Results 1  10
of
97
Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength pareto approach
 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION
, 1999
"... Evolutionary algorithms (EA’s) are often wellsuited for optimization problems involving several, often conflicting objectives. Since 1985, various evolutionary approaches to multiobjective optimization have been developed that are capable of searching for multiple solutions concurrently in a singl ..."
Abstract

Cited by 782 (22 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Evolutionary algorithms (EA’s) are often wellsuited for optimization problems involving several, often conflicting objectives. Since 1985, various evolutionary approaches to multiobjective optimization have been developed that are capable of searching for multiple solutions concurrently in a single run. However, the few comparative studies of different methods presented up to now remain mostly qualitative and are often restricted to a few approaches. In this paper, four multiobjective EA’s are compared quantitatively where an extended 0/1 knapsack problem is taken as a basis. Furthermore, we introduce a new evolutionary approach to multicriteria optimization, the Strength Pareto EA (SPEA), that combines several features of previous multiobjective EA’s in a unique manner. It is characterized by a) storing nondominated solutions externally in a second, continuously updated population, b) evaluating an individual’s fitness dependent on the number of external nondominated points that dominate it, c) preserving population diversity using the Pareto dominance relationship, and d) incorporating a clustering procedure in order to reduce the nondominated set without destroying its characteristics. The proofofprinciple results obtained on two artificial problems as well as a larger problem, the synthesis of a digital hardware–software multiprocessor system, suggest that SPEA can be very effective in sampling from along the entire Paretooptimal front and distributing the generated solutions over the tradeoff surface. Moreover, SPEA clearly outperforms the other four multiobjective EA’s on the 0/1 knapsack problem.
Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results
, 2000
"... In this paper, we provide a systematic comparison of various evolutionary approaches to multiobjective optimization using six carefully chosen test functions. Each test function involves a particular feature that is known to cause difficulty in the evolutionary optimization process, mainly in conver ..."
Abstract

Cited by 606 (39 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
In this paper, we provide a systematic comparison of various evolutionary approaches to multiobjective optimization using six carefully chosen test functions. Each test function involves a particular feature that is known to cause difficulty in the evolutionary optimization process, mainly in converging to the Paretooptimal front (e.g., multimodality and deception). By investigating these different problem features separately, it is possible to predict the kind of problems to which a certain technique is or is not well suited. However, in contrast to what was suspected beforehand, the experimental results indicate a hierarchy of the algorithms under consideration. Furthermore, the emerging effects are evidence that the suggested test functions provide sufficient complexity to compare multiobjective optimizers. Finally, elitism is shown to be an important factor for improving evolutionary multiobjective search.
An Overview of Evolutionary Algorithms in Multiobjective Optimization
 Evolutionary Computation
, 1995
"... The application of evolutionary algorithms (EAs) in multiobjective optimization is currently receiving growing interest from researchers with various backgrounds. Most research in this area has understandably concentrated on the selection stage of EAs, due to the need to integrate vectorial performa ..."
Abstract

Cited by 488 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The application of evolutionary algorithms (EAs) in multiobjective optimization is currently receiving growing interest from researchers with various backgrounds. Most research in this area has understandably concentrated on the selection stage of EAs, due to the need to integrate vectorial performance measures with the inherently scalar way in which EAs reward individual performance, i.e., number of offspring. In this review, current multiobjective evolutionary approaches are discussed, ranging from the conventional analytical aggregation of the different objectives into a single function to a number of populationbased approaches and the more recent ranking schemes based on the definition of Paretooptimality. The sensitivity of different methods to
Evolutionary Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: Methods and Applications
, 1999
"... Many realworld problems involve two types of problem difficulty: i) multiple, conflicting objectives and ii) a highly complex search space. On the one hand, instead of a single optimal solution competing goals give rise to a set of compromise solutions, generally denoted as Paretooptimal. In the a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 436 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Many realworld problems involve two types of problem difficulty: i) multiple, conflicting objectives and ii) a highly complex search space. On the one hand, instead of a single optimal solution competing goals give rise to a set of compromise solutions, generally denoted as Paretooptimal. In the absence of preference information, none of the corresponding tradeoffs can be said to be better than the others. On the other hand, the search space can be too large and too complex to be solved by exact methods. Thus, efficient optimization strategies are required that are able to deal with both difficulties. Evolutionary algorithms possess several characteristics that are desirable for this kind of problem and make them preferable to classical optimization methods. In fact, various evolutionary approaches to multiobjective optimization have been proposed since 1985, capable of searching for multiple Paretooptimal solutions concurrently in a single simulation run. However, in spite of this...
Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Analyzing the StateoftheArt
, 2000
"... Solving optimization problems with multiple (often conflicting) objectives is, generally, a very difficult goal. Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) were initially extended and applied during the mideighties in an attempt to stochastically solve problems of this generic class. During the past decade, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 425 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Solving optimization problems with multiple (often conflicting) objectives is, generally, a very difficult goal. Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) were initially extended and applied during the mideighties in an attempt to stochastically solve problems of this generic class. During the past decade, a variety of multiobjective EA (MOEA) techniques have been proposed and applied to many scientific and engineering applications. Our discussion's intent is to rigorously define multiobjective optimization problems and certain related concepts, present an MOEA classification scheme, and evaluate the variety of contemporary MOEAs. Current MOEA theoretical developments are evaluated; specific topics addressed include fitness functions, Pareto ranking, niching, fitness sharing, mating restriction, and secondary populations. Since the development and application of MOEAs is a dynamic and rapidly growing activity, we focus on key analytical insights based upon critical MOEA evaluation of c...
A Comprehensive Survey of EvolutionaryBased Multiobjective Optimization Techniques
 Knowledge and Information Systems
, 1998
"... . This paper presents a critical review of the most important evolutionarybased multiobjective optimization techniques developed over the years, emphasizing the importance of analyzing their Operations Research roots as a way to motivate the development of new approaches that exploit the search cap ..."
Abstract

Cited by 286 (22 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
. This paper presents a critical review of the most important evolutionarybased multiobjective optimization techniques developed over the years, emphasizing the importance of analyzing their Operations Research roots as a way to motivate the development of new approaches that exploit the search capabilities of evolutionary algorithms. Each technique is briefly described mentioning its advantages and disadvantages, their degree of applicability and some of their known applications. Finally, the future trends in this discipline and some of the open areas of research are also addressed. Keywords: multiobjective optimization, multicriteria optimization, vector optimization, genetic algorithms, evolutionary algorithms, artificial intelligence. 1 Introduction Since the pioneer work of Rosenberg in the late 60s regarding the possibility of using geneticbased search to deal with multiple objectives, this new area of research (now called evolutionary multiobjective optimization) has grown c...
Multiobjective Optimization and Multiple Constraint Handling with Evolutionary AlgorithmsPart I: A Unified Formulation
 IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans
, 1998
"... In optimization, multiple objectives and constraints cannot be handled independently of the underlying optimizer. Requirements such as continuity and differentiability of the cost surface add yet another conflicting element to the decision process. While ``better'' solutions should be rate ..."
Abstract

Cited by 228 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In optimization, multiple objectives and constraints cannot be handled independently of the underlying optimizer. Requirements such as continuity and differentiability of the cost surface add yet another conflicting element to the decision process. While ``better'' solutions should be rated higher than ``worse'' ones, the resulting cost landscape must also comply with such requirements. Evolutionary algorithms (EAs), which have found application in many areas not amenable to optimization by other methods, possess many characteristics desirable in a multiobjective optimizer, most notably the concerted handling of multiple candidate solutions. However, EAs are essentially unconstrained search techniques which require the assignment of a scalar measure of quality, or fitness, to such candidate solutions. After reviewing current evolutionary approaches to multiobjective and constrained optimization, the paper proposes that fitness assignment be interpreted as, or at least related to, a multicriterion decision process. A suitable decision making framework based on goals and priorities is subsequently formulated in terms of a relational operator, characterized, and shown to encompass a number of simpler decision strategies. Finally, the ranking of an arbitrary number of candidates is considered. The effect of preference changes on the cost surface seen by an EA is illustrated graphically for a simple problem. The paper concludes with the formulation of a multiobjective genetic algorithm based on the proposed decision strategy. Niche formation techniques are used to promote diversity among preferable candidates, and progressive articulation of preferences is shown to be possible as long as the genetic algorithm can recover from abrupt changes in the cost landscape.
Multiobjective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms  A Comparative Case Study
, 1998
"... . Since 1985 various evolutionary approaches to multiobjective optimization have been developed, capable of searching for multiple solutions concurrently in a single run. But the few comparative studies of different methods available to date are mostly qualitative and restricted to two approaches. I ..."
Abstract

Cited by 223 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
. Since 1985 various evolutionary approaches to multiobjective optimization have been developed, capable of searching for multiple solutions concurrently in a single run. But the few comparative studies of different methods available to date are mostly qualitative and restricted to two approaches. In this paper an extensive, quantitative comparison is presented, applying four multiobjective evolutionary algorithms to an extended 0/1 knapsack problem. 1 Introduction Many realworld problems involve simultaneous optimization of several incommensurable and often competing objectives. Usually, there is no single optimal solution, but rather a set of alternative solutions. These solutions are optimal in the wider sense that no other solutions in the search space are superior to them when all objectives are considered. They are known as Paretooptimal solutions. Mathematically, the concept of Paretooptimality can be defined as follows: Let us consider, without loss of generality, a multio...
MultiObjective Optimization Using Genetic Algorithms: A Tutorial
"... abstract – Multiobjective formulations are a realistic models for many complex engineering optimization problems. Customized genetic algorithms have been demonstrated to be particularly effective to determine excellent solutions to these problems. In many reallife problems, objectives under consid ..."
Abstract

Cited by 104 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
abstract – Multiobjective formulations are a realistic models for many complex engineering optimization problems. Customized genetic algorithms have been demonstrated to be particularly effective to determine excellent solutions to these problems. In many reallife problems, objectives under consideration conflict with each other, and optimizing a particular solution with respect to a single objective can result in unacceptable results with respect to the other objectives. A reasonable solution to a multiobjective problem is to investigate a set of solutions, each of which satisfies the objectives at an acceptable level without being dominated by any other solution. In this paper, an overview and tutorial is presented describing genetic algorithms developed specifically for these problems with multiple objectives. They differ from traditional genetic algorithms by using specialized fitness functions, introducing methods to promote solution diversity, and other approaches. 1.
An Indexed Bibliography of Genetic Algorithms in Power Engineering
, 1995
"... s: Jan. 1992  Dec. 1994 ffl CTI: Current Technology Index Jan./Feb. 1993  Jan./Feb. 1994 ffl DAI: Dissertation Abstracts International: Vol. 53 No. 1  Vol. 55 No. 4 (1994) ffl EEA: Electrical & Electronics Abstracts: Jan. 1991  Dec. 1994 ffl P: Index to Scientific & Technical Proceed ..."
Abstract

Cited by 90 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
s: Jan. 1992  Dec. 1994 ffl CTI: Current Technology Index Jan./Feb. 1993  Jan./Feb. 1994 ffl DAI: Dissertation Abstracts International: Vol. 53 No. 1  Vol. 55 No. 4 (1994) ffl EEA: Electrical & Electronics Abstracts: Jan. 1991  Dec. 1994 ffl P: Index to Scientific & Technical Proceedings: Jan. 1986  Feb. 1995 (except Nov. 1994) ffl EI A: The Engineering Index Annual: 1987  1992 ffl EI M: The Engineering Index Monthly: Jan. 1993  Dec. 1994 The following GA researchers have already kindly supplied their complete autobibliographies and/or proofread references to their papers: Dan Adler, Patrick Argos, Jarmo T. Alander, James E. Baker, Wolfgang Banzhaf, Ralf Bruns, I. L. Bukatova, Thomas Back, Yuval Davidor, Dipankar Dasgupta, Marco Dorigo, Bogdan Filipic, Terence C. Fogarty, David B. Fogel, Toshio Fukuda, Hugo de Garis, Robert C. Glen, David E. Goldberg, Martina GorgesSchleuter, Jeffrey Horn, Aristides T. Hatjimihail, Mark J. Jakiela, Richard S. Judson, Akihiko Konaga...