MCDMSR: multicriteria decision making selection/replacement based on agility strategy for real optimization problems

  • HongGuang ZhangEmail author
  • Rui Wang
  • HuaJian Liu
  • Han Luo
  • Yuanan Liu


Selection/replacements are an indispensable part in evolutionary algorithms (EAs), which are generally based on a single evaluation criterion. However, selections in nature are based on multi evaluation criteria, such as multi-aspect survival criteria of wolves (like running and attacking abilities). To realize more real survival of the fittest in EAs, multicriteria decision making selection/replacement (MCDMSR) is proposed. In fact, there is little research about using multicriteria decision making to improve selection/replacement models in EAs. VIKOR (a multicriteria decision making method) in management science is used in MCDMSR, and multi evaluation criteria of the populations are synthetically analyzed as a radar chart form. By using VIKOR, MCDMSR is able to respond to the population-state change in real time. MCDMSR is characterized by this agility, and this agility is derived from the decision making ability of VIKOR. Moreover, principle analysis and discussions are given to explain the feasibility of multicriteria decision making in the applications of selection/replacements. We provided the applications of MCDMSR in simple genetic algorithm, particle swarm optimization, artificial fish swarm algorithm, and shuffled frog leaping algorithm, by comparing with tournament selection, fine-grained tournament selection, all-individual-guider replacement, CD/RW, constrained-visual-region replacement, group constrained-visual-region replacement, part-individual-guider replacement for 36 benchmarks (i.e., 5 unimodal and 15 multimodal problems in CEC 2013 test suite, and 16 P-Peak problems). The effectiveness, efficiency, and diversity results of MCDMSR were acceptable.


Multicriteria decision making Single evaluation criterion selection/replacement Multi evaluation criteria selection/replacement Agility strategy VIKOR Vitality selection 



The authors would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, especially for improving the experimental-result presentations and the agility concept. This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61876199) and YangFan Innovative & Entrepreneurial Research Team Project of Guangdong Province.


  1. 1.
    Goldberg DE, Deb K (1991) A comparative analysis of selection schemes used in genetic algorithms. In: Gregory JER (ed) Foundations of genetic algorithms. Elsevier, pp 69–93Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blickle T, Thiele L (1996) A comparison of selection schemes used in evolutionary algorithms. Evol Comput 4(4):361–394Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith JE, Vavak F (1999) Replacement strategies in steady state genetic algorithms: dynamic environments. J Comput Inf Technol 7(1):49–60Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Squillero G, Tonda A (2016) Divergence of character and premature convergence: a survey of methodologies for promoting diversity in evolutionary optimization. Inf Sci 329(SI):782–799Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. MIT Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baker JE (1985) Adaptive selection methods for genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on genetic algorithms and their applications. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., p 101–111Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brindle A (1981) Genetic algorithms for function optimization. Doctoral dissertation. Edmonton: University of Alberta, Department of Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller BL, Goldberg DE (1996) Genetic algorithms, selection schemes, and the varying effects of noise. Evol Comput 4(2):113–131Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Jong KA (1975) Analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems. Doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, Department Computer and Communication SciencesGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldberg DE, Richardson J (1987) Genetic algorithms with sharing for multimodal function optimization. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Genetic Algorithms on Genetic algorithms and their application, L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., p 41–49Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beasley D, Bull DR, Martin RR (1993) A sequential niche technique for multimodal function optimization. Evol Comput 1(2):101–125Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hutter M (2002) Fitness uniform selection to preserve genetic diversity. In: Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE, p 783–788Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weise T, Wan MX, Wang P, Tang K, Devert A, Yao X (2014) Frequency fitness assignment. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18(2):226–243Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grefenstette JJ (1992) Genetic algorithms for changing environments. In: Maenner R, Manderick B (eds) Parallel problem solving from nature. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 137–144Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Whitley D, Rana S, Heckendorn RB (1999) The island model genetic algorithm: on separability, population size and convergence. J Comput Inf Technol 7(1):33–48Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lozano M, Herrera F, Cano JR (2008) Replacement strategies to preserve useful diversity in steady-state genetic algorithms. Inf Sci 178(23):4421–4433Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, IEEE, p 1942–1948Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li XL (2003) A new intelligent optimization method - artificial fish swarm algorithm. PhD Thesis, Faculty of control science and engineering, Zhejiang University, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eusuff M, Lansey K, Pasha F (2006) Shuffled frog-leaping algorithm: a memetic meta-heuristic for discrete optimization. Eng Optim 38(2):129–154MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karaboga D (2005) An idea based on honey bee swarm for numerical optimization. Technical report: TR06. Kayserispor: Erciyes University, Engineering Faculty Computer Engineering DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang Q, Wang R, Yang J, Ding K, Li Y, Hu J (2017) Collective decision optimization algorithm: a new heuristic optimization method. Neurocomputing 221:123–137Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eshelman LJ (1991) The CHC adaptive search algorithm: how to have safe search when engaging in nontraditional genetic recombination. In: Gregory JER (ed) Foundations of genetic algorithms. Elsevier, pp 265–283Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Harik GR, Lobo FG, Goldberg DE (1999) The compact genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(4):287–297Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Han KH, Kim JH (2002) Quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm for a class of combinatorial optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(6):580–593MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Opricovic S (1998) Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering, BelgradeGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Filipović V (2003) Fine-grained tournament selection operator in genetic algorithms. Computing and Informatics 22(2):143–161MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sokolov A, Whitley D, Barreto ADS (2007) A note on the variance of rank-based selection strategies for genetic algorithms and genetic programming. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 8(3):221–237Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Xie H, Zhang M (2012) Impacts of sampling strategies in tournament selection for genetic programming. Soft Comput 16(4):615–633Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sareni B, Krahenbuhl L (1998) Fitness sharing and niching methods revisited. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2(3):97–106Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nguyen TT, Yang S, Branke J, Yao X (2013) Evolutionary dynamic optimization: methodologies. In: Yang S, Yao X (eds) Evolutionary computation for dynamic optimization problems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 39–64Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith J (2007) On replacement strategies in steady state evolutionary algorithms. Evol Comput 15(1):29–59Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang HB, Fan CC, Tu XY (2016) AFSAOCP: a novel artificial fish swarm optimization algorithm aided by ocean current power. Appl Intell 45(4):992–1007Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yang XS, Deb S (2010) Cuckoo search via Lévy flights. In: Proceedings of 2009 World Congress on Nature & Biologically Inspired Computing, IEEE, p 210–214Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gaham M, Bouzouia B, Achour N (2018) An effective operations permutation-based discrete harmony search approach for the flexible job shop scheduling problem with makespan criterion. Appl Intell 48(6):1423–1441Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zong WG, Kim JH, Loganathan GV (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. Simulation 76(2):60–68Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Maadi M, Javidnia M, Ramezani R (2018) Modified cuckoo optimization algorithm (MCOA) to solve precedence constrained sequencing problem (PCSP). Appl Intell 48(6):1407–1422Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhang Q, Wang R, Yang J, Ding K, Li Y, Hu J (2018) Modified collective decision optimization algorithm with application in trajectory planning of UAV. Appl Intell 48(8):2328–2354Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chipperfield AJ, Whidborne JF, Fleming PJ (1999) Evolutionary algorithms and simulated annealing for MCDM. In: Gal T, Stewart TJ, Hanne T (eds) Multicriteria decision making: advances in MCDM models, algorithms, theory, and applications. Springer, pp 501–532Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Osyczka A, Krenich S (2004) Some methods for multicriteria design optimization using evolutionary algorithms. J Theor Appl Mech 42(3):565–584Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Meshram C, Agrawal SS (2015) Multi-criteria decision making using genetic algorithmic approach in computer simulation models. Int J Hybrid Inf Tech 8(6):17–24Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cunha AG, Ferreira JC, Covas JA, Recio G (2014) Selection of solutions in multi-objective optimization: decision making and robustness. In: 2014 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making, IEEE, p 16–23Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang HG, Zhou J (2016) Dynamic multiscale region search algorithm using vitality selection for traveling salesman problem. Expert Syst Appl 60(C):81–95Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yu EL, Suganthan PN (2010) Ensemble of niching algorithms. Inf Sci 180(15):2815–2833MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhen ZY, Wang DB, Liu YY (2009) Improved shuffled frog leaping algorithm for continuous optimization problem. In IEEE congress on evolutionary computation. IEEE:2992–2995Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electronic Engineering, Beijing Key Laboratory of Work Safety Intelligent MonitoringBeijing University of Posts and TelecommunicationsBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations