Soft Computing

, Volume 19, Issue 12, pp 3551–3569 | Cite as

DECMO2: a robust hybrid and adaptive multi-objective evolutionary algorithm

  • Alexandru-Ciprian Zăvoianu
  • Edwin Lughofer
  • Gerd Bramerdorfer
  • Wolfgang Amrhein
  • Erich Peter Klement


We describe a hybrid and adaptive coevolutionary optimization method that can efficiently solve a wide range of multi-objective optimization problems (MOOPs) as it successfully combines positive traits from three main classes of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs): classical approaches that use Pareto-based selection for survival criteria, approaches that rely on differential evolution, and decomposition-based strategies. A key part of our hybrid evolutionary approach lies in the proposed fitness sharing mechanism that is able to smoothly transfer information between the coevolved subpopulations without negatively impacting the specific evolutionary process behavior that characterizes each subpopulation. The proposed MOEA also features an adaptive allocation of fitness evaluations between the coevolved populations to increase robustness and favor the evolutionary search strategy that proves more successful for solving the MOOP at hand. Apart from the new evolutionary algorithm, this paper also contains the description of a new hypervolume and racing-based methodology aimed at providing practitioners from the field of multi-objective optimization with a simple means of analyzing/reporting the general comparative run-time performance of multi-objective optimization algorithms over large problem sets.


Evolutionary computation Hybrid multi-objective optimization Coevolution Adaptive allocation of fitness evaluations Performance analysis methodology for MOOPs 



This work was conducted within LCM GmbH as a part of the COMET K2 program of the Austrian government. The COMET K2 projects at LCM are kindly supported by the Austrian and Upper Austrian governments and the participating scientific partners. The authors thank all involved partners for their support.


  1. Coello C, Lamont G, Van Veldhuisen D (2007) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Genetic and evolutionary computation series. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Deb K, Agrawal RB (1995) Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space. Complex Syst 9:115–148zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Deb K, Goyal M (1996) A combined genetic adaptive search (GeneAS) for engineering design. Comput Sci Inf 26:30–45Google Scholar
  4. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002a) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deb K, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Zitzler E (2002b) Scalable multi-objective optimization test problems. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2002), IEEE Press, pp 825–830Google Scholar
  6. Durillo JJ, Nebro AJ (2011) JMETAL: a Java framework for multi-objective optimization. Adv Eng Softw 42:760–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fleischer M (2003) The measure of Pareto optima. Applications to multi-objective metaheuristics. In: International conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO 2003), Springer, pp 519–533Google Scholar
  8. Huband S, Barone L, While L, Hingston P (2005) A scalable multi-objective test problem toolkit. In: Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO 2005), lecture notes in computer science, vol 3410Google Scholar
  9. Jannot X, Vannier J, Marchand C, Gabsi M, Saint-Michel J, Sadarnac D (2011) Multiphysic modeling of a high-speed interior permanent-magnet synchronous machine for a multiobjective optimal design. IEEE Trans Energy Conv 26(2):457–467. doi: 10.1109/TEC.2010.2090156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Kukkonen S, Lampinen J (2005) GDE3: the third evolution step of generalized differential evolution. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2005), IEEE Press, pp 443–450Google Scholar
  12. Kukkonen S, Lampinen J (2009) Performance assessment of Generalized Differential Evolution 3 with a given set of constrained multi-objective test problems. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2009), IEEE Press, pp 1943–1950Google Scholar
  13. Kursawe F (1991) A variant of evolution strategies for vector optimization. In: Workshop on parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN I), Springer, lecture notes in computer science, vol 496, pp 193–197Google Scholar
  14. Li H, Zhang Q (2009) Multiobjective optimization problems with complicated Pareto sets, MOEA/D and NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 13(2):284–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luke S (2013) Essentials of metaheuristics, 2nd edn. Lulu.
  16. Miettinen K (1999) Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/London/DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  17. Price K, Storn R, Lampinen J (1997) Differential evolution. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  18. Robič T, Filipič B (2005) DEMO: differential evolution for multiobjective optimization. International conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO (2005) Springer. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 520–533Google Scholar
  19. Storn R, Price KV (1997) Differential evolution—a simple and effcient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Glob Optim 11(4):341–359zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Van Veldhuizen D, Lamont G (1998) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithm research: A history and analysis, tech. rep. tr-98-03. Tech. rep., Dept. Elec. Comput. Eng., Graduate School of Eng., Air Force Inst. Technol., Wright-Patterson, AFB, OHGoogle Scholar
  21. Wolpert DH, Macready WG (1997) No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1(1):67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yagoubi M, Thobois L, Schoenauert M (2011) Asynchronous evolutionary multi-objective algorithms with heterogeneous evaluation costs. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2011), pp 21–28. doi: 10.1109/CEC.2011.5949593
  23. Zaharie D (2009) Influence of crossover on the behavior of differential evolution algorithms. Appl Soft Comput 9(3):1126–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhang Q, Li H (2007) MOEA/D: a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Tran Evol Comput 11(6):712–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhang Q, Liu W, Li H (2009) The performance of a new version of MOEA/D on CEC09 unconstrained MOP test instances. Technical report, School of CS and EE, University of EssexGoogle Scholar
  26. Zitzler E (1999) Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: Methods and applications. Ph.D. thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  27. Zitzler E, Deb K, Thiele L (2000) Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evol Comput 8(2):173–195Google Scholar
  28. Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L (2002) SPEA2: improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization. In: Evolutionary methods for design, optimisation and control with application to industrial problems (EUROGEN 2001), International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE), pp 95–100Google Scholar
  29. Zitzler E, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Fonseca CM, da Fonseca VG (2003) Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(2):117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zăvoianu AC, Bramerdorfer G, Lughofer E, Silber S, Amrhein W, Klement EP (2013) Hybridization of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms and artificial neural networks for optimizing the performance of electrical drives. Eng Appl Artif Intel 26(8):1781–1794. doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2013.06.002
  31. Zăvoianu AC, Lughofer E, Amrhein W, Klement EP (2013) Efficient multi-objective optimization using 2-population cooperative coevolution. Computer aided aystems theory—EUROCAST, (2013) vol 8111. Lecture notes in computer science, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 251–258Google Scholar
  32. Zăvoianu AC, Lughofer E, Koppelstätter W, Weidenholzer G, Amrhein W, Klement EP (2013c) On the performance of master-slave parallelization methods for multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. In: International conference on artificial intelligence and soft computing (ICAISC 2013), Springer, pp 122–134Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandru-Ciprian Zăvoianu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Edwin Lughofer
    • 1
  • Gerd Bramerdorfer
    • 2
    • 3
  • Wolfgang Amrhein
    • 2
    • 3
  • Erich Peter Klement
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Knowledge-based Mathematical Systems/Fuzzy Logic Laboratory Linz-HagenbergJohannes Kepler University of LinzLinzAustria
  2. 2.LCM, Linz Center of MechatronicsLinzAustria
  3. 3.Institute for Electrical Drives and Power ElectronicsJohannes Kepler University of LinzLinzAustria

Personalised recommendations