Multi-objective Co-operative Co-evolutionary Genetic Algorithm
This paper presents the integration between two types of genetic algorithm: a multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) and a co-operative co-evolutionary genetic algorithm (CCGA). The resulting algorithm is referred to as a multi-objective co-operative co-evolutionary genetic algorithm or MOCCGA. The integration between the two algorithms is carried out in order to improve the performance of the MOGA by adding the co-operative co-evolutionary effect to the search mechanisms employed by the MOGA. The MOCCGA is benchmarked against the MOGA in six different test cases. The test problems cover six di.erent characteristics that can be found within multi-objective optimisation problems: convex Pareto front, non-convex Pareto front, discrete Pareto front, multi-modality, deceptive Pareto front and non-uniformity in the solution distribution. The simulation results indicate that overall the MOCCGA is superior to the MOGA in terms of the variety in solutions generated and the closeness of solutions to the true Pareto-optimal solutions. A simple parallel implementation of MOCCGA is described. With an 8-node cluster, the speed up of 2.69 to 4.8 can be achieved for the test problems.
KeywordsGenetic Algorithm Test Problem Pareto Front Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1989.Baker, J. E.: An analysis of the e.ects of selection in genetic algorithms, Ph.D. Thesis. Computer Science Department, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN (1989)Google Scholar
- 1993.Fonseca, C. M. and Fleming, P. J.: Genetic algorithms for multiobjective optimization: Formulation, discussion and generalization. Genetic Algorithms. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference, Urbana-Champaign, IL (1993) 416–423Google Scholar
- 1995.Fonseca, C. M. and Fleming, P. J.: Multiobjective genetic algorithms made easy: Selection, sharing and mating restriction. The Second International Conference on Genetic Algorithms in Engineering Systems: Innovations and Applications (GALESIA’95), Sheffield, UK (1995) 45–52Google Scholar
- 1985.Fourman, M. P.: Compaction of symbolic layout using genetic algorithms. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and Their Applications (1985) 141–153Google Scholar
- 1990.Gorges-Scheleuter, M.: Explicit parallelism of genetic algorithms through population structures. Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (1990) 150–159Google Scholar
- 1996.Hart, W. E., Baden, S., Bekew, R. K. and Kohn, S.: Analysis of the numerical effects of parallelism on a parallel genetic algorithm. Proceeding of the Tenth International Parallel Processing Symposium (1996) 606–612Google Scholar
- 1993.Horn, J. and Nafpliotis, N.: Multiobjective optimization using the niched pareto genetic algorithm. IlliGAL Report No. 93005, Department of Computer Science, Department of General Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, IL (1993)Google Scholar
- 1997.Matsumura, T., Nakamura, M. and Okech, J.: Effect of chromosome migration on a parallel and distributed genetic algorithm. International Symposium on Parallel Architecture, Algorithm and Networks (ISPAN’97) (1997) 357–612Google Scholar
- 1997.Patrick D., Green, P. and York, T.: A distributed genetic algorithm environment for unix workstation clusters. Genetic Algorithms in Engineering Systems: Innovations and Applications (1997) 69–74Google Scholar
- 1994.Potter, M. A. and De Jong, K. A.: A cooperative coevolutionary approach to function optimization. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSNIII), Jerusalem, Israel (1994) 249–257Google Scholar
- 1984.Schaffer, J. D.: Some experiments in machine learning using vector evaluated genetic algorithms, Ph.D. Thesis. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN (1984)Google Scholar
- 1991.Spiessens, P., and Manderick, B.: A massively parallel genetic algorithm: Implementation and first analysis. The Fourth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms (1991) 279–285Google Scholar