Interleaving Guidance in Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization
- 45 Downloads
In this paper, we propose a framework that uses localization for multi-objective optimization to simultaneously guide an evolutionary algorithm in both the decision and objective spaces. The localization is built using a limited number of adaptive spheres (local models) in the decision space. These spheres are usually guided, using some direction information, in the decision space towards the areas with non-dominated solutions. We use a second mechanism to adjust the spheres to specialize on different parts of the Pareto front by using a guided dominance technique in the objective space. Through this interleaved guidance in both spaces, the spheres will be guided towards different parts of the Pareto front while also exploring the decision space efficiently. The experimental results showed good performance for the local models using this dual guidance, in comparison with their original version.
Keywordsevolutionary multi-objective optimization guided dominance local models
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Deb K. Multiobjective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. John Wiley and Son Ltd., New York, 2001.Google Scholar
- Tan K C, Khor E F, Lee T H. Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications. Springer-Verlag, 2005.Google Scholar
- Schaffer J D. Multiple objective optimization with vector evaluated genetic algorithms. In Proc. the First International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1985, pp.93–100.Google Scholar
- Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele M. SPEA2: Improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization. In Proc. EUROGEN 2001– Evolutionary Methods for Design, Optimisation and Control with Applications to Industrial Problems, Athens, Greece, 2001, pp.95–100.Google Scholar
- Abbass H A, Sarker R, Newton C. PDE: A Pareto frontier differential evolution approach for multiobjective optimization problems. In Proc. CEC–2001, Seoul, Korea, vol 2, IEEE Press, 2001, pp.971–978.Google Scholar
- Bui L T, Abbass H A, Essam D. Local models: An approach to distributed multi-objective optimization. Journal of Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer. [In Press, DOI: 10.1007/s10589-007-9119-8], 2007.
- Deb K, Zope P, Jain A. Distributed computing of Pareto optimal solutions using multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. Technical Report, No. 2002008, KANGAL, IITK, India, 2002.Google Scholar
- Fonseca C M, Fleming P J. Genetic algorithms for multiobjective optimization: Formulation, discussion and generalization. In Proc. the Fifth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, San Mateo, California, Morgan Kauffman Publishers, 1993, pp.416–423.Google Scholar
- Srinivas N, Deb K. Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evolutionary Computation, 1994, 2(3): 221–248.Google Scholar
- Branke J, Kaufler T, Schmeck H. Guiding multi-objective evolutionary algorithms towards interesting regions. Technical Report No. 399. Technical Report, Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, Germany, 2000.Google Scholar
- Deb K, Zope P, Jain A. Distributed computing of Pareto optimal solutions with evolutionary algorithms. In Proc. Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, LNCS 2632, 2003, pp.535–549.Google Scholar
- KanGal. Kangal laboratory website. http://www.iitk.ac.in/kangal/codes.shtml, 2006.
- Veldhuizen D A V. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Classifications, analyses, and new innovation [Dissertation]. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering, Airforce Institute of Technology, Ohio, 1999.Google Scholar