Proper balance between search towards and along Pareto front: biobjective TSP case study
- 257 Downloads
In this paper we propose simple yet efficient version of the two-phase Pareto local search (2PPLS) for solving the biobjective traveling salesman problem (bTSP). In the first phase the powerful Lin–Kernighan heuristic is used to generate some high quality solutions being very close to the Pareto front. Then Pareto local search is used to generate more potentially Pareto efficient solutions along the Pareto front. Instead of previously used method of Aneja and Nair we use uniformly distributed weight vectors in the first phase. We show experimentally that properly balancing the computational effort in the first and second phase we can obtain results better than previous versions of 2PPLS for bTSP and at least comparable to the state-of-the art results of more complex MOMAD method. Furthermore, we propose a simple extension of 2PPLS where some additional solutions are generated by Lin–Kernighan heuristic during the run of PLS. In this way we obtain a method that is more robust with respect to the number of initial solutions generated in the first phase.
KeywordsMultiobjective optimization Pareto local search Traveling salesman problem
The research of Andrzej Jaszkiewicz was funded by the the Polish National Science Center, Grant No. UMO-2013/11/B/ST6/01075.
- Angel, E., Bampis, E., & Gourvès, L. (2004). A dynasearch neighborhood for the bicriteria traveling salesman problem. In X. Gandibleux, M. Sevaux, K. Sörensen, & V. T’kindt (Eds.), Metaheuristics for multiobjective optimisation. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems (Vol. 535, pp. 153–176). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Battiti, R., Brunato, M., & Mascia, F. (2008). Reactive search and intelligent optimization, operations research/Computer science interfaces. Berlin: Springer. (ISBN 978-0-387-096 23-0).Google Scholar
- Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratab, A., & Meyarivan, T. (2000). A fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II. In Proceedings of the parallel problem solving from nature VI conference. Lecture notes in computer science no. 1917 (pp. 849–858). Paris, France: Springer.Google Scholar
- Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multicriteria optimization (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Ferguson, T. (1967). Mathematical statistics, a decision theoretic approach. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Hansen, M. P., & Jaszkiewicz, A. (1998). Evaluating the quality of approximations to the non-dominated set. Lyngby: IMM, Department of Mathematical Modelling, Technical University of Denmark.Google Scholar
- Steuer, R. (1986). Multiple criteria optimization: Theory, computation and applications. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Zitzler, E. (1999). Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: Methods and applications. Ph.D. thesis, Zurich: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH).Google Scholar
- Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., Thiele, L., Fonseca, C., & Grunert da Fonseca, V. (2002). Why quality assessment of multiobjective optimizers is difficult. In W. Langdon, E. Cantú-Paz, K. Mathias, R. Roy, D. Davis, R. Poli, K. Balakrishnan, V. Honavar, G. Rudolph, J. Wegener, L. Bull, M. Potter, A. Schultz, J. Miller, E. Burke, & N. Jonoska (Eds.), Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO’2002) (pp. 666–673). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar