Local search is a fundamental method in operations research and combinatorial optimisation. It has been widely applied to a variety of challenging problems, including multi-objective optimisation where multiple, often conflicting, objectives need to be simultaneously considered. In multi-objective local search algorithms, a common practice is to maintain an archive of all non-dominated solutions found so far, from which the algorithm iteratively samples a solution to explore its neighbourhood. A central issue in this process is how to explore the neighbourhood of a selected solution. In general, there are two main approaches: 1) systematic exploration and 2) random sampling. The former systematically explores the solution's neighbours until a stopping condition is met -- for example, when the neighbourhood is exhausted (i.e., the best improvement strategy) or once a better solution is found (i.e., first improvement). In contrast, the latter randomly selects and evaluates only one neighbour of the solution. One may think systematic exploration may be more efficient, as it prevents from revisiting the same neighbours multiple times. In this paper, however, we show that this may not be the case. We first empirically demonstrate that the random sampling method is consistently faster than the systematic exploration method across a range of multi-objective problems. We then give an intuitive explanation for this phenomenon using toy examples, showing that the superior performance of the random sampling method relies on the distribution of ``good neighbours''. Next, we show that the number of such neighbours follows a certain probability distribution during the search. Lastly, building on this distribution, we provide a theoretical insight for why random sampling is more efficient than systematic exploration, regardless of whether the best improvement or first improvement strategy is used.

Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) have become the most popular tool for solving widely-existed multi-objective optimization problems. In Multi-Objective EAs (MOEAs), there is increasing interest in using an archive to store non-dominated solutions generated during the search. This approach can 1) mitigate the effects of population oscillation, a common issue in many MOEAs, and 2) allow for the use of smaller, more practical population sizes. In this paper, we analytically show that the archive can even further help MOEAs through reusing its solutions during the process of new solution generation. We first prove that using a small population size alongside an archive (without incorporating archived solutions in the generation process) may fail on certain problems, as the population may remove previously discovered but promising solutions. We then prove that reusing archive solutions can overcome this limitation, resulting in at least a polynomial speedup on the expected running time. Our analysis focuses on the well-established SMS-EMOA algorithm applied to the commonly studied OneJumpZeroJump problem as well as one of its variants. We also show that reusing archive solutions can be better than using a large population size directly. Finally, we validate our theoretical findings through experiments on well-known practical optimization problems.

Recently, there has been growing interest within the theoretical community in analytically studying multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. This runtime analysis-focused research can help formally understand algorithm behaviour, explain empirical observations, and provide theoretical insights to support algorithm development and exploration. However, the test problems commonly used in the theoretical analysis are predominantly limited to problems with heavy "artificial" characteristics (e.g., symmetric, homogeneous objectives and linear Pareto fronts), which may not be able to well represent realistic scenarios. In this paper, we first discuss commonly used multi-objective functions in the theory domain and systematically review their features, limitations and implications to practical use. Then, we present several new functions with more realistic features, such as heterogeneous objectives, local optimality and nonlinearity of the Pareto front, through simply mixing and matching classical single-objective functions in the area (e.g., LeadingOnes, Jump and RoyalRoad). We hope these functions can enrich the existing test problem suites, and strengthen the connection between theoretic and practical research.

Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) have been widely applied to multi-objective optimization due to their population-based nature. Population update, a key component in multi-objective EAs (MOEAs), is usually performed in a greedy, deterministic manner. However, recent studies have questioned this practice and shown that stochastic population update (SPU), which allows inferior solutions have a chance to be preserved, can help MOEAs jump out of local optima more easily. Nevertheless, SPU risks losing high-quality solutions, potentially requiring a large population. Intuitively, a possible solution to this issue is to introduce an archive that stores the best solutions ever found. In this paper, we theoretically show that using an archive allows a small population and may enhance the search performance of SPU-based MOEAs. We examine two classic algorithms, SMS-EMOA and NSGA-II, on the bi-objective problem OneJumpZeroJump, and prove that using an archive can reduce the expected running time upper bound (even exponentially). The comparison between SMS-EMOA and NSGA-II also suggests that the (μ+μ) update mode may be more suitable for SPU than the (μ+1) update mode. We also validate our findings empirically. We hope this work may provide theoretical support to explore different ideas of designing algorithms in evolutionary multi-objective optimization.

Local search has gained its popularity in addressing multi-objective combinatorial optimisation problems (MOCOPs) within the communities of evolutionary computation and operational research. The ease of defining the neighbourhood in discrete spaces of MOCOPs makes local search well-suited to conducting step-wise moves. On the other side, evolutionary algorithms are amongst very first choices in solving various multi-objective optimisation problems. Although most multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) are developed, tested and studied on the basis of continuous problems, when encountering a practical MOCOP, practitioners tend to resort to popular MOEAs. Therefore, a relevant question is that between MOEAs and local search heuristics, which one may be more suitable for MOCOPs. In this paper, we attempt to answer this question. We choose seven well-known "baseline" MOEAs and local search heuristics in the area and systematically study their behaviours on four MOCOPs. We find that, unsurprisingly, different search paradigms have their own sweet spots; it depends on problem types, problem settings and search budgets. However, surprisingly, there exists one search heuristic, SEMO, which can be seen as a "transition" between the two search paradigms (i.e., a simple MOEA or randomised local search), that performs consistently better than the other heuristics across all the settings.