Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Testing of a spreading mechanism to promote diversity in multi-objective particle swarm optimization

  • Published:
Optimization and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The design of many real-life engineering systems involves optimization according to multiple, often conflicting, objectives. In this paper, an algorithm called spreading multi-objective particle swarm optimizer (SMOPSO) is developed and tested for optimization problems with two objectives. The motivation for SMOPSO is to promote a high diversity of solutions found in two-objective particle swarm optimization. This is attempted through the use of a spreading function based on neighboring particle positions and an archive controller which discriminates based on particle spacing. The spreading function directs non-dominated particles away from their nearest neighbor, aiming for evenly-spaced solutions as particles “spread out”. To test if such an approach can indeed improve Pareto front diversity, a performance comparison of SMOPSO is made to two benchmark algorithms. Preliminary results suggest the proposed algorithm may improve the diversity of solutions for a limited selection of optimization problems, but at the expense of other important measures of performance which is discussed in this paper. SMOPSO’s performance degrades for more difficult optimization problems, such those with multiple fronts and narrow global minima. An example application of SMOPSO to a theoretical, two-objective high-speed planing craft design problem is also given.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Esquivel and Coello (2003) actually refer to this as a mutation operator following the convention in GA literature. However, it was possibly the first proposal to use what has since become known as a turbulence operator in the PSO literature.

  2. Mostaghim and Teich (2004) note that the first phase of the algorithm must be repeated until convergence to the true Pareto-optimal front is achieved. This requires a priori knowledge of the front.

References

  • Alvarez-benitez JE, Everson RM, Fieldsend JE (2005) A MOPSO algorithm based exclusively on Pareto dominance concepts. Evolut Multi-Criterion Optim 3410:459–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrera J, Coello CAC (2009) A review of particle swarm optimization methods used for multimodal optimization. Innovations in, swarm intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 9–37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blount DL, Fox DL (1976) Small craft power prediction. Mar Technol 13(1):14–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement EP, Blount DL (1963) Resistance tests of a systematic series of hull forms. Trans Soc Nav Arch Mar Eng 71:491–579

    Google Scholar 

  • Coello CAC, Pulido G, Lechuga MS (2004) Handling multiple objectives with particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 8(3):256–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coello CAC, Lamont GB, Veldhuizen DA (2002) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems, vol 242. Kluwer Academic, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Deb K (1999) Multi-objective genetic algorithms: problem difficulties and construction of test problems. Evolut Comput 7(3):205–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 6(2):182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhart R, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. MHS’95. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, IEEE, pp 39–43

  • Eberhart R, Shi Y (2001) Particle swarm optimization: developments, applications, and resources. In: Congress on evolutionary compuation, pp 81–86

  • Esquivel SC, Coello CAC (2003) On the use of particle swarm optimization with multimodal functions. In: Congress on evolutionary computation, pp 1130–1136

  • Gies D, Rahmat-Samii Y (2004) Vector evaluated particle swarm optimization (VEPSO): optimization of a radiometer array antenna. In: IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society Symposium, 2004, IEEE, vol 3, pp 2297–2300

  • Hart C, Vlahopoulos N (2009) An integrated multidisciplinary particle swarm optimization approach to conceptual ship design. Struct Multidiscip Optim 41(3):481–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu X, Eberhart R (2002) Multiobjective optimization using dynamic neighborhood particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE, pp 1677–1681

  • Hu X, Eberhart R, Shi Y (2003) Particle swarm with extended memory for multiobjective optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium. SIS’03 (Cat. No.03EX706), IEEE, pp 193–197

  • Kennedy J (2000) Stereotyping: improved particle swarm performance with cluster analysis. In: Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp 1507–1512

  • Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, pp 1942–1948

  • Knight JT, Zahradka FT, Singer DJ, Collette MD (2011) Multi-objective particle swarm optimization of a planing craft with uncertainty. In: 2011 International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, September

  • Liu B, Wang L, Jin YH, Tang F, Huang DX (2005) Improved particle swarm optimization combined with chaos. Chaos Solitons Fractals 25(5):1261–1271

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Liu S, Tang J, Song J (2006) Order-planning model and algorithm for manufacturing steel sheets. Int J Prod Econ 100(1):30–43

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mostaghim S, Teich J (2003) Strategies for finding good local guides in multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO). In: IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, pp 26–33

  • Mostaghim S, Teich J (2004) Covering Pareto-optimal fronts by subswarms in multi-objective particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE, pp 1404–1411

  • Nebro A, Durillo J, Garcia-Nieto J, Coello CAC, Luna F, Alba E (2009) SMPSO: A new PSO-based metaheuristic for multi-objective optimization. In: 2009 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Milti-Criteria Decision-Making, IEEE, vol 2, pp 66–73

  • Ngatchou P, Zarei A, El-Sharkawi A (2005) Pareto multi objective optimization. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Application to Power Systems, IEEE, pp 84–91

  • Parsopoulos KE, Vrahatis MN (2002) Particle swarm optimization method in multiobjective problems. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on Applied computing. SAC ’02, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, vol 3, p 603

  • Parsopoulos KE, Tasoulis DK, Vrahatis MN (2004) Multiobjective optimization using parallel vector evaluated particle swarm optimization. In: IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp 823–828

  • Reyes-Sierra M, Coello CAC (2006) Multi-objective particle swarm optimizers: a survey of the state-of-the-art. Int J Comput Intell Res 2(3):287–308

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Reyes-Sierra MR, Coello CAC (2005) Improving PSO-based multi-objective optimization using crowding, mutation and e-dominance. Evolutionary multi-criterion, optimization pp 505–519

  • Savitsky D (1964) Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls. Mar Technol 1(1):71–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Savitsky D (1985) Planing craft. Nav Eng J 97(2):113–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schott JR (1995) Fault Tolerant Design using Single and Multicriteria Genetic Algorithm Optimization. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

  • Shi Y, Eberhart R (1998) A modified particle swarm optimizer. In: IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, pp 69–73

  • Shi Y, Eberhart R (1999) Empirical study of particle swarm optimization. In: Congress on Evolutionay Computation, pp 1945–1950

  • Tripathi PK, Bandyopadhyay S, Pal SK (2007) Multi-objective particle swarm optimization with time variant inertia and acceleration coefficients. Inf Sci 177(22):5033–5049

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner H (1948) Planing of Watercraft. Tech. rep., NACA Report # 1139, Langley Research Center

  • Zitzler E, Deb K, Thiele L (2000) Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evolut Comput 8(2):173–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering, University of Michigan, 2600 Draper Rd., Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Joshua T. Knight, David J. Singer & Matthew D. Collette

Authors
  1. Joshua T. Knight
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David J. Singer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew D. Collette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua T. Knight.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knight, J.T., Singer, D.J. & Collette, M.D. Testing of a spreading mechanism to promote diversity in multi-objective particle swarm optimization. Optim Eng 16, 279–302 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-014-9256-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-014-9256-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation