Few for Many: Tchebycheff Set Scalarization for Many-Objective Optimization
Xi Lin, Yilu Liu, Xiaoyuan Zhang, Fei Liu, Zhenkun Wang, Qingfu Zhang

TL;DR
This paper introduces a Tchebycheff set scalarization method that efficiently finds a small set of representative solutions to cover many objectives in multi-objective optimization, addressing scalability issues.
Contribution
The paper proposes a novel scalarization approach that finds few solutions to represent large sets of objectives, improving scalability for many-objective problems.
Findings
Effective in covering over 100 objectives with only 5 solutions
Outperforms existing methods in scalability and solution quality
Provides theoretical guarantees for the optimization approach
Abstract
Multi-objective optimization can be found in many real-world applications where some conflicting objectives can not be optimized by a single solution. Existing optimization methods often focus on finding a set of Pareto solutions with different optimal trade-offs among the objectives. However, the required number of solutions to well approximate the whole Pareto optimal set could be exponentially large with respect to the number of objectives, which makes these methods unsuitable for handling many optimization objectives. In this work, instead of finding a dense set of Pareto solutions, we propose a novel Tchebycheff set scalarization method to find a few representative solutions (e.g., 5) to cover a large number of objectives (e.g., ) in a collaborative and complementary manner. In this way, each objective can be well addressed by at least one solution in the small solution set.…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Poster
Scalarization that is well known to perform well on multi-objective problems as seen on different variants of the evolutionary algorithm MOEA/D. Tchebycheff as the scalarizing function has also been shown to cover the non-convex solutions in the Pareto Front. The regular approach only aims to have a solution per direction, by modifying the function to instead search for a set of points that while being good for the other objectives it should be the best for a subset of all objectives. The text
It would have been nice to touch or at least mention dimensionality reduction techniques and problems with redundant objectives. Seems its the other side of the coin, given that there is some correlation in the objectives for them to be satisfied or addressed well with a single solution. As shown in Figure 2, each solution address 20 of the 100 objectives, does this mean that the underlying 100 objective problem can be summarized by a 5 objective problem?.
1. This paper is well-written and easy to follow. 2. The proposed method is well-motivated. 3. The technical details are clearly presented, and the theoretical analyses seem correct. 4. The literature review is comprehensive.
My major concern is about the problem setting. The proposed method aims to find a few solutions that collaboratively optimize many objectives. This problem setting is quite different from the common setting in multi- or many-objective optimization, which aims to find some solutions with diverse trade-offs. I agree with the authors that one of the main obstacles in many-objective optimization is that, with the increase in the number of objectives, the number of solutions has to increase exponenti
1. This paper introduces a novel and practical prospective in tackling for many-objective optimization. 2. This paper develops a smooth Tchebycheff set scalarization approach under the few-for-many prospective. 3. The theoretical analysis is thorough and well-supported.
Some descriptions lack clarity, and minor writing errors are present. Please refer to the questions below for the details.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
MethodsSparse Evolutionary Training · Focus
