LAUSR

Constrained multiobjective optimization problems widely exist in real-world applications. To handle them, the balance between constraints and objectives is crucial, but remains challenging due to non-negligible impacts of problem types. In our context, the problem types refer particularly to those determined by the relationship between the constrained Pareto-optimal front (PF) and the unconstrained PF. Unfortunately, there has been little awareness on how to achieve this balance when faced with different types of problems. In this article, we propose a new constraint handling technique (CHT) by taking into account potential problem types. Specifically, inspired by the prior work, problems are classified into three primary types: 1) I; 2) II; and 3) III, with the constrained PF being made up of the entire, part and none of the unconstrained counterpart, respectively. Clearly, any problem must be one of the three types. For each possible type, there exists a tailored mechanism being used to handle the relationships between constraints and objectives (i.e., constraint priority, objective priority, or the switch between them). It is worth mentioning that exact problem types are not required because we just consider their possibilities in the new CHT. Conceptually, we show that the new CHT can make a tradeoff among different types of problems. This argument is confirmed by experimental studies performed on 38 benchmark problems, whose types are known, and a real-world problem (with unknown types) in search-based software engineering. Results demonstrate that within both decomposition-based and nondecomposition-based frameworks, the new CHT can indeed achieve a good tradeoff among different problem types, being better than several state-of-the-art CHTs.