Experimental settingsConfiguration of experimental software and hardwareThe hardware and software configurations of the experiment are shown in Table 2. Among them, PlatEMO30 is a professional many-objective optimization experiment platform. The platform includes multiple test function sets and many-objective optimization algorithms.Table 2 Software and hardware configurations.Test functionThe test functions used in the experiment include: DTLZ test function set (DTLZ1-7), MAF test function set (MAF1-6) and WFG test function set (WFG1-9). Literature31 describes the characteristics of related test functions. The parameter settings of the related test functions are shown in Table 3.Table 3 Parameter settings of the related test functions.Comparison algorithmIn order to verify the performance of MOEA/TS algorithm in the many-objective optimization field, this paper compares MOEA/TS algorithm with 7 advanced many-objective optimization algorithms. These 7 many-objective optimization algorithms include: VMEF32, BiGE-BEW33, MOEA/DG34, MOEA/D35, LSMaODE36, MaOEA/IT23 and MaOEA/IGD37.For all test cases, Wilcoxon rank sum test at 5% significance level38 is used to compare the significance of the difference between the MOEA/TS algorithm and the comparison algorithms. The symbol “+” indicates that the comparison algorithms are significantly better than the MOEA/TS algorithm; the symbol “-“indicates that the comparison algorithms are significantly inferior to the MOEA/TS algorithm. The symbol “=” indicates that there is no significant difference between the MOEA/TS algorithm and the comparison algorithms.Performance evaluationIn the aspect of performance evaluation, this paper uses inverted generational distance plus (IGD+) and hypervolume (HV)39 to measure the performance of many-objective optimization algorithm. The smaller the IGD+ value that the algorithm obtains, the better the performance of the algorithm. The larger the HV value that the algorithm obtains, the better the performance of the algorithm.In order to facilitate observation, we provide the normalized HV value of each algorithm relative to the best HV result. This normalization makes all the results lie in the range [0,1], and 1 represents the best value.Considering the length of the paper, we only show the IGD+ values of different algorithms in the experiment chapter. For the HV values of different algorithms, please browse the Supplementary Information Document.Parameter settingIn terms of algorithm parameters, according to some existing parameter research results13,40, the feature factor \(\mu \) is set to 20 in this paper. According to the parameter sensitivity analysis, the number of high-quality solutions W is set to 9 in this paper. The parameter sensitivity analysis of W is detailed in the subsequent chapters.The algorithm parameters of the 7 comparison algorithms are determined according to the best parameters provided by the corresponding literature.Performance comparison under benchmark test functionsPerformance comparison under DTLZ test function setIn this paper, each algorithm is executed 30 times to get the average data as shown in Table 4. As can be seen from Table 4, MOEA/TS algorithm wins the first place in 15 test cases; BiGE-BEW algorithm wins the first place in 5 test cases; MOEA/D algorithm wins the first place in 15 test cases. In the 35 test cases, the number of MOEA/TS algorithm is significantly superior to VMEF algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm is 21, 27, 25, 16, 32, 35 and 31, respectively. The number of MOEA/TS algorithm is significantly inferior to VMEF algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm is 6, 5, 5, 15, 1, 0 and 0, respectively. Statistically, the number of MOEA/TS algorithm is similar to VMEF algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm is 8, 3, 5, 4, 2, 0 and 4, respectively. Therefore, in the DTLZ test function set, MOEA/TS algorithm and MOEA/D algorithm have the best performance. The performance of VMEF algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm and LSMaODE algorithm decreases in turn. The performance of MaOEA/IGD algorithm and MaOEA/IT algorithm is similar and the worst.Table 4 The IGD + values of each algorithm under DTLZ test function set.Based on Table 4, we further analyze the performance of these algorithms. In the DTLZ test function set, MOEA/TS algorithm performs poorly on DTLZ1, DTLZ5 and DTLZ6 test functions. The possible reasons are that the DTLZ1 test function has multiple local optima, and the DTLZ5 and DTLZ6 test functions have a narrow convergence curve. In the DTLZ1 test function, although the repulsion field method of the MOEA/TS algorithm makes the population widely distributed. However, its population distribution isn’t uniform and regular. The population distribution of some algorithms using predefined weight vectors is uniform and regular. In the DTLZ5 and DTLZ6 test functions, the coordination mechanism of MOEA/TS algorithm fails. The narrow convergence curve makes the population more concentrated, but the repulsion field method will disperse the population. The coordination mechanism is difficult to play a role.The real Pareto front of DTLZ test function set is regular and the function complexity isn’t high. Therefore, algorithms with better diversity may be more popular. MOEA/D algorithm uses predefined weight vectors to maintain diversity and aggregation functions to maintain convergence. Therefore, it has good performance. VMEF algorithm uses different convergence ranking methods to deal with different test problems. Therefore, VMEF algorithm is good in convergence and poor in diversity. Based on the convergence measure and diversity measure, BiGE-BEW algorithm transforms the many-objective optimization problem into a two-objective optimization problem. In theory, the algorithm should perform well. However, there are defects in its convergence and diversity measurement formula. Finally, the experimental results of the algorithm aren’t as good as the expected results. MOEA/DG algorithm still uses the traditional dominance relationship to maintain the convergence of external archives. Therefore, MOEA/DG algorithm is poor in convergence and good in diversity. LSMaODE algorithm divides the population into two subpopulations and uses different strategies to optimize them. Because the real Pareto front of DTLZ test function set isn’t complex, the advantage of this multi-population algorithm architecture isn’t obvious. Therefore, compared with other algorithms, its performance is mediocre. MaOEA/IT algorithm optimizes convergence and diversity through two independent phases. However, the algorithm’s performance is always poor because it doesn’t alleviate the contradiction between convergence and diversity. The reference Pareto front of MaOEA/IGD algorithm is poor. Therefore, the algorithm’s performance is always poor.Performance comparison under MAF test function setIn this paper, each algorithm is executed 30 times to get the average data as shown in Table 5. As can be seen from Table 5, MOEA/TS algorithm wins the first place in 10 test cases; BiGE-BEW algorithm wins the first place in 8 test cases; MOEA/DG algorithm wins the first place in 2 test cases; MOEA/D algorithm wins the first place in 5 test cases; LSMaODE algorithm wins the first place in 5 test cases. In the 30 test cases, the number of MOEA/TS algorithm is significantly superior to VMEF algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm is 22, 18, 25, 21, 20, 27 and 30, respectively. The number of MOEA/TS algorithm is significantly inferior to VMEF algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm is 6, 11, 2, 5, 9, 1 and 0, respectively. Statistically, the number of MOEA/TS algorithm is similar to VMEF algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm is 2, 1, 3, 4, 1, 2 and 0, respectively. Therefore, in the MAF test function set, MOEA/TS algorithm has the best performance. The performance of BiGE-BEW algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, VMEF algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm and MaOEA/IT algorithm decreases in turn. The performance of MaOEA/IGD algorithm is the worst.Table 5 The IGD + values of each algorithm under MAF test function set.Based on Table 5, we further analyze the performance of these algorithms. In the MAF test function set, MOEA/TS algorithm performs poorly on MAF2 and MAF3 test functions. The possible reasons are that the MAF2 test function greatly increases the difficulty of convergence on the basis of the DTLZ2 test function, and the MAF3 test function has a convex Pareto front and many local fronts. In the MAF2 test function, although the MOEA/TS algorithm can recognize the advantage and disadvantage of different individuals in the same front layer, the evolutionary efficiency of the MOEA/TS algorithm isn’t ideal. In other words, after the algorithm is finished, the population still has the large evolution potential in convergence. In the MAF3 test function, MOEA/TS algorithm can effectively deal with the convex Pareto front. However, MOEA/TS algorithm is difficult to deal with multiple local fronts because feature extraction operator of MOEA/TS algorithm is difficult to extract features of multiple local fronts.MAF test function set is the variety of DTLZ test function set. It adds a lot of characteristics to the DTLZ test function set. For example, degenerate, convex, concave, partial, multimodal, deceptive, et al. Therefore, the MAF test function set is more difficult in terms of convergence and diversity. Based on the convergence measure and diversity measure, BiGE-BEW algorithm transforms the many-objective optimization problem into a two-objective optimization problem. Although there are some defects in its diversity and convergence measurement formula, BiGE-BEW algorithm shows good performance in convergence when dealing with more complex MaOPs. VMEF algorithm uses different convergence ranking methods to deal with different test problems. However, the complex Pareto fronts and diversified characteristics still pose a great challenge to VMEF algorithm. Therefore, the performance of VMEF algorithm is mediocre. MOEA/DG algorithm still uses the traditional dominance relationship to maintain the convergence of external archives. Therefore, MOEA/DG algorithm is poor in convergence. MOEA/D algorithm uses predefined weight vectors to maintain diversity and aggregation functions to maintain convergence. MOEA/D algorithm can easily deal with the DTLZ test function set. However, its performance isn’t ideal when dealing with more complex MAF test function set. Surprisingly, LSMaODE algorithm shows good performance. We speculate that the possible reason is that the real Pareto front of the MAF test function set is complex, and then the advantages of multi-population algorithm architecture can be reflected. MaOEA/IT algorithm optimizes convergence and diversity through two independent phases. However, the algorithm’s performance is always poor because it doesn’t alleviate the contradiction between convergence and diversity. The reference Pareto front of MaOEA/IGD algorithm is poor. Therefore, the algorithm’s performance is always poor.Performance comparison under WFG test function setIn this paper, each algorithm is executed 30 times to get the average data as shown in Table 6. As can be seen from Table 6, MOEA/TS algorithm wins the first place in 27 test cases; VMEF algorithm wins the first place in 8 test cases; BiGE-BEW algorithm wins the first place in 6 test cases; MOEA/DG algorithm wins the first place in 1 test case; LSMaODE algorithm wins the first place in 3 test cases. In the 45 test cases, the number of MOEA/TS algorithm is significantly superior to VMEF algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm is 26, 29, 42, 45, 39, 45 and 43, respectively. The number of MOEA/TS algorithm is significantly inferior to VMEF algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm is 10, 9, 3, 0, 3, 0 and 0, respectively. Statistically, the number of MOEA/TS algorithm is similar to VMEF algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm is 9, 7, 0, 0, 3, 0 and 2, respectively. Therefore, in the WFG test function set, MOEA/TS algorithm has the best performance. The performance of VMEF algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm and MOEA/DG algorithm decreases in turn. The performance of MaOEA/IGD algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm and MaOEA/IT algorithm is similar and the worst.Table 6 The IGD + values of each algorithm under WFG test function set.Based on Table 6, we further analyze the performance of these algorithms. MOEA/TS algorithm performs well in all WFG test functions. The possible reason is that the problem characteristics of the WFG test function set are bias, fraud and degradation. The WFG test function set is more difficult than the DTLZ test function set. However, the problem characteristics of the WFG test function set don’t include multiple local fronts (From the previous analysis, we know that MOEA/TS algorithm isn’t good at dealing with multiple local fronts.). MOEA/TS algorithm can deal with these problem characteristics. Therefore, MOEA/TS algorithm performs well in all WFG test functions. It should be noted that the WFG3 test function has a narrow convergence curve, but the performance of MOEA/TS algorithm is still the best. This is an interesting phenomenon. Because from the previous analysis, we know that MOEA/TS algorithm isn’t good at dealing with test functions with narrow convergence curves (such as DTLZ5 and DTLZ6 test functions). Based on the convergence difficulty of the WFG test function set, we speculate that the performance of the other 7 algorithms is worse, thus highlighting the performance of MOEA/TS algorithm.Compared with the DTLZ test function set, the MAF test function set is more difficult in terms of convergence and diversity. VMEF algorithm uses different convergence ranking methods to deal with different test problems. This approach helps VMEF algorithm to deal with different problem characteristics. Therefore, the performance of VMEF algorithm is good. Based on the convergence measure and diversity measure, BiGE-BEW algorithm transforms the many-objective optimization problem into a two-objective optimization problem. Although there are some defects in its diversity and convergence measurement formula, BiGE-BEW algorithm shows good performance in convergence when dealing with more complex MaOPs. MOEA/DG algorithm still uses the traditional dominance relationship to maintain the convergence of external archives. Therefore, MOEA/DG algorithm is poor in convergence. MOEA/D algorithm uses predefined weight vectors to maintain diversity and aggregation functions to maintain convergence. This approach isn’t suitable for dealing with test functions with bias characteristic. Therefore, the performance of MOEA/D algorithm is the worst. LSMaODE algorithm divides the population into two subpopulations and uses different strategies to optimize them. Because most WFG test functions have bias characteristic, LSMaODE algorithm doesn’t consider the bias problem. Therefore, the performance of LSMaODE algorithm is mediocre. MaOEA/IT algorithm optimizes convergence and diversity through two independent phases. However, the algorithm’s performance is always poor because it doesn’t alleviate the contradiction between convergence and diversity. The reference Pareto front of MaOEA/IGD algorithm is poor. Therefore, the algorithm’s performance is always poor.Comparison and analysisBy synthesizing Tables 4, 5, 6, we can obtain the data shown in Table 7. As can be seen from Tables 4, 5, 6, MOEA/TS algorithm wins the first place in 52 test cases; VMEF algorithm wins the first place in 8 test cases; BiGE-BEW algorithm wins the first place in 19 test cases; MOEA/DG algorithm wins the first place in 3 test cases; MOEA/D algorithm wins the first place in 20 test cases; LSMaODE algorithm wins first place in 8 test cases. As can be seen from Table 7, in the 110 test cases, the number of MOEA/TS algorithm is significantly superior to VMEF algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm is 69, 74, 92, 82, 91, 107 and 104, respectively. The number of MOEA/TS algorithm is significantly inferior to VMEF algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm is 22, 25, 10, 20, 13, 1 and 0, respectively. Statistically, the number of MOEA/TS algorithm is similar to VMEF algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm is 19, 11, 8, 8, 6, 2 and 6, respectively. Based on the above data, we can get the following conclusions: MOEA/TS algorithm has the best performance; the performance of BiGE-BEW algorithm, VMEF algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm and MaOEA/IT algorithm decreases in turn. MaOEA/IGD algorithm has the worst performance.Table 7 Comprehensive data.In addition to the above conclusions, we can also observe 3 interesting phenomena:
(1) In the MAF test function set and WFG test function set, MOEA/TS algorithm has no competitors. However, in the DTLZ test function set, MOEA/TS algorithm and MOEA/D algorithm are competitors, and they have similar performance. This is because most DTLZ test functions have regular PF, while most MAF test functions and WFG test functions have more complex PF. It can be seen from Sect. “Introduction” that MOEA/D algorithm is suitable for MaOPs with regular PF. Therefore, in the DTLZ test function set, MOEA/D algorithm can compete with MOEA/TS algorithm. In the MAF test functions and WFG test functions, only MOEA/TS algorithm shows excellent performance.
(2) The performance of MOEA/TS algorithm is better on the test cases with 10 objectives, 15 objectives and 20 objectives. The performance of MOEA/TS algorithm is relatively ordinary on the test cases with 5 objectives and 8 objectives. This is because when the number of optimization objectives is small, most many-objective optimization algorithms perform well. Compared with other many-objective optimization algorithms, the advantages of MOEA/TS algorithm aren’t obvious. However, with the increase of the number of optimization objectives, the performance of other many-objective optimization algorithms becomes worse and worse. In contrast, the performance of MOEA/TS algorithm isn’t significantly affected. Therefore, compared with other many-objective optimization algorithms, MOEA/TS algorithm has obvious advantages. This shows that MOEA/TS algorithm is more suitable for solving MaOPs with more than 10 objectives.
(3) Without considering MOEA/TS algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm has the best performance in the DTLZ test function set. BiGE-BEW algorithm has the best performance in the MAF test function set. VMEF algorithm has the best performance in the WFG test function set. This shows that different many-objective optimization algorithms are suitable for different test function sets. However, MOEA/TS algorithm can show excellent performance on three test function sets. This indicates that MOEA/TS algorithm has strong universality and applicability.
Distribution diagram of solutions in the objective spaceIn order to describe the distribution of solutions in the high-dimensional objective space more intuitively, this paper draws the distribution diagram of solutions in the objective space. Considering the length of the paper, it is unrealistic to show the distribution diagrams of all test functions. Therefore, this section only shows the distribution diagrams of 3 representative test cases. These 3 test cases are DTLZ2 test case with 20 objectives, MAF1 test case with 15 objectives and WFG3 test case with 10 objectives, respectively.Figure 10 shows the distribution diagrams of each algorithm on DTLZ2 test case with 20 objectives. It can be seen from Fig. 10 that distribution diagrams of MOEA/TS algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm and MOEA/D algorithm are similar, which indicates that these 4 algorithms are excellent in convergence and diversity; VMEF algorithm and LSMaODE algorithm are good in diversity, but poor in convergence; MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm are very poor in convergence and diversity.Figure 10Distribution diagrams of each algorithm on DTLZ2 test case with 20 objectives.Figure 11 shows the distribution diagrams of each algorithm on MAF1 test case with 15 objectives. It can be seen from Fig. 11 that MOEA/TS algorithm and VMEF algorithm are good in convergence, but poor in diversity; BiGE-BEW algorithm and LSMaODE algorithm are good in diversity, but poor in convergence. MOEA/DG algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm are very bad in convergence and diversity.Figure 11Distribution diagrams of each algorithm on MAF1 test case with 15 objectives.Figure 12 shows the distribution diagrams of each algorithm on WFG3 test case with 10 objectives. It can be seen from Fig. 12 that MOEA/TS algorithm has the best convergence and diversity; LSMaODE algorithm is also excellent, only slightly worse than MOEA/TS algorithm in terms of diversity; BiGE-BEW algorithm and MOEA/DG algorithm are good in diversity, but poor in convergence. VMEF algorithm is good in convergence, but poor in diversity. MOEA/D algorithm, MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm are very bad in convergence and diversity.Figure 12Distribution diagrams of each algorithm on WFG3 test case with 10 objectives.Evolution curve analysis of the algorithmThis section takes DTLZ2 test case with 20 objectives, MAF1 test case with 15 objectives and WFG3 test case with 10 objectives as examples to display the evolution curves of 8 algorithms (as shown in Figs. 13, 14, 15).Figure 13Evolution curve of each algorithm on DTLZ2 test case with 20 objectives.In Figure 13, in terms of the final IGD+ value of the algorithm, MOEA/TS algorithm has the smallest IGD+ value, while the IGD+ values of MOEA/DG algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, VMEF algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm successively increase, and MaOEA/IT algorithm has the largest IGD+ value. This shows that MOEA/TS algorithm has the best convergence and diversity within the specified number of iterations. In terms of the evolution of the algorithm, the final IGD+ values of all algorithms are smaller than the initial IGD+ values. This shows that all algorithms have strong evolution ability, especially MOEA/TS algorithm has the strongest evolution ability. In terms of algorithm fluctuation, MaOEA/IT algorithm fluctuates greatly. This shows that MaOEA/IT algorithm isn’t stable. Based on the above analysis, we believe that MOEA/TS algorithm has the best comprehensive performance on DTLZ2 test case with 20 objectives, and is suitable for solving DTLZ2 test problem with 20 objectives.In Figure 14, in terms of the final IGD+ value of the algorithm, MOEA/TS algorithm has the smallest IGD+ value, while the IGD+ values of BiGE-BEW algorithm, VMEF algorithm, LSMaODE algorithm, MaOEA/IGD algorithm, MOEA/D algorithm and MOEA/DG algorithm successively increase, and MaOEA/IT algorithm has the largest IGD+ value. This shows that MOEA/TS algorithm has the best convergence and diversity within the specified number of iterations. In terms of the evolution of the algorithm, the final IGD+ values of all algorithms are smaller than the initial IGD+ values. This shows that all algorithms have strong evolution ability, especially MOEA/TS algorithm has the strongest evolution ability. In terms of algorithm fluctuation, MaOEA/IT algorithm fluctuates greatly. This shows that MaOEA/IT algorithm isn’t stable. Based on the above analysis, we believe that MOEA/TS algorithm has the best comprehensive performance on MAF1 test case with 15 objectives, and is suitable for solving MAF1 test problem with 15 objectives.Figure 14Evolution curve of each algorithm on MAF1 test case with 15 objectives.In Fig. 15, in terms of the final IGD+ value of the algorithm, MOEA/TS algorithm has the smallest IGD+ value, while the IGD+ values of LSMaODE algorithm, MOEA/DG algorithm, VMEF algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm, MaOEA/IGD algorithm and MOEA/D algorithm successively increase, and MaOEA/IT algorithm has the largest IGD+ value. This shows that MOEA/TS algorithm has the best convergence and diversity within the specified number of iterations. In terms of the evolution of the algorithm, the final IGD+ values of the MaOEA/IT algorithm, VMEF algorithm, MaOEA/IGD algorithm, BiGE-BEW algorithm and VMEF algorithm are all greater than the initial IGD+ values. This shows that the performance of these 5 algorithms deteriorates during evolution, and they aren’t suitable for dealing with WFG3 test problem with 10 objectives. The initial IGD+ value of MOEA/DG algorithm is close to the final IGD+ value, and the IGD+ value of MOEA/DG algorithm fluctuates little during the evolution. This shows that MOEA/DG algorithm is insensitive to evolution. Only the final IGD+ values of LSMaODE algorithm and MOEA/TS algorithm are less than the initial IGD+ values. This shows that LSMaODE algorithm and MOEA/TS algorithm have strong evolution ability, especially MOEA/TS algorithm has the strongest evolution ability. In terms of algorithm fluctuation, MOEA/D algorithm, MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm have greater fluctuation. This shows that these 3 algorithms aren’t stable. Based on the above analysis, we believe that MOEA/TS algorithm has the best comprehensive performance on WFG3 test case with 10 objectives, and is suitable for solving WFG3 test problem with 10 objectives.Figure 15Evolution curve of each algorithm on WFG3 test case with 10 objectives.In addition, we can also observe an interesting phenomenon from Fig. 13 to Fig. 15: the IGD+ values of some algorithms sometimes increase significantly with the increase of iterations. That is, the performance of some algorithms sometimes deteriorates seriously with the increase of iterations. The reasons for this phenomenon may include three aspects: (1) The algorithm doesn’t adopt the elite preservation strategy. Some high-quality solutions may gradually disappear; (2) Due to the complexity of the optimization problems, the evolutionary direction of the population may be misled by some pseudo-elite individuals; (3) The convergence optimization and diversity optimization of the algorithm aren’t coordinated. The optimization of convergence may affect the optimization of diversity or the optimization of diversity may affect the optimization of convergence. It can be seen from the pseudo-code of the algorithm in Section 3.5 that the MOEA/TS algorithm proposed in this paper considers the above three aspects. Therefore, MOEA/TS algorithm can effectively alleviate this phenomenon.Effectiveness verification of innovation partIn order to verify the effectiveness of the innovative parts, 4 variants are designed in this section. As follows:MOEA/TS-1 algorithm: The feature extraction operator in MOEA/TS algorithm is changed to the binary crossover operator and polynomial mutation operator;MOEA/TS-2 algorithm: The repulsion field method in MOEA/TS algorithm is removed;MOEA/TS-3 algorithm: The concurrent architecture in MOEA/TS algorithm is changed to serial architecture;MOEA/TS-4 algorithm: The individual importance degree in MOEA/TS algorithm is removed.This paper takes WFG test function set (45 test cases) as samples, and then verifies the performance of 5 algorithms. In this paper, 5 algorithms are executed 30 times to get the average data as shown in Table 8. As can be seen from Table 8, MOEA/TS algorithm wins the first place in 24 test cases; MOEA/TS-1 algorithm wins the first place in 13 test cases; MOEA/TS-2 algorithm wins the first place in 7 test cases; MOEA/TS-3 algorithm wins the first place in 1 test case. In the 45 test cases, the number of MOEA/TS algorithm is significantly superior to MOEA/TS-1 algorithm, MOEA/TS-2 algorithm, MOEA/TS-3 algorithm and MOEA/TS-4 algorithm is 21, 30, 40 and 45, respectively. The number of MOEA/TS algorithm is significantly inferior to MOEA/TS-1 algorithm, MOEA/TS-2 algorithm, MOEA/TS-3 algorithm and MOEA/TS-4 algorithm is 11, 6, 0 and 0, respectively. Statistically, the number of MOEA/TS algorithm is similar to MOEA/TS-1 algorithm, MOEA/TS-2 algorithm, MOEA/TS-3 algorithm and MOEA/TS-4 algorithm is 13, 9, 5 and 0, respectively. The average ranking of MOEA/TS algorithm is about 1.64; the average ranking of MOEA/TS-1 algorithm is about 2.02; the average ranking of MOEA/TS-2 algorithm is about 2.62; the average ranking of MOEA/TS-3 algorithm is about 3.71; the average ranking of MOEA/TS-4 algorithm is 5.Table 8 The IGD + values and rankings of 5 algorithms under WFG test function set.Therefore, we think that the 4 innovative parts of MOEA/TS algorithm are necessary and indispensable. The lack of any innovative parts will seriously affect the performance of MOEA/TS algorithm. This shows that our innovations are effective. In addition, based on the above data, we can also find that “individual importance degree” has the greatest influence on the algorithm; the algorithm architecture ranks second; the repulsion field method ranks third; the feature extraction operator ranks fourth.Ablation experiment of selection approachIn the feature extraction operator, we select W high-quality solutions. To prove the effectiveness of this selection approach over random selection, the ablation experiment will be performed in this sect. “Introduction” variant is designed in this section. As follows:MOEA/TS-5 algorithm: W solutions are randomly selected in the feature extraction operator.This paper takes WFG test function set (45 test cases) as samples, and then verifies the performance of 2 algorithms. In this paper, 2 algorithms are executed 30 times to get the average data as shown in Table 9. As can be seen from Table 9, MOEA/TS algorithm wins the first place in 45 test cases. In the 45 test cases, the number of MOEA/TS algorithm is significantly superior to MOEA/TS-5 algorithm is 42. The number of MOEA/TS algorithm is significantly inferior to MOEA/TS-5 algorithm is 0. Statistically, the number of MOEA/TS algorithm is similar to MOEA/TS-5 algorithm is 3. Therefore, we believe that the performance of MOEA/TS algorithm is better than MOEA/TS-5 algorithm in the WFG test function set. It proves that the selection approach that we use is better than random selection in the feature extraction operator.Table 9 The IGD + values of 2 algorithms under WFG test function set.In addition, the performance of MOEA/TS-5 algorithm isn’t as good as that of MOEA/TS-1 algorithm. It means that the performance of the feature extraction operator based on random selection is even worse than that of some classical operators. The possible reason is that the randomly selected solution set will cause the feature extraction operator to extract many bad features. These bad features hinder individual evolution, which makes the convergence maintenance state and diversity maintenance state of MOEA/TS algorithm fail for a long time, and only the coordination state can play some role. The architecture of the MOEA/TS algorithm is undermined by some bad features.Parameter sensitivity analysis.The algorithm parameters analyzed in this paper are mainly the number of high-quality solutions W, threshold value T, standard deviation std. Due to the high complexity of the WFG3 test case with 10 objectives, it is difficult for the population of each algorithm to cover the real Pareto front, so this paper considers the WFG3 test case with 10 objectives as the main function of parameter analysis.The initial value and value range of each parameter are shown in Table 10.Table 10 The initial value and value range of each parameter.As shown in Fig. 16, when \(W<9\), the IGD + value of the algorithm decreases significantly with the increase of W. It means that when \(W<9\), the performance of the feature extraction operator is greatly improved with the increase of W. This is because the features extracted by the feature extraction operator are closer to the ideal situation. When \(W=9\), the IGD + value of the algorithm is minimum. This shows that when \(W=9\), the feature extraction operator performs best. When \(W>9\), the IGD + value of the algorithm increases slowly. It means that when \(W>9\), the performance of the feature extraction operator deteriorates gradually with the increase of W. This is because some features are over-extracted by feature extraction operators. Therefore, for WFG3 test case with 10 objectives, \(W=9\) is the best parameter selection.Figure 16The corresponding relationship between IGD + value and W.As shown in Fig. 17, when \(T<5\%\), the IGD + value of the algorithm decreases significantly with the increase of T. This is because if the threshold value T is too small, the algorithm will remain in the same state for a long time, and it is difficult to be adjusted to other states. Convergence and diversity of algorithm will also be difficult to balance. This situation will be improved with the increase of T. When \(T=5\%\), the IGD + value of the algorithm is minimum. This shows that when \(T=5\%\), the algorithm has the best performance. When \(T>5\%\), the IGD + value of the algorithm increases gradually with the increase of T. This is because if the threshold value T is too large, the algorithm’s state will be adjusted frequently. Even if the population isn’t stable in one state (convergence, diversity, coordination), the algorithm will also be adjusted to other states. This isn’t conducive to improving the convergence and the diversity of the algorithm. The efficiency of the algorithm will also be affected. Therefore, for WFG3 test case with 10 objectives, \(T=5\%\) is the best parameter selection.Figure 17The corresponding relationship between IGD + value and T.As shown in Fig. 18, when \(std<0.7\), the IGD + value of the algorithm decreases significantly with the increase of std. This is because if std is too small, the results of Gaussian sampling are too concentrated in the middle region, and the randomness of the sampling vector is weak, which isn’t conducive to the use of features and generation of diversified feature solutions. When \(std=0.7\), the IGD + value of the algorithm is minimum. This shows that when \(std=0.7\), the feature extraction operator performs best. When \(std>0.7\), the IGD + value of the algorithm increases significantly with the increase of std. This is because if the std is too large, the result of Gaussian sampling is too scattered, the randomness of the sampling vector is strong, some components are easy to exceed the upper bound or lower bound, and some features are easy to be eliminated by the repair operator. Therefore, for WFG3 test case with 10 objectives, \(std=0.7\) is the best parameter selection.Figure 18The corresponding relationship between IGD + value and std.Based on the above analysis of algorithm parameters, we think \(W=9, T=5\%, std=0.7\) are