7.99e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG1 | Med. | 6.31e–001 | 3.81e–001 | 1.19e–001 | 1.57e–001 |

Iqr. | 2.71e–002 | 5.41e–002 | 2.56e–003 | 5.57e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG2 | Med. | 5.65e–001 | 5.53e–001 | 5.55e–001 | 5.61e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.64e–004 | 2.32e–003 | 1.25e–003 | 8.64e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG3 | Med. | 4.44e–001 | 4.42e–001 | 2.77e–001 | 4.42e–001 |

Iqr. | 5.39e–005 | 6.79e–006 | 2.32e–004 | 1.65e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG4 | Med. | 2.20e–001 | 2.10e–001 | 2.01e–001 | 2.07e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.20e–003 | 3.41e–003 | 2.38e–003 | 1.03e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG5 | Med. | 1.99e–001 | 1.96e–001 | 1.95e–001 | 1.93e–001 |

Iqr. | 4.50e–005 | 1.80e–005 | 8.42e–005 | 6.89e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG6 | Med. | 2.13e–001 | 2.11e–001 | 2.01e–001 | 2.07e–001 |

Iqr. | 8.21e–005 | 1.44e–005 | 1.52e–003 | 6.16e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG7 | Med. | 2.14e–001 | 2.11e–001 | 2.01e–001 | 2.07e–001 |

Iqr. | 6.64e–005 | 5.73e–006 | 1.47e–003 | 7.03e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG8 | Med. | 1.48e–001 | 1.52e–001 | 1.65e–001 | 1.46e–001 |

Iqr. | 2.67e–003 | 1.44e–003 | 7.46e–003 | 1.07e–003 | |

p | — | 6.53e–008 | 2.23e–009 | 3.52e–007 | |

WFG9 | Med. | 2.41e–001 | 2.39e–001 | 2.31e–001 | 2.32e–001 |

Iqr. | 9.93e–004 | 1.99e–003 | 6.12e–004 | 9.57e–004 | |

p | — | 4.20e–010 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | dMOPSO . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Fonseca2 | Med. | 1.88e–003 | 4.12e–003 | 6.41e–003 | 1.05e–002 |

Iqr. | 1.96e–003 | 1.47e–005 | 2.77e–004 | 3.20e–003 | |

p | — | 9.51e–006 | 8.48e–009 | 1.46e–010 | |

Kursawe | Med. | 6.42e–002 | 3.58e–001 | 1.18e–001 | 1.50e–001 |

Iqr. | 2.40e–002 | 1.58e–002 | 1.42e–002 | 1.35e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 7.39e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Schaffer | Med. | 4.69e–003 | 7.29e–001 | 9.03e–002 | 1.37e–002 |

Iqr. | 1.37e–003 | 3.43e–001 | 5.50e–005 | 2.33e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG1 | Med. | 8.31e–002 | 5.85e–001 | 1.13 | 1.12 |

Iqr. | 1.22e–001 | 1.14e–001 | 4.12e–002 | 1.16e–001 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG2 | Med. | 3.71e–003 | 1.14e–001 | 9.39e–002 | 2.80e–002 |

Iqr. | 3.51e–003 | 6.12e–001 | 6.68e–003 | 6.53e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 6.01e–008 | |

WFG3 | Med. | 2.00 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 |

Iqr. | 4.84e–004 | 7.17e–005 | 1.89e–004 | 2.14e–004 | |

p | — | 1.07e–009 | 3.02e–011 | 1.34e–005 | |

WFG4 | Med. | 1.45e–002 | 5.75e–002 | 6.73e–002 | 5.67e–002 |

Iqr. | 7.28e–003 | 2.14e–002 | 1.05e–002 | 1.09e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG5 | Med. | 5.20e–002 | 6.96e–002 | 7.20e–002 | 9.00e–002 |

Iqr. | 2.53e–004 | 3.58e–004 | 4.95e–004 | 5.80e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG6 | Med. | 4.05e–003 | 1.79e–002 | 5.41e–002 | 4.22e–002 |

Iqr. | 8.72e–004 | 1.27e–003 | 1.14e–002 | 1.13e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG7 | Med. | 3.63e–003 | 2.09e–002 | 4.31e–002 | 4.57e–002 |

Iqr. | 3.62e–004 | 1.08e–003 | 3.68e–003 | 1.07e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG8 | Med. | 5.08e–001 | 3.93e–001 | 5.06e–001 | 5.31e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.11e–002 | 2.01e–001 | 8.85e–002 | 1.71e–002 | |

p | — | 4.73e–001 | 7.62e–001 | 3.09e–006 | |

WFG9 | Med. | 1.28e–002 | 3.50e–002 | 3.93e–002 | 4.99e–002 |

Iqr. | 1.40e–003 | 1.22e–002 | 2.52e–003 | 8.76e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | dMOPSO . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Fonseca2 | Med. | 1.88e–003 | 4.12e–003 | 6.41e–003 | 1.05e–002 |

Iqr. | 1.96e–003 | 1.47e–005 | 2.77e–004 | 3.20e–003 | |

p | — | 9.51e–006 | 8.48e–009 | 1.46e–010 | |

Kursawe | Med. | 6.42e–002 | 3.58e–001 | 1.18e–001 | 1.50e–001 |

Iqr. | 2.40e–002 | 1.58e–002 | 1.42e–002 | 1.35e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 7.39e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Schaffer | Med. | 4.69e–003 | 7.29e–001 | 9.03e–002 | 1.37e–002 |

Iqr. | 1.37e–003 | 3.43e–001 | 5.50e–005 | 2.33e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG1 | Med. | 8.31e–002 | 5.85e–001 | 1.13 | 1.12 |

Iqr. | 1.22e–001 | 1.14e–001 | 4.12e–002 | 1.16e–001 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG2 | Med. | 3.71e–003 | 1.14e–001 | 9.39e–002 | 2.80e–002 |

Iqr. | 3.51e–003 | 6.12e–001 | 6.68e–003 | 6.53e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 6.01e–008 | |

WFG3 | Med. | 2.00 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 |

Iqr. | 4.84e–004 | 7.17e–005 | 1.89e–004 | 2.14e–004 | |

p | — | 1.07e–009 | 3.02e–011 | 1.34e–005 | |

WFG4 | Med. | 1.45e–002 | 5.75e–002 | 6.73e–002 | 5.67e–002 |

Iqr. | 7.28e–003 | 2.14e–002 | 1.05e–002 | 1.09e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG5 | Med. | 5.20e–002 | 6.96e–002 | 7.20e–002 | 9.00e–002 |

Iqr. | 2.53e–004 | 3.58e–004 | 4.95e–004 | 5.80e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG6 | Med. | 4.05e–003 | 1.79e–002 | 5.41e–002 | 4.22e–002 |

Iqr. | 8.72e–004 | 1.27e–003 | 1.14e–002 | 1.13e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG7 | Med. | 3.63e–003 | 2.09e–002 | 4.31e–002 | 4.57e–002 |

Iqr. | 3.62e–004 | 1.08e–003 | 3.68e–003 | 1.07e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

WFG8 | Med. | 5.08e–001 | 3.93e–001 | 5.06e–001 | 5.31e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.11e–002 | 2.01e–001 | 8.85e–002 | 1.71e–002 | |

p | — | 4.73e–001 | 7.62e–001 | 3.09e–006 | |

WFG9 | Med. | 1.28e–002 | 3.50e–002 | 3.93e–002 | 4.99e–002 |

Iqr. | 1.40e–003 | 1.22e–002 | 2.52e–003 | 8.76e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | dMOPSO . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

DTLZ1 | Med. | 4.72e–002 | 4.75e–004 | 4.72e–002 | 1.88e–001 |

Iqr. | 6.65e–002 | 1.20e–006 | 6.65e–002 | 1.34e–001 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 1.00 | 2.03e–007 | |

DTLZ2 | Med. | 4.19e–005 | 1.09e–004 | 1.18e–004 | 9.25e–005 |

Iqr. | 3.61e–007 | 2.94e–008 | 8.17e–007 | 7.23e–006 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ3 | Med. | 3.54e–001 | 3.87e–004 | 6.14e–001 | 1.76 |

Iqr. | 3.78e–001 | 7.17e–007 | 5.07e–001 | 8.46e–001 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 4.43e–003 | 9.92e–011 | |

