Soft Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 721–751 | Cite as

An experimental analysis of a new two-stage crossover operator for multiobjective optimization

Methodologies and Application


Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective problems utilize three types of operations for progressing toward the higher fitness regions of the search space. Each type of operator contributes in a different way toward the achievement of the common goal. The mutation operation is responsible for diversity maintenance, while the selection operation favors the survival of the fittest. In this paper we focus our attention on the crossover operator. The crossover operator by default is responsible for the search effort and as such deserves our special attention. In particular, we propose a two-stage crossover (TSX) operator for more efficient exploration of the search space. The performance of the proposed TSX operator is assessed in comparison with the simulated binary crossover operator with the assistance of three well-known multiobjective evolutionary algorithms, namely the NSGAII, the SPEA2 and the MOCELL, for the solution of the DTLZ1–7 set of test functions. We also compare the proposed TSX with other popular reproduction operators like the differential evolution and the particle swarm optimization. Finally, we examine the efficacy of the TSX operator in handling problems having five objectives. It is shown with the assistance of the Deb, Thiele, Laumanns and Zitzler set of test functions that the TSX operator can substantially improve the results generated by three popular performance metrics for most of the cases.


Multiobjective optimization Evolutionary algorithms  Crossover Genetic operators 


  1. Amjady N, Nasiri-Rad H (2009) Nonconvex economic dispatch with AC constraints by a new real coded genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans Power Syst 24(3):1489–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banerjee A (2013) A novel probabilistically-guided context-sensitive crossover operator for clustering. Swarm Evolut Comput 13:47–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barkat-Ullah ASSM, Sarker R, Cornforth D (2008) Search space reduction technique for constrained optimization with tiny feasible space. In: GECCO’08, Atlanta, pp 881–888Google Scholar
  4. Bosman PAN, Thierens D (2000) Expanding from discrete to continuous EDAs: the IEDA. In: Proceedings of parallel problem solving from nature, PPSN-VI, pp 767–776Google Scholar
  5. Da Ronco CC, Benini E (2013) A simplex crossover based evolutionary algorithm including the genetic diversity as objective. Appl Soft Comput 13:2104–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deb K, Agrawal RB (1995) Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space. Complex Syst 9(2):115–148MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Deb K, Saxena DK (2015) On Finding pareto-optimal solutions through dimensionality reduction for certain large-dimensional multi-objective optimization problems. In: KanGAL report number 2005011Google Scholar
  8. Deb K, Anand A, Joshi D (2002) A computationally efficient evolutionary algorithm for real-parameter optimization. Evolut Comput 10(4):371–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA, II. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deb K, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Zitzler E (2005) Scalable test problems for evolutionary multiobjective optimization. In: Abraham A, Jain L, Goldberg R (eds) Evolutionary multiobjective optimization, theoretical advances and applications. Springer, New York, pp 105–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deep K, Thakur M (2007) A new crossover operator for real coded genetic algorithms. Appl Math Comput 188:895–911MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Derrac J, García S, Molina D, Herrera F (2011) A practical tutorial on the use of nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms. Swarm Evol Comput 1(1):3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Durillo JJ, Coello CAC (2013) Analysis of leader selection strategies in a multi-objective particle swarm optimizer. In: 2013 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), 20–23 June 2013, pp 3153–3160. doi:10.1109/CEC.2013.6557955
  14. Durillo JJ, Nebro AJ (2011) jMetal: a Java framework for multi-objective optimization. Adv Eng Softw 42:760–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elsayed SM, Sarker RA, Essam DL (2011) Multi-operator based evolutionary algorithms for solving constrained optimization problems. Comput Oper Res 38:1877–1896MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Eshelman LJ, Schaffer JD (1993) Real coded genetic algorithms and interval schemata. In: Darrell Whitley L (ed) Foundation of genetic algorithms 2. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, pp 187–202Google Scholar
  17. Fonseca C, Flemming P (1998) Multiobjective optimization and multiple constraint handling with evolutionary algorithms—part II: application example. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 28:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geem ZW, Kim JH, Loganathan GV (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. Simulation 76(2):60–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hervás-Martínez C, Ortiz-Boyer D, García-Pedrajas N (2002) Theoretical analysis of the confidence interval based crossover for real-coded genetic algorithms. In: Merelo Guervós JJ et al (eds) PPSN VII, LNCS, vol 2439, pp 153–161. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on neural networks, Piscataway, pp 1942–1948Google Scholar
  21. Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1997) A discrete binary version of the particle swarm algorithm. In: Proceedings of the world multiconference on systemics, cybernetics and informatics, Piscataway, pp 4104–4109Google Scholar
  22. Koza JR (1992) Genetic programming. MIT Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Larraenaga P, Lozano JA (2001) Estimation of distribution algorithms: a new tool for evolutionary computation. Kluwer Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Li H, Zhang Q (2009) Multiobjective optimization problems with complicated pareto sets, MOEA/D and NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 13(2)Google Scholar
  25. Liagkouras K, Metaxiotis K (2014) A new probe guided mutation operator and its application for solving the cardinality constrained portfolio optimization problem. Expert Syst Appl 41(14):6274–6290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liagkouras K, Metaxiotis K (2015) Efficient portfolio construction with the use of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: best practices and performance metrics. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 14(3):535–564. doi:10.1142/S0219622015300013
  27. Metaxiotis K, Liagkouras K (2012) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms for portfolio management: a comprehensive literature review. Expert Syst Appl 39(14):11685–11698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MULTIOBJ-1.3 (2008) Speed-constrained multi-objective PSO (SMPSO), DIRICOMGoogle Scholar
  29. Nebro AJ (2013) Dipt. Lenguajes y Cienc. de la Comput., University of Malaga, MalagaGoogle Scholar
  30. Nebro AJ, Durillo JJ, Nieto JG, Coello Coello CA, Luna F, Alba E (2009) SMPSO: a new PSO-based metaheuristic for multi-objective optimization. In: IEEE symposium on computational intelligence in multicriteria decision-making (MCDM 2009), pp 66–73Google Scholar
  31. Niu Q, Zhang H, Wang X, Li K, Irwin GW (2014) A hybrid harmony search with arithmetic crossover operation for economic dispatch. Electr Power Energy Syst 62:237–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ono I, Kobayashi S (1997) A real-coded genetic algorithm for function optimization using unimodal normal distribution crossover. In: Back T (ed) Proceedings of the seventh international conference on genetic algorithms (ICGA-7). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 246–253Google Scholar
  33. Price K, Storn RM, Lampinen JA (2005) Differential evolution: a practical approach to global optimization, natural computing series. Springer, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Qi Y, Hou Z, Yin M, Sun H, Huang J (2015) An immune multi-objective optimization algorithm with differential evolution inspired recombination. Appl Soft Comput 29:395–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Silva D, Bastos-Filho C (2013) A multi-objective particle swarm optimizer based on diversity, INTELLI 2013. In: The second international conference on intelligent systems and applications, IARIAGoogle Scholar
  36. Singh HK, Ray T, Smith W (2010) Performance of infeasibility empowered memetic algorithm for CEC 2010 constrained optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC2010), Barcelona, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  37. Tsutsui S, Yamamura MT, Higuchi (1999) Multi-parent recombination with simplex crossover in real coded genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the GECCO-99, pp 644–657Google Scholar
  38. Yoon Y, Kim YH, Moraglio A, Moon BR (2012) A theoretical and empirical study on unbiased boundary-extended crossover for real-valued representation. Inf Sci 183:48–65MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Zeng F, Decraene J, Hean Low MY, Hingston P, Wentong C, Suiping Z, Chandramohan M (2010) Autonomous bee colony optimization for multi-objective function. In: Proceedings of the IEEE congress on evolutionary computationGoogle Scholar
  40. Zitzler E, Deb K, Thiele L (2000) Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evol Comput 8(2):173–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Zitzler E, Brockhoff D, Thiele L (2007) The hypervolume indicator revisited: on the design of pareto-compliant indicators via weighted integration. In: Conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO 2007), pp 862–876. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision Support Systems Laboratory, Department of InformaticsUniversity of PiraeusPiraeusGreece

Personalised recommendations