Abstract-Assuming that evolutionary multiobjective optimization (EMO) mainly deals with set problems, one can identify three core questions in this area of research: 1) how to formalize what type of Pareto set approximation is sought; 2) how to use this information within an algorithm to efficiently search for a good Pareto set approximation; and 3) how to compare the Pareto set approximations generated by different optimizers with respect to the formalized optimization goal. There is a vast amount of studies addressing these issues from different angles, but so far only a few studies can be found that consider all questions under one roof. This paper is an attempt to summarize recent developments in the EMO field within a unifying theory of set-based multiobjective search. It discusses how preference relations on sets can be formally defined, gives examples for selected user preferences, and proposes a general preferenceindependent hill climber for multiobjective optimization with theoretical convergence properties. Furthermore, it shows how to use set preference relations for statistical performance assessment and provides corresponding experimental results. The proposed methodology brings together preference articulation, algorithm design, and performance assessment under one framework and thereby opens up a new perspective on EMO.

In this paper, we provide a systematic comparison of various evolutionary approaches to multiobjective optimization using six carefully chosen test functions. Each test function involves a particular feature that is known to cause difficulty in the evolutionary optimization process, mainly in converging to the Pareto-optimal front (e.g., multimodality and deception). By investigating these different problem features separately, it is possible to predict the kind of problems to which a certain technique is or is not well suited. However, in contrast to what was suspected beforehand, the experimental results indicate a hierarchy of the algorithms under consideration. Furthermore, the emerging effects are evidence that the suggested test functions provide sufficient complexity to compare multiobjective optimizers. Finally, elitism is shown to be an important factor for improving evolutionary multiobjective search.

An important issue in multiobjective optimization is the quantitative comparison of the performance of different algorithms. In the case of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms, the outcome is usually an approximation of the Pareto-optimal front, which is denoted as an approximation set, and therefore the question arises of how to evaluate the quality of approximation sets. Most popular are methods that assign each approximation set a vector of real numbers that reflect different aspects of the quality. Sometimes, pairs of approximation sets are considered too. In this study, we provide a rigorous analysis of the limitations underlying this type of quality assessment. To this end, a mathematical framework is developed which allows to classify and discuss existing techniques.

No abstract

First, this paper provides a methodology for comparing and validating biclustering methods that includes a simple binary reference model. Although this model captures the essential features of most biclustering approaches, it is still simple enough to exactly determine all optimal groupings; to this end, we propose a fast divide-and-conquer algorithm (Bimax). Second, we evaluate the performance of five salient biclustering algorithms together with the reference model and a hierarchical clustering method on various synthetic and real datasets for Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Arabidopsis thaliana. The comparison reveals that (1) biclustering in general has advantages over a conventional hierarchical clustering approach, (2) there are considerable performance differences between the tested methods and (3) already the simple reference model delivers relevant patterns within all considered settings.