DTLZ4 | Med. | 2.09e–004 | 3.88e–004 | 4.39e–004 | 2.71e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.82e–006 | 1.03e–006 | 5.32e–006 | 5.52e–006 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ5 | Med. | 1.08e–005 | 1.80e–004 | 1.06e–004 | 1.68e–004 |

Iqr. | 9.91e–006 | 9.63e–008 | 6.55e–006 | 5.49e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ6 | Med. | 2.90e–005 | 1.81e–004 | 1.80e–004 | 1.72e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.20e–005 | 9.01e–009 | 9.28e–008 | 3.83e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ7 | Med. | 1.95e–004 | 1.37e–003 | 4.11e–004 | 1.47e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.75e–005 | 1.52e–005 | 6.35e–007 | 3.46e–006 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Viennet2 | Med. | 6.91e–005 | 2.23e–003 | 1.56e–003 | 1.08e–003 |

Iqr. | 1.33e–005 | 1.24e–006 | 7.02e–006 | 4.29e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Viennet3 | Med. | 2.02e–003 | 4.98e–003 | 4.12e–003 | 6.85e–004 |

Iqr. | 2.26e–003 | 1.39e–006 | 2.86e–006 | 5.75e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 6.53e–007 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | dMOPSO . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

DTLZ1 | Med. | 4.72e–002 | 4.75e–004 | 4.72e–002 | 1.88e–001 |

Iqr. | 6.65e–002 | 1.20e–006 | 6.65e–002 | 1.34e–001 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 1.00 | 2.03e–007 | |

DTLZ2 | Med. | 4.19e–005 | 1.09e–004 | 1.18e–004 | 9.25e–005 |

Iqr. | 3.61e–007 | 2.94e–008 | 8.17e–007 | 7.23e–006 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ3 | Med. | 3.54e–001 | 3.87e–004 | 6.14e–001 | 1.76 |

Iqr. | 3.78e–001 | 7.17e–007 | 5.07e–001 | 8.46e–001 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 4.43e–003 | 9.92e–011 | |

DTLZ4 | Med. | 2.09e–004 | 3.88e–004 | 4.39e–004 | 2.71e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.82e–006 | 1.03e–006 | 5.32e–006 | 5.52e–006 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ5 | Med. | 1.08e–005 | 1.80e–004 | 1.06e–004 | 1.68e–004 |

Iqr. | 9.91e–006 | 9.63e–008 | 6.55e–006 | 5.49e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ6 | Med. | 2.90e–005 | 1.81e–004 | 1.80e–004 | 1.72e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.20e–005 | 9.01e–009 | 9.28e–008 | 3.83e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ7 | Med. | 1.95e–004 | 1.37e–003 | 4.11e–004 | 1.47e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.75e–005 | 1.52e–005 | 6.35e–007 | 3.46e–006 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Viennet2 | Med. | 6.91e–005 | 2.23e–003 | 1.56e–003 | 1.08e–003 |

Iqr. | 1.33e–005 | 1.24e–006 | 7.02e–006 | 4.29e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Viennet3 | Med. | 2.02e–003 | 4.98e–003 | 4.12e–003 | 6.85e–004 |

Iqr. | 2.26e–003 | 1.39e–006 | 2.86e–006 | 5.75e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 6.53e–007 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | dMOPSO . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

DTLZ1 | Med. | 8.16e–001 | 7.76e–001 | 0.00 | 0.00 |

Iqr. | 9.96e–003 | 3.10e–004 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |

p | — | 7.88e–012 | 1.00 | 5.58e–003 | |

DTLZ2 | Med. | 4.63e–001 | 4.53e–001 | 4.42e–001 | 4.61e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.70e–004 | 1.09e–005 | 7.52e–004 | 2.46e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ3 | Med. | 0.00 | 4.49e–001 | 0.00 | 0.00 |

Iqr. | 0.00 | 4.06e–005 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |

p | — | 1.21e–012 | — | — | |

DTLZ4 | Med. | 4.61e–001 | 4.49e–001 | 4.38e–001 | 4.59e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.57e–004 | 3.03e–005 | 8.09e–004 | 3.99e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ5 | Med. | 9.56e–002 | 8.78e–002 | 9.11e–002 | 9.13e–002 |

Iqr. | 8.36e–005 | 6.03e–006 | 3.08e–004 | 7.40e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ6 | Med. | 9.46e–002 | 8.78e–002 | 8.78e–002 | 9.08e–002 |

Iqr. | 1.91e–004 | 1.32e–007 | 7.17e–006 | 5.46e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ7 | Med. | 3.27e–001 | 2.64e–001 | 3.04e–001 | 3.21e–001 |

Iqr. | 6.88e–004 | 1.49e–003 | 4.13e–004 | 2.14e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Viennet2 | Med. | 9.31e–001 | 8.45e–001 | 9.03e–001 | 8.81e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.24e–004 | 1.38e–004 | 3.47e–004 | 1.41e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Viennet3 | Med. | 8.40e–001 | 8.18e–001 | 8.31e–001 | 8.09e–001 |

Iqr. | 2.95e–004 | 4.02e–005 | 4.13e–005 | 9.01e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | dMOPSO . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

DTLZ1 | Med. | 8.16e–001 | 7.76e–001 | 0.00 | 0.00 |

Iqr. | 9.96e–003 | 3.10e–004 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |

p | — | 7.88e–012 | 1.00 | 5.58e–003 | |

DTLZ2 | Med. | 4.63e–001 | 4.53e–001 | 4.42e–001 | 4.61e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.70e–004 | 1.09e–005 | 7.52e–004 | 2.46e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ3 | Med. | 0.00 | 4.49e–001 | 0.00 | 0.00 |

Iqr. | 0.00 | 4.06e–005 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |

p | — | 1.21e–012 | — | — | |

DTLZ4 | Med. | 4.61e–001 | 4.49e–001 | 4.38e–001 | 4.59e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.57e–004 | 3.03e–005 | 8.09e–004 | 3.99e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ5 | Med. | 9.56e–002 | 8.78e–002 | 9.11e–002 | 9.13e–002 |

Iqr. | 8.36e–005 | 6.03e–006 | 3.08e–004 | 7.40e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ6 | Med. | 9.46e–002 | 8.78e–002 | 8.78e–002 | 9.08e–002 |

Iqr. | 1.91e–004 | 1.32e–007 | 7.17e–006 | 5.46e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ7 | Med. | 3.27e–001 | 2.64e–001 | 3.04e–001 | 3.21e–001 |

Iqr. | 6.88e–004 | 1.49e–003 | 4.13e–004 | 2.14e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Viennet2 | Med. | 9.31e–001 | 8.45e–001 | 9.03e–001 | 8.81e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.24e–004 | 1.38e–004 | 3.47e–004 | 1.41e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Viennet3 | Med. | 8.40e–001 | 8.18e–001 | 8.31e–001 | 8.09e–001 |

Iqr. | 2.95e–004 | 4.02e–005 | 4.13e–005 | 9.01e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | dMOPSO . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

DTLZ1 | Med. | 1.18 | 3.28e–002 | 1.18 | 3.81 |

Iqr. | 1.27 | 4.14e–004 | 1.27 | 2.09 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 1.00 | 3.52e–007 | |

DTLZ2 | Med. | 1.85e–002 | 3.31e–002 | 3.75e–002 | 1.96e–002 |

Iqr. | 1.99e–003 | 8.01e–004 | 1.65e–003 | 2.52e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 1.68e–004 | |

DTLZ3 | Med. | 1.48e+001 | 4.07e–002 | 2.84e+001 | 8.91e+001 |

Iqr. | 1.45e+001 | 1.55e–003 | 2.90e+001 | 4.24e+001 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.77e–004 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ4 | Med. | 2.73e–002 | 4.10e–002 | 4.48e–002 | 2.43e–002 |

Iqr. | 2.27e–003 | 2.06e–003 | 1.40e–003 | 1.89e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.83e–006 | |

DTLZ5 | Med. | 2.85e–003 | 1.56e–002 | 1.25e–002 | 1.08e–002 |

Iqr. | 3.91e–003 | 2.12e–005 | 1.11e–003 | 3.09e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 2.67e–009 | 1.56e–008 | |

DTLZ6 | Med. | 7.54e–003 | 1.56e–002 | 1.56e–002 | 1.14e–002 |

Iqr. | 9.46e–003 | 5.03e–009 | 2.60e–005 | 2.56e–003 | |

p | — | 1.11e–006 | 1.11e–006 | 1.63e–002 | |

DTLZ7 | Med. | 5.20e–002 | 1.46e–001 | 7.31e–002 | 4.02e–002 |

Iqr. | 1.00e–002 | 3.66e–003 | 1.18e–003 | 1.33e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 5.57e–010 | 7.70e–004 | |

Viennet2 | Med. | 5.26e–003 | 6.03e–002 | 3.52e–002 | 4.83e–002 |

Iqr. | 7.28e–004 | 1.62e–004 | 4.58e–004 | 1.99e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Viennet3 | Med. | 2.66e–002 | 1.06e–001 | 5.22e–002 | 1.39e–001 |

Iqr. | 7.39e–003 | 1.68e–004 | 1.40e–004 | 4.38e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | dMOPSO . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

DTLZ1 | Med. | 1.18 | 3.28e–002 | 1.18 | 3.81 |

Iqr. | 1.27 | 4.14e–004 | 1.27 | 2.09 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 1.00 | 3.52e–007 | |

DTLZ2 | Med. | 1.85e–002 | 3.31e–002 | 3.75e–002 | 1.96e–002 |

Iqr. | 1.99e–003 | 8.01e–004 | 1.65e–003 | 2.52e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 1.68e–004 | |

DTLZ3 | Med. | 1.48e+001 | 4.07e–002 | 2.84e+001 | 8.91e+001 |

Iqr. | 1.45e+001 | 1.55e–003 | 2.90e+001 | 4.24e+001 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.77e–004 | 3.02e–011 | |

DTLZ4 | Med. | 2.73e–002 | 4.10e–002 | 4.48e–002 | 2.43e–002 |

Iqr. | 2.27e–003 | 2.06e–003 | 1.40e–003 | 1.89e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.83e–006 | |

DTLZ5 | Med. | 2.85e–003 | 1.56e–002 | 1.25e–002 | 1.08e–002 |

Iqr. | 3.91e–003 | 2.12e–005 | 1.11e–003 | 3.09e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 2.67e–009 | 1.56e–008 | |

DTLZ6 | Med. | 7.54e–003 | 1.56e–002 | 1.56e–002 | 1.14e–002 |

Iqr. | 9.46e–003 | 5.03e–009 | 2.60e–005 | 2.56e–003 | |

p | — | 1.11e–006 | 1.11e–006 | 1.63e–002 | |

DTLZ7 | Med. | 5.20e–002 | 1.46e–001 | 7.31e–002 | 4.02e–002 |

Iqr. | 1.00e–002 | 3.66e–003 | 1.18e–003 | 1.33e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 5.57e–010 | 7.70e–004 | |

Viennet2 | Med. | 5.26e–003 | 6.03e–002 | 3.52e–002 | 4.83e–002 |

Iqr. | 7.28e–004 | 1.62e–004 | 4.58e–004 | 1.99e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Viennet3 | Med. | 2.66e–002 | 1.06e–001 | 5.22e–002 | 1.39e–001 |

Iqr. | 7.39e–003 | 1.68e–004 | 1.40e–004 | 4.38e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|

ConstrEx | Med. | 2.42e–003 | 1.02e–002 | 2.92e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.04e–003 | 1.76e–007 | 2.40e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Golinski | Med. | 9.65e–003 | 2.65e–002 | 9.65e–003 |

Iqr. | 9.90e–003 | 3.74e–008 | 3.61e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 9.82e–001 | |

Osyczka2 | Med. | 3.98e–003 | 2.57e–001 | 4.49e–003 |

Iqr. | 7.56e–004 | 2.57e–003 | 5.63e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 7.48e–002 | |

Srinivas | Med. | 1.05e–005 | 1.42e–004 | 1.11e–005 |

Iqr. | 3.47e–006 | 1.14e–007 | 5.52e–006 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.04e–001 | |

