Soft Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 9, pp 2215–2236 | Cite as

An adaptive memetic framework for multi-objective combinatorial optimization problems: studies on software next release and travelling salesman problems

  • Xinye Cai
  • Xin Cheng
  • Zhun Fan
  • Erik Goodman
  • Lisong Wang
Methodologies and Application

Abstract

In this paper, we propose two multi-objective memetic algorithms (MOMAs) using two different adaptive mechanisms to address combinatorial optimization problems (COPs). One mechanism adaptively selects solutions for local search based on the solutions’ convergence toward the Pareto front. The second adaptive mechanism uses the convergence and diversity information of an external set (dominance archive), to guide the selection of promising solutions for local search. In addition, simulated annealing is integrated in this framework as the local refinement process. The multi-objective memetic algorithms with the two adaptive schemes (called uMOMA-SA and aMOMA-SA) are tested on two COPs and compared with some well-known multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. Experimental results suggest that uMOMA-SA and aMOMA-SA outperform the other algorithms with which they are compared. The effects of the two adaptive mechanisms are also investigated in the paper. In addition, uMOMA-SA and aMOMA-SA are compared with three single-objective and three multi-objective optimization approaches on software next release problems using real instances mined from bug repositories (Xuan et al. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 38(5):1195–1212, 2012). The results show that these multi-objective optimization approaches perform better than these single-objective ones, in general, and that aMOMA-SA has the best performance among all the approaches compared.

Keywords

Multi-objective combinatorial optimization Memetic algorithms Decomposition-based method Local search Adaptation 

