Python has become the programming language of choice for research and industry projects related to data science, machine learning, and deep learning. Since optimization is an inherent part of these research fields, more optimization related frameworks have arisen in the past few years. Only a few of them support optimization of multiple conflicting objectives at a time, but do not provide comprehensive tools for a complete multi-objective optimization task. To address this issue, we have developed pymoo, a multiobjective optimization framework in Python. We provide a guide to getting started with our framework by demonstrating the implementation of an exemplary constrained multi-objective optimization scenario. Moreover, we give a high-level overview of the architecture of pymoo to show its capabilities followed by an explanation of each module and its corresponding sub-modules. The implementations in our framework are customizable and algorithms can be modified/extended by supplying custom operators. Moreover, a variety of single, multi- and many-objective test problems are provided and gradients can be retrieved by automatic differentiation out of the box. Also, pymoo addresses practical needs, such as the parallelization of function evaluations, methods to visualize low and high-dimensional spaces, and tools for multi-criteria decision making. For more information about pymoo, readers are encouraged to visit: https://pymoo.org.

Bilevel optimization is defined as a mathematical program, where an optimization problem contains another optimization problem as a constraint. These problems have received significant attention from the mathematical programming community. Only limited work exists on bilevel problems using evolutionary computation techniques; however, recently there has been an increasing interest due to the proliferation of practical applications and the potential of evolutionary algorithms in tackling these problems. This paper provides a comprehensive review on bilevel optimization from the basic principles to solution strategies; both classical and evolutionary. A number of potential application problems are also discussed. To offer the readers insights on the prominent developments in the field of bilevel optimization, we have performed an automated text-analysis of an extended list of papers published on bilevel optimization to date. This paper should motivate evolutionary computation researchers to pay more attention to this practical yet challenging area.

In this paper, we study the problem features that may cause a multi-objective genetic algorithm (GA) difficulty in converging to the true Pareto-optimal front. Identification of such features helps us develop difficult test problems for multi-objective optimization. Multi-objective test problems are constructed from single-objective optimization problems, thereby allowing known difficult features of single-objective problems (such as multi-modality, isolation, or deception) to be directly transferred to the corresponding multi-objective problem. In addition, test problems having features specific to multi-objective optimization are also constructed. More importantly, these difficult test problems will enable researchers to test their algorithms for specific aspects of multi-objective optimization.

Since the suggestion of a computing procedure of multiple Pareto-optimal solutions in multi-objective optimization problems in the early Nineties, researchers have been on the look out for a procedure which is computationally fast and simultaneously capable of finding a well-converged and well-distributed set of solutions. Most multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) developed in the past decade are either good for achieving a well-distributed solutions at the expense of a large computational effort or computationally fast at the expense of achieving a not-so-good distribution of solutions. For example, although the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm or SPEA (Zitzler and Thiele, 1999) produces a much better distribution compared to the elitist non-dominated sorting GA or NSGA-II (Deb et al., 2002a), the computational time needed to run SPEA is much greater. In this paper, we evaluate a recently-proposed steady-state MOEA (Deb et al., 2003) which was developed based on the ε-dominance concept introduced earlier (Laumanns et al., 2002) and using efficient parent and archive update strategies for achieving a well-distributed and well-converged set of solutions quickly. Based on an extensive comparative study with four other state-of-the-art MOEAs on a number of two, three, and four objective test problems, it is observed that the steady-state MOEA is a good compromise in terms of convergence near to the Pareto-optimal front, diversity of solutions, and computational time. Moreover, the ε-MOEA is a step closer towards making MOEAs pragmatic, particularly allowing a decision-maker to control the achievable accuracy in the obtained Pareto-optimal solutions.