Parallel and Hybrid Models for Multi-objective Optimization: Application to the Vehicle Routing Problem

  • Nicolas Jozefowiez
  • Frédéric Semet
  • El-Ghazali Talbi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2439)


Solving a multi-objective problem means to find a set of solutions called the Pareto frontier. Since evolutionary algorithms work on a population of solutions, they are well-adapted to multi-objective problems. When they are designed, two purposes are taken into account: they have to reach the Pareto frontier but they also have to find solutions all along the frontier. It is the intensification task and the diversification task. Mechanisms dealing with these goals exist. But with very hard problems or benchmarks of great size, they may not be effiective enough. In this paper, we investigate the utilization of parallel and hybrid models to improve the intensification task and the diversification task. First, a new technique inspired by the elitism is used to improve the diversification task. This new method must be implemented by a parallel model to be useful. Second, in order to amplify the diversification task and the intensification task, the parallel model is extended to a more general island model. To help the intensification task, a hybrid model is also used. In this model, a specially defined parallel tabu search is applied to the Pareto frontier reached by an evolutionary algorithm. Finally, those models are implemented and tested on a bi-objective vehicle routing problem.


Tabu Search Hybrid Model Pareto Front Multiobjective Optimization Vehicle Route Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Basseur, M., Seynhaeve, F., Talbi, E-G.: Design of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms: application to the flow-shop scheduling problem. Proceedings of 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Christofides, N., Mingozzi, A., Toth, P., Sandi, C.: Combinatorial optimization. Chapter 11. John Wiley (1979)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coello Coello, C. A.: An updated survey of GA-based multiobjective optimization techniques. Technical Report RD-98-08, LANIA, Mexico (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deb, K., Goel, T.: A hybrid multi-objective evolutionary approach to engineering shape design. Proceedings of Evolutionary Multi-criterion Optimization Conference (2001) 385–399Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gendreau, M., Hertz, A., Laporte, G.: A tabu search heuristic for the vehicle routing problem. Management Science, Vol. 40 (1994) 1276–1290zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg, D. E., Richardson, J.: Genetic algorithms with sharing for multi-modal function optimization. Proceedings of the Sec. Int. Conf. on Genetic Algortihms (1987) 41–49Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laporte, G.: Exact algorithms for the traveling salesman problem and the vehicle routing problem. Les Cahiers du GERAD G-98-37 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Laporte, G., Gendreau, M., Potvin, J-Y., Semet, F.: Classical and modern heuristics for the vehicle routing problem. Les Cahiers du GERAD G-99-21 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, T., Ueng, J.: A study of vehicle routing problems with load-balancing. Int. J. Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 10 (1999) 646–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lenstra, J. K., Rinnooy Kan, A. H. G.: Complexity of vehicle routing and scheduling problem. Networks, Vol. 11 (1981) 221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meunier, H., Talbi, E-G., Reininger, P.: A multiobjective genetic algorithm for radio network optimization. Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutiorary Computation (2000) 314–324Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morse, J. N.: Reducing the size of non-dominated set: Prunning by clustering. Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 7 No. 1–2 (1980) 55–56CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Potvin, J-Y., Bengio, S.: The vehicle routing problem with time windows part II: genetic search. INFORMS Journal on Computing, Vol. 8 No. 2 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prins, C.: A simple and effiective evolutionary algorithm for the vehicle routing problem. In Proceedings of MIC’2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ribeiro, R., Loureno, H. R.: A multi-objective model for a multi period distribution management problem. In Proceedings of MIC’2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Srivinas, N., Deb, K.: Multiobjective optimization using non-dominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 2 No. 3, (1995) 279–285Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Talbi, E-G., Rahoual, M., Mabed, M. H., Dhaennens, C.: A hybrid evolutionary approach for multicriteria optimization problems: Application to the flow shop. Proceedings of Evolutionary Multi-criterion Optimization Conference (2001) 416–428Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Veldhuizen, D. A., Lamont, G. B.: On measuring multiobjective evolutionary algorithm performance. Proceedings of 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L.: Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength pareto approach. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 3 No. 4 (1999) 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Jozefowiez
    • 1
  • Frédéric Semet
    • 2
  • El-Ghazali Talbi
    • 1
  1. 1.LIFL, USTLVilleneuve d’Ascq CEDEXFrance
  2. 2.LAMIH, UVHCValenciennes CEDEXFrance

Personalised recommendations