References

  1. Alsheddy A, Tsang E (201) Guided pareto local search based frameworks for biobjective optimization. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), pp 1–8Google Scholar
  2. Arroyo JEC, Armentano VA (2005) Genetic local search for multi-objective flowshop scheduling problems. Eur J Oper Res 167(3):717–738MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Borges PC, Hansen MP (1998) A basis for future successes in multiobjective combinatorial optimization. Technical Report IMM-REP-1998-8. Institute of Mathematical Modelling, Technical University of DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  4. Cai Xinye, Wei Ou, Huang Zhiqiu (2012) Evolutonary approches for multi-objective next release problem. Comput Inf 31(4):847–875Google Scholar
  5. Cai X, Li Y, Fan Z, Zhang Q (2014) An external archive guided multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition for combinatorial optimization. IEEE Trans Evol ComputGoogle Scholar
  6. Cai X, Wei O (2013) A hybrid of decomposition and domination based evolutionary algorithm for multi-objective software next release problem. In: 10th IEEE international conference on control and automationGoogle Scholar
  7. Caponio A, Neri F (2009) Integrating cross-dominance adaptation in multi-objective memetic algorithms. Stud Comput Intell 171:325–351MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang PC, Chen SH, Zhang Q, Lin JL (2008) MOEA/D for flowshop scheduling problems. In: 2008 congress on evolutionary computation (CEC’2008), Hong Kong. IEEE Service Center, pp 1433–1438Google Scholar
  9. Chen X, Ong Y-S, Lim M-H, Tan KC (2011) A multi-facet survey on memetic computation. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 15(5):591–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coello Coello CA, Cortés NC (2005) Solving multiobjective optimization problems using an artificial immune system. Genet Program Evol Mach 6(2):163–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. del Sagrado J, del Aguila IM, Orellana FJ (2010) Ant colony optimization for the next release problem: a comparative study, pp 67–76Google Scholar
  14. Droste S, Jansen T, Wegener I (2002) On the analysis of the (1+1) evolutionary algorithm. Theor Comput Sci 276(1–2):51–81MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Durillo JJ, Zhang Y, Alba E, Harman M, Nebro Antonio J (2011) A study of the bi-objective next release problem. Empir Softw Eng 16(1):29–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eckart Z, Marco L, Lothar T (2002) SPEA2: improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm. In: Giannakoglou K, Tsahalis D, Periaux J, Papailou P, Fogarty T (eds) EUROGEN 2001, evolutionary methods for design, optimization and control with applications to industrial problems, Athens, pp 95–100Google Scholar
  17. Eclipse (2011). http://www.eclipse.org/
  18. García-Martínez C, Cordón O, Herrera F (2007) A taxonomy and an empirical analysis of multiple objective ant colony optimization algorithms for the bi-criteria TSP. Eur J Oper Res 180(1):116–148CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaspar-Cunha A (2005) A multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for solving traveling salesman problems: application to the design of polymer extruders. In: Bernardete R, Albrecht RF, Andrej D, Pearson DW, Steele NC (eds) Adaptive and natural computing algorithms, Coimbra. Springer, pp 189–193Google Scholar
  20. Gnome (2011). http://www.gnome.org/
  21. Grosan C, Abraham A (2007) Hybrid evolutionary algorithms: methodologies, architectures, and reviews. In: Hybrid evolutionary algorithms. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  22. Ishibuchi H, Yoshida T, Murata T (2003) Balance between genetic search and local search in memetic algorithms for multiobjective permutation flowshop scheduling. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(2):204–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ishibuchi H, MurataT (1996) Multi-objective genetic local search algorithm. In: Fukuda T, Furuhashi T (eds) Proceedings of the 1996 international conference on evolutionary computation, Nagoya, IEEE, pp 119–124Google Scholar
  24. Ishibuchi H, Sakane Y, Tsukamoto N, Nojima Y (2009) Adaptation of scalarizing funtions in moea/d: an adaptive scalarizing funtion-based multiobjective evolutionary algorithm. In: Ehrgott M, Fonseca CM, Gandibleux X, Hao J-K, Sevaux M (eds) Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization. 5th International Conference, EMO 2009, lecture notes in computer science, vol 5467, Nantes. Springer, pp 438–452Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Kafafy A, Bounekkar A, Bonnevay S (2012) Hybrid metaheuristics based on moea/d for 0/1 multiobjective knapsack problems: a comparative study. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  27. Ke L, Zhang Q, Battiti R (2014) A simple yet efficient multiobjective combinatorial optimization method using decompostion and Pareto local search. IEEE Trans CybernGoogle Scholar
  28. Ke L, Zhang Q, Battiti R (2014) Hybridization of decomposition and local search for multiobjective optimization. IEEE Trans CybernGoogle Scholar
  29. Knowles J, Corne D (2000) M-PAES: a memetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization. In: 2000 Congress on evolutionary computation, vol 1, Piscataway, New Jersey. IEEE Service Center, pp 325–332Google Scholar
  30. Knowles J, Thiele L, Zitzler E (2006) A tutorial on the performance assessment of stochastic multiobjective optimizers. 214, computer engineering and networks laboratory (TIK), ETH Zurich (revised version)Google Scholar
  31. Konstantinidis A, Yang K, Zhang Q, Zeinalipour-Yazti D (2010) A multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for the deployment and power assignment problem in wireless sensor networks. Comput Netw 54(6):960–976CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Krasnogor N, Gustafson S (2004) A study on the use of “self-generation” in memetic algorithms. Nat Comput 3(1):53–76MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Krasnogor N, Smith J (2005) A tutorial for competent memetic algorithms: model, taxonomy, and design issues. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 9(5):474–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Larrañaga Pedro, Kuijpers Cindy M H, Murga Roberto H, Inza Iñaki, Dizdarevic S (1999) Genetic algorithms for the travelling salesman problem: a review of representations and operators. Artif Intell Rev 13(2):129–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li K, Zhang Q, Kwong S, Li M, Wang R (2014) Stable matching based selection in evolutionary multiobjective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18:909–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liang Y-C, Lo M-H (2010) Multi-objective redundancy allocation optimization using a variable neighborhood search algorithm. J Heuristics 16(3):511–535CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Li Y, Cai X, Fan Z, Zhang Q (2014) An external archive guided multiobjective evolutionary approach based on decomposition for continuous optimization. In: IEEE world congress on computational intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  38. Li Hui, Landa-Silva D (2011) An adaptive evolutionary multi-objective approach based on simulated annealing. Evol Comput 19:561–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Lust T, Jaszkiewicz A (2010) Speed-up techniques for solving large-scale biobjective tsp. Comput OR 37(3):521–533MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Lust T, Teghem J (2010) Two-phase pareto local search for the biobjective traveling salesman problem. J Heuristics 16(3):475–510CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Mart Rl (2003) Multi-start methods. Int Ser Oper Res Manag Sci 57:355–368MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. Maulik U, Saha S, Deb K (2008) A simulated annealing-based multiobjective optimization algorithm: amosa. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 12(3):269–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miettinen K (1999) Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Mining challenges 2007 and 2009 of ieee working conf. mining software repositories (msr). Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  46. Nguyen QH, Ong Y-S, Krasnogor N (2007) A study on the design issues of memetic algorithm. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 2390–2397Google Scholar
  47. Nguyen QH, Ong Y-S, Lim M-H (2009) A probabilistic memetic framework. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 13(3):604–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nguyen QH, Ong Y-S, Krasnogor N (2009) Adaptive cellular memetic algorithm. Evol Comput 17(2):231–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ong Y-S, Lim M-H, Zhu N, Wong KW (2006) Classification of adaptive memetic algorithms: a comparative study. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B 36(1):141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ong Y-S, Lim M-H, Chen X (2010) Memetic computation—past, present & future [research frontier]. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 5(2):24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ong Yew-Soon, Keane Andy J (2004) Meta-lamarckian learning in memetic algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8(2):99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Papadimitriou CH, Steiglitz K (1998) Combinatorial optimization: algorithms and complexity, DoverGoogle Scholar
  53. Paquete L, Sttzle T (2009) Design and analysis of stochastic local search for the multiobjective traveling salesman problem. Comput Oper Res 36(9):2619C2631Google Scholar
  54. Peng W, Zhang Q, Li H (2009) Comparison between MOEA/D and NSGA-II on the multi-objective travelling salesman problem. In: Multi-objective memetic algorithms, vol 171. Springer, Berlin, pp 309–324Google Scholar
  55. Peter A, Bosman N (2012) On gradients and hybrid evolutionary algorithms for real-valued multiobjective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 16(1):51–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rodriguez-Alvarez M, Rojas I, Rojas F, Puntonet CG, Martin R (2004) Blind source separation in post-nonlinear mixtures using competitive learning, simulated annealing, and a genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans Syst Comput 34(4):407–416Google Scholar
  57. Sato H, Aguirre HE, Tanaka K (2007) Local dominance and local recombination in MOEAs on 0/1 multiobjective knapsack problems. Eur J Oper Res 181(3):1708–1723Google Scholar
  58. Shim VA, Tan KC, Cheong CY (2012) A hybrid estimation of distribution algorithm with decomposition for solving the multiobjective multiple traveling salesman problem. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C 42(5):682–691Google Scholar
  59. ShimVA, Tan KC, Tang H (2014) Adaptive memetic computing for evolutionary multiobjective optmization. IEEE Trans CybernGoogle Scholar
  60. Sindhya K, Miettinen K, Deb K (2013) A hybrid framework for evolutionary multi-objective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 17(4):495–511CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. Sudholt D (2006) Local search in evolutionary algorithms: the impact of the local search frequency. In: 17th international symposium on algorithms and computation (ISAAC)Google Scholar
  62. Tan KC, Chew YH, Lee LH (2006) A hybrid multiobjective evolutionary algorithm for solving vehicle routing problem with time windows. Comput Optim Appl 34(1):115–151MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. Ulungu EL, Teghem J, Fortemps Ph, Tuyttens D (1999) MOSA method: a tool for solving multiobjective combinatorial optimization problems. J Multi Criteria Decis Anal 8(4):221–236CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  64. Wei P, Qingfu Z (2012) Network Topology planning using MOEA/D with objective-guided operators. In: Parallel problem solving from nature—PPSN XII, vol 7492, pp 62–71Google Scholar
  65. Xuan J, Jiang H, Ren Z, Luo Z (2012) Solving the large scale next release problem with a backbone-based multilevel algorithm. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 38(5):1195–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhang Y, Harman M, Mansouri SA (2007) The multi-objective next release problem. In: Thierens D (ed) 2007 genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO’2007), vol 1, London. ACM Press, pp 1129–1136Google Scholar
  67. Zhang Q, Li H (2007) MOEA/D: a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 11(6):712–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zhang Q, Liu W, Li H (2009) The performance of a new version of moea/d on cec09 unconstrained mop test instances. Working Report CES-491, School of CS and EE, University of EssexGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhang Y, Rockett PI (2009) A generic multi-dimensional feature extraction method using multiobjective genetic programming. Evol Comput 17(1):89–115Google Scholar
  70. Zitzler E, Thiele L (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength pareto approach. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(4):257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xinye Cai
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xin Cheng
    • 2
  • Zhun Fan
    • 3
  • Erik Goodman
    • 4
  • Lisong Wang
    • 2
  1. 1.The 28th Research Institute of China Electronic Technology Group CorporationNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.College of Computer Science and TechnologyNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Digital Signal and Image Processing Techniques, Department of Electronic Engineering, School of EngineeringShantou UniversityShantouPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in ActionMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations