Advertisement

Comparative Analysis of MOGBHS with Other State-of-the-Art Algorithms for Multi-objective Optimization Problems

  • Cristian Ordoñez
  • Edgar Ruano
  • Carlos Cobos
  • Hugo Ordoñez
  • Armando Ordoñez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10632)

Abstract

A multi-objective problem must simultaneously satisfy some conditions that may conflict with each other. Some examples of this problem are the design of machines with low power consumption and high power, or the development of software products in a short time and with high quality. Several algorithms have been proposed to solve this type of problems, such as NSGA-II, MOEA/D, SPEA2, and MSOPS. Each of these algorithms is based on different techniques such as the combination of objectives, Pareto efficiency, and prioritization. The selection of the best algorithm for a problem may become a cumbersome task. By its part, MOGBHS is a multi-objective algorithm based on the Global-Best Harmony Search, non-dominated sorting, and crowding distance that has shown great efficiency. This paper presents a comparative analysis of MOGBHS against other state-of-the-art algorithms. The analysis was performed over 21 multi-objective optimization problems from the IEEE CEC competition, 12 without restrictions and 9 with restrictions. The evaluation was performed using several evaluations of the objective function (2000, 5000, 10000 and 20000) and different metrics: Hypervolume, Epsilon, Generational Distance, Inverse Generational Distance, and Spacing. Finally, the analysis of the results was performed using non-parametric statistical tests (Wilcoxon and Friedman). MOGBHS obtained the best results according to the Inverse Generational Distance for 10000 and 20000 evaluations of the objective functions. Likewise, MOGBHS achieved competitive results for 2000 and 5000 evaluations. On the other hand, SPEA2 algorithm reached the best average results in all metrics.

Keywords

Multi-objective optimization Comparative analysis MOGBHS NSGA-II MOEA/D SPEA2 MSOPS 

References

  1. 1.
    Luo, J., Liu, Q., Yang, Y., Li, X., Chen, M.R., Cao, W.: An artificial bee colony algorithm for multi-objective optimisation. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 50, 235–251 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li, B., Li, J., Tang, K., Yao, X.: Many-objective evolutionary algorithms. ACM Comput. Surv. 48, 1–35 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ruano, E., Cobos, C., Torres-Jimenez, J.: Transit network frequencies-setting problem solved using a new multi-objective global-best harmony search algorithm and discrete event simulation. In: Pichardo-Lagunas, O., Miranda-Jiménez, S. (eds.) MICAI 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10062, pp. 341–352. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62428-0_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Von Lücken, C., Barán, B., Brizuela, C.: A survey on multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for many-objective problems. Comput. Optim. Appl. 58, 707–756 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bechikh, S., Elarbi, M., Ben Said, L.: Many-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms: a survey. In: Bechikh, S., Datta, R., Gupta, A. (eds.) Recent Advances in Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization. ALO, vol. 20, pp. 105–137. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42978-6_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang, X., Tian, Y., Jin, Y.: Approximate non-dominated sorting for evolutionary many-objective optimization. Inf. Sci. (NY). 369, 14–33 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang, J., Xing, L.: A survey of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering (CSE) and IEEE International Conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing (EUC), pp. 93–100. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vachhani, V.L., Dabhi, V.K., Prajapati, H.B.: Survey of multi objective evolutionary algorithms. In: 2015 International Conference on Circuits, Power and Computing Technologies, ICCPCT 2015, pp. 1–9. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trivedi, A., Srinivasan, D., Sanyal, K., Ghosh, A.: A survey of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms based on decomposition. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 21, 1 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shi, J.-C., Qian, C., Yu, Y.: Evolutionary multi-objective optimization made faster by sequential decomposition. In: 2017 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), pp. 2488–2493. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cao, B., et al.: Distributed parallel particle swarm optimization for multi-objective and many-objective large-scale optimization. IEEE Access 5, 8214–8221 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cao, B., Zhao, J., Lv, Z., Liu, X.: A distributed parallel cooperative coevolutionary multiobjective evolutionary algorithm for large-scale optimization. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 13, 2030–2038 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Menchaca-Mendez, A., Hernandez, C., Coello, C.A.C.: Δp-MOEA: a new multi-objective evolutionary algorithm based on the Δp indicator. In: 2016 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2016, pp. 3753–3760. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li, K., Deb, K., Zhang, Q., Kwong, S.: An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm based on dominance and decomposition. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 19, 694–716 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang, H., Jiao, L., Yao, X.: Two Arch2: an improved two-archive algorithm for many-objective optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 19, 524–541 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Menchaca-Mendez, A., Coello, C.A.C.: MD-MOEA: a new MOEA based on the maximin fitness function and Euclidean distances between solutions. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2014, pp. 2148–2155 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cremene, M., Suciu, M., Pallez, D., Dumitrescu, D.: Comparative analysis of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for QoS-aware web service composition. Appl. Soft Comput. 39(C), 124—139 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.11.012. ISSN 1568-4946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deb, K., Pratab, S., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NGSA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6, 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., Thiele, L.: SPEA2: Improving the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich (2001). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.22.4617
  20. 20.
    He, Z., Yen, G.G.: Diversity improvement in decomposition-based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for many-objective optimization problems. In: Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 2409–2414 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mirjalili, S., Lewis, A.: Novel performance metrics for robust multi-objective optimization algorithms. Swarm Evol. Comput. 21, 1–23 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rostami, S., Neri, F.: A fast hypervolume driven selection mechanism for many-objective optimisation problems. Swarm Evol. Comput. 34, 50–67 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Durillo, J.J., Nebro, A.J.: JMetal: a Java framework for multi-objective optimization. Adv. Eng. Softw. 42, 760–771 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristian Ordoñez
    • 1
    • 2
  • Edgar Ruano
    • 1
  • Carlos Cobos
    • 1
  • Hugo Ordoñez
    • 3
  • Armando Ordoñez
    • 2
  1. 1.Information Technology Research Group (GTI)Universidad del CaucaPopayánColombia
  2. 2.Intelligent Management SystemsUniversity Foundation of PopayánPopayánColombia
  3. 3.Research Laboratory in Development of Software EngineeringUniversidad San BuenaventuraCaliColombia

Personalised recommendations