Solving optimization problems with multiple (often conflicting) objectives is, generally, a very difficult goal. Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) were initially extended and applied during the mid-eighties 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...

. This paper presents a critical review of the most important evolutionary-based 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 genetic-based search to deal with multiple objectives, this new area of research (now called evolutionary multiobjective optimization) has grown c...

This paper provides a comprehensive survey of the most popular constraint-handling techniques currently used with evolutionary algorithms. We review approaches that go from simple variations of a penalty function, to others, more sophisticated, that are biologically inspired on emulations of the immune system, culture or ant colonies. Besides describing briefly each of these approaches (or groups of techniques), we provide some criticism regarding their highlights and drawbacks. A small comparative study is also conducted, in order to assess the performance of several penalty-based approaches with respect to a dominance-based technique proposed by the author, and with respect to some mathematical programming approaches. Finally, we provide some guidelines regarding how to select the most appropriate constraint-handling technique for a certain application, ad we conclude with some of the the most promising paths of future research in this area.

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 Gorges-Schleuter, Jeffrey Horn, Aristides T. Hatjimihail, Mark J. Jakiela, Richard S. Judson, Akihiko Konaga...

During the last ve years, several methods have been proposed for handling nonlinear constraints by evolutionary algorithms (EAs) for numerical optimization problems. Recent survey papers classify them into four categories (preservation of feasibility, penalty functions, searching for feasibility, and other hybrids).

This paper focuses on the issue of evaluation of constraints handling methods, as the advantages and disadvantages of various methods are not well understood. The general way of dealing with constraints -- whatever the optimization method -- is by penalizing infeasible points. However, there are no guidelines on designing penalty functions. Some suggestions for evolutionary algorithms are given in [37], but they do not generalize. Other techniques that can be used to handle constraints in are more or less problem dependent. For instance, the knowledge about linear constraints can be incorporated into specific operators [24], or a repair operator can be designed that projects infeasible points onto feasible ones [30]

This paper presents a new approach to handle constraints using evolutionary algorithms. The new technique treats constraints as objectives, and uses a multiobjective optimization approach to solve the re-stated single-objective optimization problem. The new approach is compared against other numerical and evolutionary optimization techniques in several engineering optimization problems with different kinds of constraints. The results obtained show that the new approach can consistently outperform the other techniques using relatively small sub-populations, and without a significant sacrifice in terms of performance.

Despite the extended applicability of evolutionary algorithms to a wide range of domains, the fact that these algorithms are unconstrained optimization techniques leaves open the issue regarding how to incorporate constraints of any kind (linear, non-linear, equality and inequality) into the fitness function as to search efficiently. The main goal of this paper is to provide a detailed and comprehensive survey of the many constraint handling approaches that have been proposed for evolutionary algorithms, analyzing in each case their advantages and disadvantages, and concluding with some of the most promising paths of research.

Evolutionary computation is emerging as a new engineering computational paradigm, which may significantly change the present structural design practice. For this reason, an extensive study of evolutionary computation in the context of structural design has been conducted in the Information Technology and Engineering School at George Mason University and its results are reported here. First, a general introduction to evolutionary computation is presented and recent developments in this field are briefly described. Next, the field of evolutionary design is introduced and its relevance to structural design is explained. Further, the issue of creativity/novelty is discussed and possible ways of achieving it during a structural design process are suggested. Current research progress in building engineering systems ’ representations, one of the key issues in evolutionary design, is subsequently discussed. Next, recent developments in constraint-handling methods in evolutionary optimization are reported. Further, the rapidly growing field of evolutionary multiobjective optimization is presented and briefly described. An emerging subfield of coevolutionary design is subsequently introduced and its current advancements reported. Next, a comprehensive review of the applications of evolutionary computation in structural design is provided and chronologically classified. Finally, a summary of the current research status and a discussion on the most promising paths of future research are also presented.

In this paper, we introduce the concept of non-dominance (commonly used in multiobjective optimization) as a way to incorporate constraints into the fitness function of a genetic algorithm. Each individual is assigned a rank based on its degree of dominance over the rest of the population. Feasible individuals are always ranked higher than infeasible ones, and the degree of constraint violation determines the rank among infeasible individuals. The proposed technique does not require fine tuning of factors like the traditional penalty function and uses a self-adaptation mechanism that avoids the traditional empirical adjustment of the main genetic operators (i.e., crossover and mutation). Keywords: genetic algorithms, constraint handling, multiobjective optimization, self-adaptation, evolutionary optimization, numerical optimization. 1 Introduction Despite the wide success of genetic algorithms (GAs) in a wide range of applications [25, 3, 36, 34], their use in constrained optimizati...