Soft Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 24, pp 7251–7267 | Cite as

Duality evolution: an efficient approach to constraint handling in multi-objective particle swarm optimization

  • Amin Ebrahim Sorkhabi
  • Mehran Deljavan Amiri
  • Ali Reza Khanteymoori
Foundations
  • 107 Downloads

Abstract

This paper proposes an efficient approach for constraint handling in multi-objective particle swarm optimization. The particles population is divided into two non-overlapping populations, named infeasible population and feasible population. The evolution process in each population is done independent of the other one. The infeasible particles are evolved in the constraint space toward feasibility. During evolution process, if an infeasible particle becomes a feasible one, it migrates to feasible population. In a parallel process, the particles in feasible population are evolved in the objective space toward Pareto optimality. At each generation of multi-objective particle swarm optimization, a leader should be assigned to each particle to move toward it. In the proposed method, a different leader selection algorithm is proposed for each population. For feasible population, the leader is selected using a priority-based method in three levels and for infeasible population, a leader replacement method integrated by an elitism-based method is proposed. The proposed approach is tested on several constrained multi-objective optimization benchmark problems, and its results are compared with two popular state-of-the-art constraint handling multi-objective algorithms. The experimental results indicate that the proposed algorithm is highly competitive in solving the benchmark problems.

Keywords

Evolutionary algorithms Multi-objective optimization Particle swarm optimization Constraint handling MOPSO 

References

  1. Angantyr A, Andersson J, Aidanpaa J (2003) Constrained optimization based on a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm. IEEE Congr Evol Comput 3:1560–1567Google Scholar
  2. Back T, Hoffmeister F, Schwefel HP (1991) A survey of evolution strategies. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, pp 2–9Google Scholar
  3. Bean J, Hadj-Alouane A (1992) A dual genetic algorithm for bounded integer programs. Tech. Rep. 92-53, The University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  4. Binh TT, Korn U (1997) Mobes: a multiobjective evolution strategy for constrained optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on genetic algorithms, pp 176–182Google Scholar
  5. Cai Z, Wang Y (2006) A multiobjective optimization-based evolutionary algorithm for constrained optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 10(6):658–675Google Scholar
  6. Carreno Jara E (2014) Multi-objective optimization by using evolutionary algorithms: the p-optimality criteria. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18(2):167–179Google Scholar
  7. Chafekar D, Xuan J, Rasheed K (2003) Constrained multi-objective optimization using steady state genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference. Springer, Berlin, pp 813–824Google Scholar
  8. Chankong V, Haimes Y (1983) Multiobjective decision making theory and methodology. Elsevier, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Coello CC (2006) Evolutionary multi-objective optimization: a historical view of the field. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 1(1):28–36Google Scholar
  10. Coello CC, Pulido G, Lechuga M (2004) Handling multiple objectives with particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8(3):256–279Google Scholar
  11. Coello CC, Dhaenens C, Jourdan L (2010) Advances in multi-objective nature inspired computing, 1 edn. Studies in computational intelligence. Springer, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Deb K (2000) An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 186(2):311–338Google Scholar
  13. Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms, 1 edn. Wiley, New York. http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/047187339X
  14. Deb K (2005) A population-based algorithm-generator for real-parameter optimization. Soft Comput 9(4):236–253MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2000) A fast elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6:182–197Google Scholar
  16. Farmani R, Wright J (2003) Self-adaptive fitness formulation for constrained optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(5):445–455Google Scholar
  17. Fonseca CM, Fleming PJ (1993) Genetic algorithms for multiobjective optimization: formulation, discussion and generalization. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference in genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, pp 416–423Google Scholar
  18. Hu W, Yen G (2015) Adaptive multiobjective particle swarm optimization based on parallel cell coordinate system. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 19(1):1–18Google Scholar
  19. Joines J, Houck C (1994) On the use of non-stationary penalty functions to solve nonlinear constrained optimization problems with GA’s. In: Proceedings of the first IEEE conference on evolutionary computation, pp 579–584Google Scholar
  20. Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on neural networks, 1995, vol 4, pp 1942–1948Google Scholar
  21. Knowles J, Corne D (1999) Approximating the non-dominated front using the pareto archived evolution strategy. Evol Comput 8:149–172Google Scholar
  22. Knowles J, Thiele L, Zitzler E (2006) A tutorial on performance assessment of stochastic multiobjective optimizers (revised)Google Scholar
  23. Krohling RA, dos Santos Coelho L (2006) Coevolutionary particle swarm optimization using gaussian distribution for solving constrained optimization problems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 36(6):1407–1416Google Scholar
  24. Liu H, Cai Z, Wang Y (2010) Hybridizing particle swarm optimization with differential evolution for constrained numerical and engineering optimization. Appl Soft Comput 10(2):629–640Google Scholar
  25. Liu HL, Gu F, Zhang Q (2014) Decomposition of a multiobjective optimization problem into a number of simple multiobjective subproblems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18(3):450–455Google Scholar
  26. Lu H, Yen G (2003) Rank-density-based multiobjective genetic algorithm and benchmark test function study. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(4):325–343Google Scholar
  27. Min HQ, Zhou YR, Lu YS, Zhi JJ (2006) An evolutionary algorithm for constrained multi-objective optimization problems. In: IEEE Asia-Pacific conference on services computing, pp 667–670Google Scholar
  28. Mukhopadhyay A, Maulik U, Bandyopadhyay S, Coello Coello C (2014a) A survey of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms for data mining: part I. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18(1):4–19Google Scholar
  29. Mukhopadhyay A, Maulik U, Bandyopadhyay S, CoelloCoello C (2014b) A survey of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms for data mining: part II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18(1):20–35Google Scholar
  30. Schutze O, Lara A, Coello Coello C (2011) On the influence of the number of objectives on the hardness of a multiobjective optimization problem. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 15(4):444–455Google Scholar
  31. Srinivas N, Deb K (1994) Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evol Comput 2:221–248Google Scholar
  32. Takahama T, Sakai S (2005) Constrained optimization by applying the alpha; constrained method to the nonlinear simplex method with mutations. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 9(5):437–451Google Scholar
  33. Takaham T, Sakai S (2006) Constrained optimization by the epsilon constrained differential evolution with gradient-based mutation and feasible elite. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  34. Tanaka M, Watanabe H, Furukawa Y, Tanino T (1995) GA-based decision support system for multicriteria optimization. IEEE Int Conf Syst Man Cybern 2:1556–1561Google Scholar
  35. Tessema BG, Yen GG (2006) A self-adaptive constrained evolutionary algorithm. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, Vancouver, Canada, pp 246–253Google Scholar
  36. Venkatraman S, Yen G (2005) A generic framework for constrained optimization using genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 9(4):424–435Google Scholar
  37. Wang Y, Cai Z (2009) A hybrid multi-swarm particle swarm optimization to solve constrained optimization problems. Front Comput Sci China 3(1):38–52Google Scholar
  38. Wang Y, Cai Z (2011) Constrained evolutionary optimization by means of \((\mu + \lambda )\)-differential evolution and improved adaptive trade-off model. Evol Comput 19(2):249–285Google Scholar
  39. Wang Y, Cai Z (2012a) Combining multiobjective optimization with differential evolution to solve constrained optimization problems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 16(1):117–134Google Scholar
  40. Wang Y, Cai Z (2012b) A dynamic hybrid framework for constrained evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 42(1):203–217Google Scholar
  41. Wang Y, Wang BC, Li HX, Yen GG (2015) Incorporating objective function information into the feasibility rule for constrained evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans Cybern. doi:10.1109/TCYB.2015.2493239
  42. Woldesenbet Y, Yen G, Tessema B (2009) Constraint handling in multiobjective evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 13(3):514–525Google Scholar
  43. Yen G, Haiming L (2003) Dynamic multiobjective evolutionary algorithm: adaptive cell-based rank and density estimation. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(3):253–274Google Scholar
  44. Yen G, He Z (2014) Performance metric ensemble for multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18(1):131–144Google Scholar
  45. Yeniay A (2005) Penalty function methods for constrained optimization with genetic algorithms. Math Comput Appl 10(6):45–56Google Scholar
  46. Zitzler E (1999) Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: methods and applications. Institut für Technische Informatik und Kommunikationsnetze Computer Engineering and Networks LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  47. Zitzler E, Thiele L (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength pareto approach. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(4):257–271Google Scholar
  48. Zitzler E, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Fonseca C, Fonseca V (2003) Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(2):117–132Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amin Ebrahim Sorkhabi
    • 1
  • Mehran Deljavan Amiri
    • 2
  • Ali Reza Khanteymoori
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Engineering DepartmentIslamic Azad University – Qazvin BranchQazvinIran
  2. 2.Computer Engineering DepartmentUniversity of ZanjanZanjanIran

Personalised recommendations