Provisional-Ideal-Point-Based Multi-objective Optimization Method for Drone Delivery Problem

  • Hiroki Omagari
  • Shin–Ichiro Higashino
Original Paper


In this paper, we proposed a new evolutionary multi-objective optimization method for solving drone delivery problems (DDP). It can be formulated as a constrained multi-objective optimization problem. In our previous research, we proposed the “aspiration-point-based method” to solve multi-objective optimization problems. However, this method needs to calculate the optimal values of each objective function value in advance. Moreover, it does not consider the constraint conditions except for the objective functions. Therefore, it cannot apply to DDP which has many constraint conditions. To solve these issues, we proposed “provisional-ideal-point-based method.” The proposed method defines a “penalty value” to search for feasible solutions. It also defines a new reference solution named “provisional-ideal point” to search for the preferred solution for a decision maker. In this way, we can eliminate the preliminary calculations and its limited application scope. The results of the benchmark test problems show that the proposed method can generate the preferred solution efficiently. The usefulness of the proposed method is also demonstrated by applying it to DDP. As a result, the delivery path when combining one drone and one truck drastically reduces the traveling distance and the delivery time compared with the case of using only one truck.


Multi-objective optimization Genetic algorithm Drone delivery Provisional-ideal point 


  1. 1.
    Holloway CM, Knight JC, McDermid JA (2014) Neither Pollyanna nor Chicken Little: thoughts on the ethics of automation. In: 2014 IEEE international symposium on ethics in science, technology and engineering, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murray CC, Chu AG (2015) The flying sidekick traveling salesman problem: optimization of drone-assisted package delivery. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 54:86–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ramadan ZB, Farah MF, Mrad M (2017) An adapted TPB approach to consumers’ acceptance of service-delivery drones. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 29(7):817–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferrandez SM, Harbison T, Weber T, Sturges R, Rich R (2016) Optimization of a truck-drone in tandem delivery network using k-means and genetic algorithm. J Ind Eng Manag 9(2):374–388Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    The Verge (2017) UPS has a delivery truck that can launch a drone. Accessed 7 Jul 2017
  6. 6.
    Parker GG, Van Alstyne MW, Choudary SP (2016) Platform revolution: how net worked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. WW Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mathew N, Smith SL, Waslander SL (2015) Planning paths for package delivery in drone multirobot teams. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 12(4):1298–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dorling K, Heinrichs J, Messier GG, Magierowski S (2017) Vehicle routing problems for drone delivery. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 47(1):70–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldberg DE, Holland JH (1988) Genetic algorithms and machine learning. Mach Learn 3(2):95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shin H, Todoroki A, Hirano Y (2013) Elite-initial population for efficient topology optimization using multi-objective genetic algorithms. Int J Aeronaut Space Sci 14(4):324–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Omagari H, Higashino S (2017) Aspiration-point-based multi-objective path planning method for an unmanned aerial vehicle. Trans Jpn Soc Aeronaut Space Sci 15:a99–a108 (APISAT-2016 special issue of Aerospace Technology Japan)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim IY, De Weck OL (2005) Adaptive weighted sum method for bi-objective optimization, Pareto front generation. Struct Multidiscip Optim 29:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yaguchi K, Tamura K, Yasuda K, Ishigame A (2011) Basic study of proximate optimality principle based combinatorial optimization method. In: IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC), pp 1753–1758Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Runarsson TP, Yao X (2000) Stochastic ranking for constrained evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 4(3):284–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deb K, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Zitzler E (2005) Scalable test problems for evolutionary multi-objective optimization. Springer, London, pp 105–145zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vose MD (1999) “The simple genetic algorithm” foundations and theory, vol 12. MIT Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ishibuchi H, Hitotsuyanagi Y, Tsukamoto N, Nojima, Y. (2010) Many-objective test problems to visually examine the behavior of multi-objective evolution in a decision space. In: International conference on parallel problem solving from nature. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 91–100Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hart PE, Nilsson NJ, Raphael B (1968) A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Trans Syst Sci Cybern SSC 4(2):100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mitsutake K, Higashino S (2008) An A*-EC hybrid path planning method for waypoints traveling problem considering terrain. In: AIAA guidance, navigation and control conference and exhibitGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aeronautics and AstronauticsKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations