Results 1  10
of
570
SPEA2: Improving the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm
, 2001
"... The Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm (SPEA) (Zitzler and Thiele 1999) is a relatively recent technique for finding or approximating the Paretooptimal set for multiobjective optimization problems. In different studies (Zitzler and Thiele 1999; Zitzler, Deb, and Thiele 2000) SPEA has shown very ..."
Abstract

Cited by 601 (21 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm (SPEA) (Zitzler and Thiele 1999) is a relatively recent technique for finding or approximating the Paretooptimal set for multiobjective optimization problems. In different studies (Zitzler and Thiele 1999; Zitzler, Deb, and Thiele 2000) SPEA has shown very good performance in comparison to other multiobjective evolutionary algorithms, and therefore it has been a point of reference in various recent investigations, e.g., (Corne, Knowles, and Oates 2000). Furthermore, it has been used in different applications, e.g., (Lahanas, Milickovic, Baltas, and Zamboglou 2001). In this paper, an improved version, namely SPEA2, is proposed, which incorporates in contrast to its predecessor a finegrained fitness assignment strategy, a density estimation technique, and an enhanced archive truncation method. The comparison of SPEA2 with SPEA and two other modern elitist methods, PESA and NSGAII, on different test problems yields promising results. 1
Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results
 Evolutionary Computation
, 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 539 (38 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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. Keywords Evolutionary algorithms, multiobjective optimization, ...
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 396 (15 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...
Indicatorbased selection in multiobjective search
 in Proc. 8th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN VIII
, 2004
"... Abstract. This paper discusses how preference information of the decision maker can in general be integrated into multiobjective search. The main idea is to first define the optimization goal in terms of a binary performance measure (indicator) and then to directly use this measure in the selection ..."
Abstract

Cited by 156 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. This paper discusses how preference information of the decision maker can in general be integrated into multiobjective search. The main idea is to first define the optimization goal in terms of a binary performance measure (indicator) and then to directly use this measure in the selection process. To this end, we propose a general indicatorbased evolutionary algorithm (IBEA) that can be combined with arbitrary indicators. In contrast to existing algorithms, IBEA can be adapted to the preferences of the user and moreover does not require any additional diversity preservation mechanism such as fitness sharing to be used. It is shown on several continuous and discrete benchmark problems that IBEA can substantially improve on the results generated by two popular algorithms, namely NSGAII and SPEA2, with respect to different performance measures. 1
Performance Assessment of Multiobjective Optimizers: An Analysis and Review
 IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation
, 2002
"... An important issue in multiobjective optimization is the quantitative comparison of the performance of di#erent algorithms. In the case of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms, the outcome is usually an approximation of the Paretooptimal front, which is denoted as an approximation set, and the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 144 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
An important issue in multiobjective optimization is the quantitative comparison of the performance of di#erent algorithms. In the case of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms, the outcome is usually an approximation of the Paretooptimal front, which is denoted as an approximation set, and therefore the question arises of how to evaluate the quality of approximation sets. Most popular are methods that assign each approximation set a vector of real numbers that reflect different aspects of the quality. Sometimes, pairs of approximation sets are considered too. In this study, we provide a rigorous analysis of the limitations underlying this type of quality assessment.
Combining convergence and diversity in evolutionary multiobjective optimization
 Evolutionary Computation
, 2002
"... Over the past few years, the research on evolutionary algorithms has demonstrated their niche in solving multiobjective optimization problems, where the goal is to �nd a number of Paretooptimal solutions in a single simulation run. Many studies have depicted different ways evolutionary algorithms c ..."
Abstract

Cited by 144 (15 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Over the past few years, the research on evolutionary algorithms has demonstrated their niche in solving multiobjective optimization problems, where the goal is to �nd a number of Paretooptimal solutions in a single simulation run. Many studies have depicted different ways evolutionary algorithms can progress towards the Paretooptimal set with a widely spread distribution of solutions. However, none of the multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) has a proof of convergence to the true Paretooptimal solutions with a wide diversity among the solutions. In this paper, we discuss why a number of earlier MOEAs do not have such properties. Based on the concept ofdominance, new archiving strategies are proposed that overcome this fundamental problem and provably lead to MOEAs that have both the desired convergence and distribution properties. A number of modi�cations to the baseline algorithm are also suggested. The concept ofdominance introduced in this paper is practical and should make the proposed algorithms useful to researchers and practitioners alike.
Scalable Test Problems for Evolutionary MultiObjective Optimization
 Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory (TIK), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH
, 2001
"... After adequately demonstrating the ability to solve di#erent twoobjective optimization problems, multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) must now show their e#cacy in handling problems having more than two objectives. In this paper, we have suggested three di#erent approaches for systema ..."
Abstract

Cited by 143 (23 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
After adequately demonstrating the ability to solve di#erent twoobjective optimization problems, multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) must now show their e#cacy in handling problems having more than two objectives. In this paper, we have suggested three di#erent approaches for systematically designing test problems for this purpose. The simplicity of construction, scalability to any number of decision variables and objectives, knowledge of exact shape and location of the resulting Paretooptimal front, and introduction of controlled di#culties in both converging to the true Paretooptimal front and maintaining a widely distributed set of solutions are the main features of the suggested test problems. Because of the above features, they should be found useful in various research activities on MOEAs, such as testing the performance of a new MOEA, comparing di#erent MOEAs, and better understanding of the working principles of MOEAs.
Scalable MultiObjective Optimization Test Problems
 in Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC’2002
, 2002
"... After adequately demonstrating the ability to solve different twoobjective optimization problems, multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) must now show their efficacy in handling problems having more than two objectives. In this paper, we suggest three different approaches for systematicall ..."
Abstract

Cited by 103 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
After adequately demonstrating the ability to solve different twoobjective optimization problems, multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) must now show their efficacy in handling problems having more than two objectives. In this paper, we suggest three different approaches for systematically designing test problems for this purpose. The simplicity of construction, scalability to any number of decision variables and objectives, knowledge of exact shape and location of the resulting Paretooptimal front, and ability to control difficulties in both converging to the true Paretooptimal front and maintaining a widely distributed set of solutions are the main features of the suggested test problems. Because of these features, they should be found useful in various research activities on MOEAs, such as testing the performance of a new MOEA, comparing different MOEAs, and having a better understanding of the working principles of MOEAs.
MOPSO : A Proposal for Multiple Objective Particle Swarm
, 2002
"... This paper introduces a proposal to extend the heuristic called "particle swarm optimization" (PSO) to deal with multiobjective optimization problems. Our approach uses the concept of Pareto dominance to determine the flight direction of a particle and it maintains previously found nondomi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 78 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper introduces a proposal to extend the heuristic called "particle swarm optimization" (PSO) to deal with multiobjective optimization problems. Our approach uses the concept of Pareto dominance to determine the flight direction of a particle and it maintains previously found nondominated vectors in a global repository that is later used by other particles to guide their own flight. The approach is validated using several standard test functions from the specialized literature. Our results indicate that our approach is highly competitive with current evolutionary multiobjective optimization techniques.
Ideal Evaluation from Coevolution
 Evolutionary Computation
, 2004
"... In many problems of interest, performance can be evaluated using tests, such as examples in concept learning, test points in function approximation, and opponents in gameplaying. Evaluation on all tests is often infeasible. Identification of an accurate evaluation or fitness function is a difficult ..."
Abstract

Cited by 67 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
In many problems of interest, performance can be evaluated using tests, such as examples in concept learning, test points in function approximation, and opponents in gameplaying. Evaluation on all tests is often infeasible. Identification of an accurate evaluation or fitness function is a difficult problem in itself, and approximations are likely to introduce human biases into the search process. Coevolution evolves the set of tests used for evaluation, but has so far often led to inaccurate evaluation. We show that for any set of learners, a Complete Evaluation Set can be determined that provides ideal evaluation as specified by Evolutionary MultiObjective Optimization. This provides a principled approach to evaluation in coevolution, and thereby brings automatic ideal evaluation within reach. The Complete Evaluation Set is of manageable size, and progress towards it can be accurately measured. Based on this observation, an algorithm named DELPHI is developed. The algorithm is tested on problems likely to permit progress on only a subset of the underlying objectives. Where all comparison methods result in overspecialization, the proposed method and a variant achieve sustained progress in all underlying objectives. These findings demonstrate that ideal evaluation may be approximated by practical algorithms, and that accurate evaluation for testbased problems is possible even when the underlying objectives of a problem are unknown.