the best parameter combinations in WFG3 test case with 10 objectives. Further, we test the performance of the above parameter combinations in more test cases. The experimental results show that the above parameter combinations perform well in most test cases. Therefore, this paper sets the number of high-quality solutions \(W\), the threshold value \(T\) and the standard deviation \(std\) to 9, 5% and 0.7, respectively.Practical problem testingThis section mainly explores the performance of MOEA/TS algorithm in practical problems. The practical problem selected in this section is the industrial internet optimization problem based on the blockchain provided in reference40.The industrial internet can support effective control of the physical world through a large amount of industrial data, but data security has always been a challenge due to various interconnections and accesses. Blockchain technology supports the security and privacy protection of industrial internet data with its trusted and reliable security mechanism. Fragmentation technology can help improve the overall throughput and scalability of the blockchain network. However, due to the uneven distribution of malicious nodes, the effectiveness of fragmentation is still challenging. In addition, the conflict between multiple industrial network indicators is also a problem we have to consider. Therefore, the industrial internet optimization problem based on blockchain is an important research problem.In this section, the industrial internet optimization problem based on blockchain has the following 4 optimization objectives:
(1) Minimizing the shard invalidation probability (SIP);
(2) Minimizing the transmission delay (TD);
(3) Maximizing the throughput (TP);
(4) Minimizing the load of Malicious Nodes (LMN).
The research background of the industrial internet based on blockchain and the calculation formulas of these 4 objectives are detailed in reference40.In this section, we set the population size to 220, the number of iterations to 300, and the number of function evaluations to 66000. We still use inverted generational distance plus (IGD+) to measure the performance of many-objective optimization algorithms. However, the real PF of the practical problem is unknown. Therefore, we run these algorithms many times to obtain the different non-dominated solution sets. The non-dominated union set of the different non-dominated solution sets is considered as the real PF. The relevant parameters of these algorithms are shown in Section 4.1.In this section, each algorithm is executed 30 times to get the data as shown in Table 11. As can be seen from Table 11, MOEA/TS algorithm has absolute advantages. The performance of BiGE-BEW algorithm and MOEA/DG algorithm is good and similar. The performance of VMEF algorithm and MOEA/D algorithm in practical problems is obviously not as good as that in benchmark test functions. This is because the real PF of the practical problem is more complex. The performance of LSMaODE algorithm is close to that of MOEA/D algorithm. The performance of MaOEA/IT algorithm and MaOEA/IGD algorithm is the worst. Based on the above observations and analysis, we believe that MOEA/TS algorithm still has excellent performance and strong applicability in practical problems.Table 11 The IGD + values of each algorithm in practical problem.Considering that the solutions obtained by the many-objective optimization algorithms are the population, it is unrealistic to compare different network indicators of different algorithms intuitively. However, in practical applications, we only need to make choices according to the specific needs or preferences of users or enterprises. In this section, we first select the individuals with the largest throughput in each algorithm, and then compare the MOEA/TS algorithm with other algorithms on the basis of ensuring the maximum throughput. The network indicators obtained by these 8 algorithms are shown in Table 12. As can be seen from Table 12, in terms of SIP and TP, MOEA/TS algorithm has the best performance; In terms of TD, MOEA/TS algorithm ranks second; In terms of LMN, MOEA/TS algorithm ranks third. Therefore, we believe that the MOEA/TS algorithm has the best comprehensive performance in the industrial internet optimization problem based on blockchain, and various network indicators are at the forefront.Table 12 The network indicators obtained by each algorithm.Based on the experimental analysis from Section 4.2 to Section 4.8, we can obtain the following conclusions:
(1) In the benchmark test cases, MOEA/TS algorithm is superior to the other 7 advanced many-objective optimization algorithms.
(2) MOEA/TS algorithm is more suitable for dealing with the MaOPs with more than 10 objectives.
(3) MOEA/TS algorithm can show excellent performance in different test function sets, and has strong universality and applicability.
(4) MOEA/TS algorithm has the best convergence and diversity, the strongest evolution ability and the fastest convergence speed.
(5) The 4 innovative parts of MOEA/TS algorithm are necessary and indispensable. The lack of any innovative parts will seriously affect the performance of MOEA/TS algorithm.
(6) MOEA/TS algorithm still has excellent performance and strong applicability in practical problems.