Applied Intelligence

, Volume 49, Issue 7, pp 2434–2460 | Cite as

KnRVEA: A hybrid evolutionary algorithm based on knee points and reference vector adaptation strategies for many-objective optimization

  • Gaurav DhimanEmail author
  • Vijay Kumar


In this paper, a many-objective evolutionary algorithm, named as a hybrid evolutionary algorithm based on knee points and reference vector adaptation strategies (KnRVEA) is proposed. Knee point strategy is used to improve the convergence of solution vectors. In the proposed algorithm, a novel knee adaptation strategy is introduced to adjust the distribution of knee points. KnRVEA is compared with five well-known evolutionary algorithms over thirteen benchmark test functions. The results reveal that the proposed algorithm provides better results than the others in terms of Inverted Generational Distance and Hypervolume. The computational complexity of the proposed algorithm is also analyzed. The statistical testing is performed to show the statistical significance of proposed algorithm. The proposed algorithm is also applied on three real-life constrained many-objective optimization problems to demonstrate its efficiency. The experimental results show that the proposed algorithm is able to solve many-objective real-life problems.


Evolutionary multi-objective optimization Many-objective optimization Convergence Diversity 



  1. 1.
    Ishibuchi H, Akedo N, Nojima Y (2015) Behavior of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms on manyobjective knapsack problems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 19(2):264–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jin Yaochu, Sendhoff B (2003) Connectedness, regularity and the success of local search in evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2003 congress on evolutionary computation (CEC’03), vol 3, pp 1910–1917Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coello Coello CA, Lamont GB, Veldhuizen DAV (2007) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li K, Zheng J, Li M, Zhou C, Lv H (2009) A novel algorithm for nondominated hypervolume-based multiobjective optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference system man cybernetics (SMC). San Antonio, pp 5220–5226Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lygoe RJ, Cary M, Fleming PJ (2013) A real-world application of a many-objective optimisation complexity reduction process. In: Proceedings of 7th international conference of evolution multi-criterion optimization (EMO). Sheffield, UK, pp 641–655Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fu G, Kapelan Z, Kasprzyk JR, Reed P (2013) Optimal design of water distribution systems using many-objective visual analytics. J Water Resour Plan Manag 139(6):624–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chikumbo O, Goodman ED, Deb K (2012) Approximating a multidimensional Pareto front for a land use management problem: a modified MOEA with an epigenetic silencing metaphor. In: Proceedings of 2012 IEEE congress evolutionary computation (CEC). QLD, Brisbane, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deb K, Agrawal S, Pratap A, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGAII. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Emmerich M, Beume N, Naujoks B (2005) An EMO algorithm using the hypervolume measure as selection criterion. In: Conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO 2005), volume 3410 of LNCS. Springer, pp 62–76Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Igel C, Hansen N, Roth S (2007) Covariance Matrix Adaptation for multi-objective optimization. Evol Comput 15(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brockhoff D, Zitzler E (2007) Improving hypervolume-based multiobjective evolutionary algorithms by using objective reduction methods. In: Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2007), pp 2086–2093Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bader J, Zitzler E (2011) Hype: an algorithm for fast hypervolume-based many-objective optimization. Evol Comput 19(1):45–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheng R, Jin Y, Olhofer M, Sendhoff B (2016) A reference vector guided evolutionary algorithm for many-objective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 20(5):773–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    While L, Hingston P, Barone L, Huband S (2006) A faster algorithm for calculating hypervolume. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 10(1):29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kollat J, Reed P (2007) A computational scaling analysis of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms in long-term groundwater monitoring applications. Adv Water Resour 30(3):408–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dhiman G, Kumar V (2018) Multi-objective spotted hyena optimizer: a multi-objective optimization algorithm for engineering problems. Knowl-Based Syst 150:175–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kollat JB, Reed P (2006) Comparison of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for long-term monitoring design. Adv Water Resour 29(6):792–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hadka D, Reed P (2012) Diagnostic assessment of search controls and failure modes in many-objective evolutionary optimization. Evol Comput 20(3):423–452. ISSN 1063-6560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hadka D, Reed P (2013) Borg: an auto-adaptive many-objective evolutionary computing framework. Evol Comput 21(2):231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bringmann K, Friedrich T, Neumann F, Wagner M (2011) Approximation guided evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In: International joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI). AAAI Press, pp 1198–1203. ISBN 978-1-57735-514-4Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wagner M, Bringmann K, Friedrich T, Neumann F (2014) Efficient optimization of many objectives by approximation-guided evolution. European Journal of Operational Research, page in print. ISSN 0377–2217Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang Q, Li H (2007) MOEA/D: a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 11(6):712–731. ISSN 1089-778XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Deb K, Jain H (2014) An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point-based nondominated sorting approach, part I: solving problems with box constraints. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18 (4):577–601. ISSN 1089-778XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Asafuddoula M, Ray T, Sarker R (2013) A decomposition based evolutionary algorithm for many objective optimization with systematic sampling and adaptive epsilon control. In: Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization, volume 7811 of LNCS. Springer. pp 413–427. ISBN 978-3- 642-37139-4Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Asafuddoula M, Ray T, Sarker R (2015) A decomposition-based evolutionary algorithm for many objective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 19(3):445–460. ISSN 1089-778XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jain H, Deb K (2013) An improved adaptive approach for elitist nondominated sorting genetic algorithm for many-objective optimization. In: Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization, volume 7811 of LNCS. Springer, pp 307–321. ISBN 978-3-642-37139-4Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jain H, Deb K (2014) An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point based nondominated sorting approach, part-II: handling constraints and extending to an adaptive approach, vol 18. ISSN 1089-778XGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Seada H, Deb K (2015) U-nsga-iii: a unifed evolutionary optimization procedure for single, multiple, and many objectives: Proof-of-principle results. In: Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization, volume 9019 of LNCS. Springer, pp 34–49. ISBN 978-3-319-15891-4Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang H, Jiao L, Yao X (2014) An improved two-archive algorithm for many-objective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput PP(99):1–1. ISSN 1089-778XGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang X, Tian Y, Jin Y (2014) A knee point driven evolutionary algorithm for many-objective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput PP(99):1–1. ISSN 1089-778XGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deb K, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Zitzler E (2005) Scalable test problems for evolutionary multiobjective optimization. In: Abraham A, Jain L, Goldberg R (eds) Evolutionary multiobjective optimization (advanced information and knowledge processing). Springer, London, pp 105–145Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Huband S, Hingston P, Barone L, While L (2006) A review of multiobjective test problems and a scalable test problem toolkit. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 10(5):477–506CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Corne DW, Knowles JD (2007) Techniques for highly multiobjective optimisation: some nondominated points are better than others. In: Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO, pp 773–780Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Musselman K, Talavage J (1980) A trade-off cut approach to multiple objective optimization. Oper Res 28:1424–1435MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bosman P, Thierens D (2003) The balance between proximity and diversity in multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(2):174–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zou J, Li Q, Yang S, Bai H, Zheng J (2017) A prediction strategy based on center points and knee points for evolutionary dynamic multi-objective optimization. Appl Soft Comput 61:806–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zitzler E, Thiele L (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength pareto approach. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(4):257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Li K, Deb K, Zhang Q, Kwong S (2015) An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm based on dominance and decomposition. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 19(5):694–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ishibuchi H, Murata T (1998) A multi-objective genetic local search algorithm and its application to flowshop scheduling. IEEE Trans syst Man Cybern Part C (Appl Rev) 28(3):392–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jaszkiewicz A (2002) On the performance of multiple-objective genetic local search on the 0/1 knapsack problem - a comparative experiment. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(4):402–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L (2001) SPEA2: improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm, Tik ReportGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zitzler E, Künzli S (2004) Indicator-based selection in multiobjective search. In: Parallel problem solving from nature-PPSN VIII. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 832–842Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zheng W, Tan Y, Meng L, Zhang H (2018) An improved MOEA/d design for many-objective optimization problems. Appl Intell 48:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Basseur M, Burke EK Indicator-based multi-objective local search. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, CEC 2007. IEEE, New York, pp 3100–3107Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wagner T, Beume N, Naujoks B (2007) Pareto-, aggregation-, and indicator-based methods in many-objective optimization. In: Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 742–756Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Emmerich M, Beume N, Naujoks B (2005) An emo algorithm using the hypervolume measure as selection criterion. In: Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 62–76Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gomez RH, Coello CC (2013) Mombi: a new metaheuristic for many-objective optimization based on the r2 indicator. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC). IEEE, New York, pp 2488–2495Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Xiao JK, Li WM, Xiao XR, Lv CZ (2017) A novel immune dominance selection multi-objective optimization algorithm for solving multi-objective optimization problems. Appl Intell 46(3):739– 755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Li B, Li J, Ke T, Yao X (2015) Many-objective evolutionary algorithms: a survey. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR) 48(1):13:1–13:35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Roy PC, Islam MM, Murase K, Yao X (2015) Evolutionary path control strategy for solving many-objective optimization problem. IEEE Trans Cybern 45(4):702–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Giagkiozis I, Purshouse RC, Fleming PJ (2013) Towards understanding the cost of adaptation in decomposition-based optimization algorithms. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, pp. 615–620Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Corder GW, Foreman DI (2009) Nonparametric statistics for NonStatisticians: a step-by-step approach. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Walker DJ, Everson RM, Fieldsend JE (2013) Visualizing mutually nondominating solution sets in many-objective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 17(2):165–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Coello CAC (2009) Evolutionary multi-objective optimization: some current research trends and topics that remain to be explored. Front Comput Sci China 3(1):18–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bi X, Wang C (2018) A niche-elimination operation based NSGA-III algorithm for many-objective optimization. Appl Intell 48:118–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ngatchou P, Zarei A, El-Sharkawi A (2005) Pareto multi objective optimization. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on, intelligent systems application to power systems. Arlington, pp 84–91Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Cornell JA (2011) Experiments with mixtures: designs, models, and the analysis of mixture data. Wiley, New York, p 403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Deb K, Agrawal RB (1995) Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space. Complex Syst 9:115–148MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Deb K, Goyal M (1996) A combined genetic adaptive search (geneAS) for engineering design. Comput Sci Inf 26:30–45Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zhang X, Tian Y, Cheng R, Jin Y (2014) An efficient approach to non-dominated sorting for evolutionary multi-objective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 19:201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Das I, Dennis JE (1998) Normal-boundary intersection: a new method for generating the pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimization problems. SIAM J Optim 8(3):631–657MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dhiman G, Kumar V (2017) Spotted hyena optimizer: a novel bio-inspired based metaheuristic technique for engineering applications. Adv Eng Softw 114:48–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Dhiman G, Kumar V (2019) Spotted hyena optimizer for solving complex and non-linear constrained engineering problems. In: Harmony search and nature inspired optimization algorithms. Springer, Singapore, pp 857–867Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Dhiman G, Kumar V (2018) Emperor penguin optimizer: a bio-inspired algorithm for engineering problems. Knowl-Based Syst 159:20–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Singh P, Dhiman G, Kaur A (2018) A quantum approach for time series data based on graph and Schrödinger equations methods. Mod Phys Lett A 33:1850208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Dhiman G, Kaur A (2017) Spotted hyena optimizer for solving engineering design problems. In: International conference on machine learning and data science (MLDS). IEEE, pp 114–119Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Dhiman G, Kumar V (2018) Astrophysics inspired multi-objective approach for automatic clustering and feature selection in real-life environment. Modern Physics Letters B, In PressGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Singh P, Dhiman G (2017) A fuzzy-lp approach in time series forecasting. In: International conference on pattern recognition and machine intelligence. Springer, pp 243–253Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Singh P, Dhiman G (2018) A hybrid fuzzy time series forecasting model based on granular computing and bio-inspired optimization approaches. J Comput Sci 27:370–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kaur A, Dhiman G (2019) A review on search-based tools and techniques to identify bad code smells in object-oriented systems. In: Harmony search and nature inspired optimization algorithms. Springer, Singapore, pp 909–921Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Dhiman G, Kaur A (2018) Optimizing the design of airfoil and optical buffer problems using spotted hyena optimizer. Designs 2:28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Chandrawat RK, Kumar R, Garg BP, Dhiman G, Kumar S (2017) An analysis of modeling and optimization production cost through fuzzy linear programming problem with symmetric and right angle triangular fuzzy number. In: Proceedings of sixth international conference on soft computing for problem solving. Springer, Singapore, pp 197–211Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science and Engineering DepartmentThapar Institute of Engineering & TechnologyPatialaIndia

Personalised recommendations