Tanaka | Med. | 3.36e–004 | 4.71e–002 | 3.95e–004 |

Iqr. | 8.25e–005 | 0.00e+000 | 5.27e–005 | |

p | — | 1.21e–012 | 6.55e–004 | |

Viennet4 | Med. | 1.74e–004 | 8.72e–004 | 1.44e–004 |

Iqr. | 3.07e–005 | 4.44e–006 | 5.16e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 1.76e–003 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|

ConstrEx | Med. | 2.42e–003 | 1.02e–002 | 2.92e–004 |

Iqr. | 1.04e–003 | 1.76e–007 | 2.40e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Golinski | Med. | 9.65e–003 | 2.65e–002 | 9.65e–003 |

Iqr. | 9.90e–003 | 3.74e–008 | 3.61e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 9.82e–001 | |

Osyczka2 | Med. | 3.98e–003 | 2.57e–001 | 4.49e–003 |

Iqr. | 7.56e–004 | 2.57e–003 | 5.63e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 7.48e–002 | |

Srinivas | Med. | 1.05e–005 | 1.42e–004 | 1.11e–005 |

Iqr. | 3.47e–006 | 1.14e–007 | 5.52e–006 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.04e–001 | |

Tanaka | Med. | 3.36e–004 | 4.71e–002 | 3.95e–004 |

Iqr. | 8.25e–005 | 0.00e+000 | 5.27e–005 | |

p | — | 1.21e–012 | 6.55e–004 | |

Viennet4 | Med. | 1.74e–004 | 8.72e–004 | 1.44e–004 |

Iqr. | 3.07e–005 | 4.44e–006 | 5.16e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 1.76e–003 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|

ConstrEx | Med. | 7.12e–001 | 9.02e–001 | 7.74e–001 |

Iqr. | 2.49e–002 | 2.82e–005 | 5.02e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Golinski | Med. | 9.68e–001 | 9.96e–001 | 9.62e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.45e–003 | 0.00e+000 | 1.72e–003 | |

p | — | 5.22e–012 | 3.02e–011 | |

Osyczka2 | Med. | 6.34e–001 | 0.00e+000 | 7.09e–001 |

Iqr. | 3.78e–002 | 0.00e+000 | 9.66e–003 | |

p | — | 1.21e–012 | 3.02e–011 | |

Srinivas | Med. | 5.45e–001 | 5.36e–001 | 5.45e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.66e–004 | 1.64e–005 | 7.42e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 2.23e–001 | |

Tanaka | Med. | 3.04e–001 | — | 3.00e–001 |

Iqr. | 4.21e–004 | — | 2.45e–003 | |

p | — | — | 3.02e–011 | |

Viennet4 | Med. | 8.70e–001 | 7.64e–001 | 8.74e–001 |

Iqr. | 5.45e–004 | 6.90e–004 | 5.09e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 2.99e–011 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|

ConstrEx | Med. | 7.12e–001 | 9.02e–001 | 7.74e–001 |

Iqr. | 2.49e–002 | 2.82e–005 | 5.02e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Golinski | Med. | 9.68e–001 | 9.96e–001 | 9.62e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.45e–003 | 0.00e+000 | 1.72e–003 | |

p | — | 5.22e–012 | 3.02e–011 | |

Osyczka2 | Med. | 6.34e–001 | 0.00e+000 | 7.09e–001 |

Iqr. | 3.78e–002 | 0.00e+000 | 9.66e–003 | |

p | — | 1.21e–012 | 3.02e–011 | |

Srinivas | Med. | 5.45e–001 | 5.36e–001 | 5.45e–001 |

Iqr. | 1.66e–004 | 1.64e–005 | 7.42e–005 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 2.23e–001 | |

Tanaka | Med. | 3.04e–001 | — | 3.00e–001 |

Iqr. | 4.21e–004 | — | 2.45e–003 | |

p | — | — | 3.02e–011 | |

Viennet4 | Med. | 8.70e–001 | 7.64e–001 | 8.74e–001 |

Iqr. | 5.45e–004 | 6.90e–004 | 5.09e–004 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 2.99e–011 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|

ConstrEx | Med. | 1.14e–001 | 2.20e–002 | 1.51e–002 |

Iqr. | 5.32e–002 | 2.09e–005 | 3.05e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Golinski | Med. | 7.24e+000 | 2.58e+000 | 3.78e+001 |

Iqr. | 3.09e+000 | 0.00e+000 | 1.05e+001 | |

p | — | 5.22e–012 | 3.02e–011 | |

Osyczka2 | Med. | 1.56e+001 | 9.69e+001 | 2.58e+001 |

Iqr. | 3.93e+000 | 7.02e–001 | 1.41e+001 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.83e–005 | |

Srinivas | Med. | 8.74e–001 | 2.51e+000 | 1.28e+000 |

Iqr. | 8.73e–001 | 3.25e–002 | 4.30e–001 | |

p | — | 4.98e–011 | 5.83e–003 | |

Tanaka | Med. | 1.53e–002 | — | 1.35e–002 |

Iqr. | 4.59e–003 | — | 2.37e–003 | |

p | — | — | 1.33e–002 | |

Viennet4 | Med. | 1.31e–001 | 3.49e–001 | 9.78e–002 |

Iqr. | 2.16e–002 | 1.21e–003 | 1.63e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.79e–010 |

Problem . | . | . | MOEA/D . | OMOPSO . |
---|---|---|---|---|

ConstrEx | Med. | 1.14e–001 | 2.20e–002 | 1.51e–002 |

Iqr. | 5.32e–002 | 2.09e–005 | 3.05e–003 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.02e–011 | |

Golinski | Med. | 7.24e+000 | 2.58e+000 | 3.78e+001 |

Iqr. | 3.09e+000 | 0.00e+000 | 1.05e+001 | |

p | — | 5.22e–012 | 3.02e–011 | |

Osyczka2 | Med. | 1.56e+001 | 9.69e+001 | 2.58e+001 |

Iqr. | 3.93e+000 | 7.02e–001 | 1.41e+001 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.83e–005 | |

Srinivas | Med. | 8.74e–001 | 2.51e+000 | 1.28e+000 |

Iqr. | 8.73e–001 | 3.25e–002 | 4.30e–001 | |

p | — | 4.98e–011 | 5.83e–003 | |

Tanaka | Med. | 1.53e–002 | — | 1.35e–002 |

Iqr. | 4.59e–003 | — | 2.37e–003 | |

p | — | — | 1.33e–002 | |

Viennet4 | Med. | 1.31e–001 | 3.49e–001 | 9.78e–002 |

Iqr. | 2.16e–002 | 1.21e–003 | 1.63e–002 | |

p | — | 3.02e–011 | 3.79e–010 |

### 5.2 Visual Comparison

To visually demonstrate the performance of the different algorithms seven problems were selected: Four bi-objective (Schaffer, Fonesca2, WFG1, and WFG5); two three-objective (DTLZ1, and DTLZ7); and a constrained problem (Viennet4). These problems are selected to demonstrate the output of in both cases where it outperforms and underperforms (although slightly) the other methods. The approximated Pareto fronts found by (*PF*_{approx} in black with *PF*_{true} in gray) are plotted in Figure 4. The results from MOEA/D, dMOPSO, and OMOPSO experiments are illustrated in Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7, respectively.

Although different methods might perform similarly in terms of finding the approximated Pareto front, the number of iterations each algorithm requires to reach this PF may vary. To visually check the convergence of the different methods when solving various problems, the convergence of the four algorithms on the previously selected subgroup of problems is presented. Figure 8 shows the change of IGD per iteration for each method on the seven selected problems. Figure 9 depicts similar plots for the change in the hyper-volume indicator, whereas Figure 10 plots the changes of IGD and hyper-volume for Viennet4.

The Kruskal-Wallis test, which is a nonparametric version of the classical one-way ANOVA and an extension of the Wilcoxon rank sum test to more than two groups, is applied to the unconstrained problems and yields a value of *p*=.0092<.05 (among the four methods), and *p*=.0066<.05 when applied on all the problems.^{4}

There are some anomalies in the presented tables that should be noted. In Table 8, the values of hyper-volume for , dMOPSO, and OMOPSO applied to problem *DTLZ*3 are all zero. This is due to the failure of the algorithms to produce a reasonable approximation of the PF. This results in an invalid rank sum test, which is indicated as − in the table. In Table 11, MOEA/D has not succeeded in approximating a reasonable PF for *Osyczka*2, resulting in a zero hyper-volume. Finally, Tanaka has a hyper-volume of 1 for MOEA/D (Table 11) and a negative value (Table 12), which is impossible because it means the approximated PF dominates the true PF; hence, these values are omitted. This can be explained by the fact that MOEA/D could not find any solution that satisfies the problem constraints as it converges to an infeasible solution. For *DTLZ*3, the only method able to approximate the PF is MOEA/D.

### 5.3 Analysis of Computational Complexity

combines the advantages of both decomposition (used by MOEA/D) and dominance (adopted in OMOPSO). By doing so, it capitalizes on the benefits of both techniques. In order for to be a viable alternative for the state of the art methods, it should have a similar (or better) computational complexity. In this section, we compare the computational complexity of to that of MOEA/D, MOPSO/D, SDMOPSO, dMOPSO, and OMOPSO.

MOEA/D updates its population using a set of *T* neighbors. The newly produced solutions replace one or more individuals in the neighborhood based on the aggregation values. Therefore, for a population of size *N*, the complexity is on the order of . When MOEA/D uses an archive of size , then the complexity becomes as each individual will be compared to all the particles in the archive. Similarly, MOPSO/D and SDMOPSO have the complexity of as *K*=*N*. The global best set, of size *N*, in dMOPSO is updated at each iteration using a newly formed set of size 2*N* (which results from the merge of the global best set with the swarm); hence, the computational complexity is as the aggregation value for each individual must be evaluated against the possible vectors. OMOPSO uses the leaders’ archive of size *N*; therefore, it requires an algorithm of complexity *O*(*N*^{2}) to be updated. In addition, it uses an -dominance archive with a size depending on and the range of objectives. However, an assumption can be made that it is of size *K*>*N*, making the total computational complexity of OMOPSO .

uses the leaders’ archive (of size ) which is updated on each iteration. In order to select the global leader for each particle, all solutions in the leaders’ archive are checked for the best aggregation value. The complexity would then be . When an external archive (of size *K*>*N*) is used, the complexity becomes . The external archive is only used when the method is expected to generate a very large number of non-dominated solutions, as shown in Table 3.

We can conclude from this analysis that has similar computational complexity to the other state of the art algorithms.

## 6 Conclusion

is presented as a novel multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm that combines decomposition and dominance. The decomposition simplifies the optimization problem by transforming it to a set of single-objective problems, whereas dominance facilitates the leaders’ archiving process. Decomposition is used to update the personal information and to select the global leaders.

A new archiving technique is also presented, which considers the diversity in both the search and objective spaces. By doing so, the archive helps to cover promising regions in both spaces. The crowding distance is used to implement the new archive in this paper, but it can be substituted by any of the other techniques described in Section 3.1.

Extensive experimentation is carried out to cover the different types of PFs. To quantify the performance of , three distinct quality measures are used to compare its performance with three state of the art algorithms: (1) MOEA/D, a genetic algorithm based decomposition algorithm; (2) dMOPSO, a decomposition-based MOPSO; and (3) OMOPSO, a dominance-based MOPSO. The results are supported by several statistical tests that count for direct and multiple comparison conditions. For unconstrained bi-dimensional problems, outperforms the other methods (except for ) with respect to *I*_{IGD}, *I*_{hv}, and . For unconstrained three-dimensional problems, performs better in terms of *I*_{IGD}, *I*_{hv}, and in all problems except for and . For constrained problems, outperforms the other algorithms in terms of *I*_{IGD}. According to *I*_{hv}, underperforms in only one problem: . With respect to , yields similar results, outperforming in the case of and .

In general, is demonstrated to be highly competitive to the other algorithms with the advantage of no requirement of parameter tuning and a comparable computational overhead (Section 5.3).

## References

## Notes

^{1}

jMetal Framework (Durillo and Nebro, 2011) is used to implement MOEA/D and OMOPSO. dMOPSO implementation was provided by the authors.

^{2}

The values are chosen according to recommendations by the algorithms’ authors.

^{3}

dMOPSO has not been applied to the constrained problems because it is especially designed for non-constrained continuous problems, as stated by the authors, so the comparison would not be fair.

^{4}

dMOPSO is excluded as it does not solve constrained problems.