A fast elitist nondominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: Nsga-II (2000)

by K Deb, S Agrawal, A Pratab, T Meyarivan
Venue:in Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature
Add To MetaCart
Results 1 - 10 of 661

SPEA2: Improving the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm

by Eckart Zitzler, Marco Laumanns, Lothar Thiele , 2001
"... The Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm (SPEA) (Zitzler and Thiele 1999) is a relatively recent technique for finding or approximating the Pareto-optimal set for multiobjective optimization problems. In different studies (Zitzler and Thiele 1999; Zitzler, Deb, and Thiele 2000) SPEA has shown very ..."
Abstract - Cited by 708 (19 self) - Add to MetaCart
The Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm (SPEA) (Zitzler and Thiele 1999) is a relatively recent technique for finding or approximating the Pareto-optimal 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 fine-grained 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 NSGA-II, on different test problems yields promising results.

Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results

by Eckart Zitzler, Lothar Thiele, Kalyanmoy Deb , 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
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 Pareto-optimal 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.

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization

by Eckart Zitzler , 2002
"... Multiple, often conflicting objectives arise naturally in most real-world optimization scenarios. As evolutionary algorithms possess several characteristics due to which they are well suited to this type of problem, evolution-based 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 real-world optimization scenarios. As evolutionary algorithms possess several characteristics due to which they are well suited to this type of problem, evolution-based 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.

Indicator-based selection in multiobjective search

by Eckart Zitzler, Simon Künzli - 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 172 (12 self) - Add to MetaCart
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 indicator-based 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 NSGA-II and SPEA2, with respect to different performance measures. 1
(Show Context)

Performance Assessment of Multiobjective Optimizers: An Analysis and Review

by Eckart Zitzler, Lothar Thiele, Marco Laumanns, Carlos M. Fonseca, Viviane Grunert da Fonseca - 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 Pareto-optimal front, which is denoted as an approximation set, and the ..."
Abstract - Cited by 168 (6 self) - Add to MetaCart
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 Pareto-optimal 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.
(Show Context)

Combining convergence and diversity in evolutionary multi-objective optimization

by Marco Laumanns, Lothar Thiele, Kalyanmoy Deb, Eckart Zitzler - 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 Pareto-optimal solutions in a single simulation run. Many studies have depicted different ways evolutionary algorithms c ..."
Abstract - Cited by 159 (15 self) - Add to MetaCart
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 Pareto-optimal 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 Pareto-optimal 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 of-dominance, 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 of-dominance introduced in this paper is practical and should make the proposed algorithms useful to researchers and practitioners alike.
(Show Context)

Scalable Test Problems for Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization

by Kalyanmoy Deb, Lothar Thiele, Marco Laumanns, Eckart Zitzler - Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory (TIK), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH , 2001
"... After adequately demonstrating the ability to solve di#erent two-objective optimization problems, multi-objective 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 148 (21 self) - Add to MetaCart
After adequately demonstrating the ability to solve di#erent two-objective optimization problems, multi-objective 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 Pareto-optimal front, and introduction of controlled di#culties in both converging to the true Pareto-optimal 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.
(Show Context)

MOPSO : A Proposal for Multiple Objective Particle Swarm

by Carlos A. Coello Coello, Maximino Salazar Lechuga , 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 119 (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.

Scalable Multi-Objective Optimization Test Problems

by Kalyanmoy Deb, Lothar Thiele, Marco Laumanns, Eckart Zitzler - in Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC’2002 , 2002
"... After adequately demonstrating the ability to solve different two-objective optimization problems, multi-objective 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 112 (8 self) - Add to MetaCart
After adequately demonstrating the ability to solve different two-objective optimization problems, multi-objective 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 Pareto-optimal 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.

A Tutorial on Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization

by Eckart Zitzler, Marco Laumanns, Stefan Bleuler - In Metaheuristics for Multiobjective Optimisation , 2003
"... Mu l ip often conflicting objectives arise naturalj in most real worl optimization scenarios. As evol tionaryalAxjO hms possess several characteristics that are desirabl e for this type of probl em, this clOv of search strategies has been used for mul tiobjective optimization for more than a decade. ..."
Abstract - Cited by 78 (0 self) - Add to MetaCart
Mu l ip often conflicting objectives arise naturalj in most real worl optimization scenarios. As evol tionaryalAxjO hms possess several characteristics that are desirabl e for this type of probl em, this clOv of search strategies has been used for mul tiobjective optimization for more than a decade. Meanwhil e evol utionary mul tiobjective optimization has become establ ished as a separate subdiscipl ine combining the fiel ds of evol utionary computation and cl assical mul tipl e criteria decision ma ing. This paper gives an overview of evol tionary mu l iobjective optimization with the focus on methods and theory. On the one hand, basic principl es of mu l iobjective optimization and evol tionary alA#xv hms are presented, and various al gorithmic concepts such as fitness assignment, diversity preservation, and el itism are discussed. On the other hand, the tutorial incl udes some recent theoretical resul ts on the performance of mu l iobjective evol tionaryalvDfifl hms and addresses the question of how to simpl ify the exchange of methods and appl ications by means of a standardized interface. 1
(Show Context)