Results 1  10
of
407
A Fast and Elitist MultiObjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGAII
, 2000
"... Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms which use nondominated sorting and sharing have been mainly criticized for their (i) O(MN computational complexity (where M is the number of objectives and N is the population size), (ii) nonelitism approach, and (iii) the need for specifying a sharing param ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1815 (60 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms which use nondominated sorting and sharing have been mainly criticized for their (i) O(MN computational complexity (where M is the number of objectives and N is the population size), (ii) nonelitism approach, and (iii) the need for specifying a sharing parameter. In this paper, we suggest a nondominated sorting based multiobjective evolutionary algorithm (we called it the Nondominated Sorting GAII or NSGAII) which alleviates all the above three difficulties. Specifically, a fast nondominated sorting approach with O(MN ) computational complexity is presented. Second, a selection operator is presented which creates a mating pool by combining the parent and child populations and selecting the best (with respect to fitness and spread) N solutions. Simulation results on a number of difficult test problems show that the proposed NSGAII, in most problems, is able to find much better spread of solutions and better convergence near the true Paretooptimal front compared to PAES and SPEA  two other elitist multiobjective EAs which pay special attention towards creating a diverse Paretooptimal front. Moreover, we modify the definition of dominance in order to solve constrained multiobjective problems eciently. Simulation results of the constrained NSGAII on a number of test problems, including a fiveobjective, sevenconstraint nonlinear problem, are compared with another constrained multiobjective optimizer and much better performance of NSGAII is observed. Because of NSGAII's low computational requirements, elitist approach, parameterless niching approach, and simple constrainthandling strategy, NSGAII should find increasing applications in the coming years.
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 813 (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 628 (41 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.
Multiobjective Optimization Using Nondominated Sorting in Genetic Algorithms
 Evolutionary Computation
, 1994
"... In trying to solve multiobjective optimization problems, many traditional methods scalarize the objective vector into a single objective. In those cases, the obtained solution is highly sensitive to the weight vector used in the scalarization process and demands the user to have knowledge about t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 539 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In trying to solve multiobjective optimization problems, many traditional methods scalarize the objective vector into a single objective. In those cases, the obtained solution is highly sensitive to the weight vector used in the scalarization process and demands the user to have knowledge about the underlying problem. Moreover, in solving multiobjective problems, designers may be interested in a set of Paretooptimal points, instead of a single point. Since genetic algorithms(GAs) work with a population of points, it seems natural to use GAs in multiobjective optimization problems to capture a number of solutions simultaneously. Although a vector evaluated GA (VEGA) has been implemented by Schaffer and has been tried to solve a number of multiobjective problems, the algorithm seems to have bias towards some regions. In this paper, we investigate Goldberg's notion of nondominated sorting in GAs along with a niche and speciation method to find multiple Paretooptimal points sim...
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 492 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
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
, 2002
"... Multiple, often conflicting objectives arise naturally in most realworld optimization scenarios. As evolutionary algorithms possess several characteristics due to which they are well suited to this type of problem, evolutionbased methods have been used for multiobjective optimization for more than ..."
Abstract

Cited by 450 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Multiple, often conflicting objectives arise naturally in most realworld optimization scenarios. As evolutionary algorithms possess several characteristics due to which they are well suited to this type of problem, evolutionbased methods have been used for multiobjective optimization for more than a decade. Meanwhile evolutionary multiobjective optimization has become established as a separate subdiscipline combining the fields of evolutionary computation and classical multiple criteria decision making. In this paper, the basic principles of evolutionary multiobjective optimization are discussed from an algorithm design perspective. The focus is on the major issues such as fitness assignment, diversity preservation, and elitism in general rather than on particular algorithms. Different techniques to implement these strongly related concepts will be discussed, and further important aspects such as constraint handling and preference articulation are treated as well. Finally, two applications will presented and some recent trends in the field will be outlined.
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 440 (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...
Approximating the nondominated front using the Pareto Archived Evolution Strategy
 EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION
, 2000
"... We introduce a simple evolution scheme for multiobjective optimization problems, called the Pareto Archived Evolution Strategy (PAES). We argue that PAES may represent the simplest possible nontrivial algorithm capable of generating diverse solutions in the Pareto optimal set. The algorithm, in its ..."
Abstract

Cited by 321 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We introduce a simple evolution scheme for multiobjective optimization problems, called the Pareto Archived Evolution Strategy (PAES). We argue that PAES may represent the simplest possible nontrivial algorithm capable of generating diverse solutions in the Pareto optimal set. The algorithm, in its simplest form, is a (1 + 1) evolution strategy employing local search but using a reference archive of previously found solutions in order to identify the approximate dominance ranking of the current and candidate solution vectors. (1 + 1)PAES is intended to be a baseline approach against which more involved methods may be compared. It may also serve well in some realworld applications when local search seems superior to or competitive with populationbased methods. We introduce (1 + λ) and (μ  λ) variants of PAES as extensions to the basic algorithm. Six variants of PAES are compared to variants of the Niched Pareto Genetic Algorithm and the Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm over a diverse suite of six test functions. Results are analyzed and presented using techniques that reduce the attainment surfaces generated from several optimization runs into a set of univariate distributions. This allows standard statistical analysis to be carried out for comparative purposes. Our results provide strong evidence that PAES performs consistently well on a range of multiobjective optimization tasks.
Niching Methods for Genetic Algorithms
, 1995
"... Niching methods extend genetic algorithms to domains that require the location and maintenance of multiple solutions. Such domains include classification and machine learning, multimodal function optimization, multiobjective function optimization, and simulation of complex and adaptive systems. This ..."
Abstract

Cited by 238 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Niching methods extend genetic algorithms to domains that require the location and maintenance of multiple solutions. Such domains include classification and machine learning, multimodal function optimization, multiobjective function optimization, and simulation of complex and adaptive systems. This study presents a comprehensive treatment of niching methods and the related topic of population diversity. Its purpose is to analyze existing niching methods and to design improved niching methods. To achieve this purpose, it first develops a general framework for the modelling of niching methods, and then applies this framework to construct models of individual niching methods, specifically crowding and sharing methods. Using a constructed model of crowding, this study determines why crowding methods over the last two decades have not made effective niching methods. A series of tests and design modifications results in the development of a highly effective form of crowding, called determin...
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 232 (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.