Multi-Objective Optimization

  • Kalyanmoy Deb


Many real-world search and optimization problems are naturally posed as non-linear programming problems having multiple objectives. Due to the lack of suitable solution techniques, such problems were artificially converted into a single-objective problem and solved. The difficulty arose because such problems give rise to a set of trade-off optimal solutions (known as Pareto-optimal solutions), instead of a single optimum solution. It then becomes important to find not just one Pareto-optimal solution, but as many of them as possible. This is because any two such solutions constitutes a trade-off among the objectives and users would be in a better position to make a choice when many such trade-off solutions are unveiled.


Objective Vector Pareto Archive Evolution Strategy Archive Member Domination Count Ideal Objective Vector 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Babu, B. and Jehan, M. M. L., 2003, Differential evolution for multiobjective optimization, in: Proc. 2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC’2003), Canberra, Australia, Vol. 4, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 2696–2703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagchi, T., 1999, Multiobjective Scheduling by Genetic Algorithms, Kluwer, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  3. Balicki, J. and Kitowski, Z., 2001, Multicriteria evolutionary algorithm with tabu search for task assignment, in: Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO-01), pp. 373–384.Google Scholar
  4. Bleuler, S., Brack, M. and Zitzler, E., 2001, Multiobjective genetic programming: Reducing bloat using spea2, in: Proc. 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 536–543.Google Scholar
  5. Chankong, V. and Haimes, Y. Y., 1983, Multiobjective Decision Making Theory and Methodology, North-Holland, New York.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Chattopadhyay, A. and Seeley, C., 1994, A simulated annealing technique for multi-objective optimization of intelligent structures, Smart Mater. Struct. 3:98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coello, C. A. C., 2000, Treating objectives as constraints for single objective optimization, Eng. Optim. 32:275–308.Google Scholar
  8. Coello, C. A. C., 2003, Scholar
  9. Coello, C. A. C. and Toscano, G., 2000, A micro-genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization, Technical Report Lania-RI-2000-06, Laboratoria Nacional de Informatica Avanzada, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico.Google Scholar
  10. Coello, C. A. C, VanVeldhuizen, D. A. and Lamont, G., 2002, Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems, Kluwer, Boston, MA.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Coello Coello, C. A. and Salazar Lechuga, M., 2002, MOPSO: A Proposal for Multiple Objective Particle Swarm Optimization. in: Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC’2002), Vol. 2, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 1051–1056.Google Scholar
  12. Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E. and Rivest, R. L., 1990, Introduction to Algorithms, Prentice-Hall, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  13. Corne, D., Knowles, J. and Oates, M., 2000, The Pareto envelope-based selection algorithm for multi-objective optimization, in: Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN-VI), pp. 839–848.Google Scholar
  14. Coverstone-Carroll, V., Hartmann, J. W. and Mason, W. J., 2000, Optimal multi-objective low-thurst spacecraft trajectories, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 186:387–402.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deb, K., 1995, Optimization for Engineering Design: Algorithms and Examples, Prentice-Hall, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  16. Deb, K., 1999, Solving goal programming problems using multi-objective genetic algorithms, in: Proc. Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 77–84.Google Scholar
  17. Deb, K., 2001, Multi-objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms, Wiley, Chichester.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Deb, K., 2003, Unveiling innovative design principles by means of multiple conflicting objectives, Eng. Optim. 35:445–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A. and Meyarivan, T., 2002a, A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Trans. Evol Comput. 6:182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deb, K., Jain, P., Gupta, N. and Maji, H., 2002b, Multi-objective placement of VLSI components using evolutionary algorithms, KanGAL Technical Report No. 2002006, Kanpur Genetic Algorithms Laboratory, Kanpur, India. Also IEEE Trans. Components Packaging Technol., to appear.Google Scholar
  21. Deb, K. and Jain, S., 2002, Running performance metrics for evolutionary multi-objective optimization, in: Proc. 4th Asia-Pacific Conf. on Simulated Evolution and Learning (SEAL-02), pp. 13–20.Google Scholar
  22. Deb, K. and Jain, S., 2003, Multi-speed gearbox design using multi-objective evolutionary algorithms, ASME Trans. Mech. Design 125:609–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Deb, K., Mitra, K., Dewri, R. and Majumdar, S., 2004, Towards a better understanding of the epoxy polymerization process using multi-objective evolutionary computation, Chem. Eng. Sci. 59:4261–4277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Deb, K., Mohan, M. and Mishra, S., 2003a, Towards a quick computation of well-spread Pareto-optimal solutions, in: Proc. 2nd Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO-03) Conf., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2632, Springer, Berlin, pp. 222–236.Google Scholar
  25. Deb, K., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M. and Zitzler, E., 2002c, Scalable multiobjective optimization test problems, in: Proc. Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC-2002), pp. 825–830.Google Scholar
  26. Deb, K. and Tiwari, S., 2004, Multi-objective optimization of a leg mechanism using genetic algorithms, KanGAL Technical Report No. 2004005, Kanpur Genetic Algorithms Laboratory, Kanpur, India.Google Scholar
  27. Deb, K., Zope, P. and Jain, A., 2003b, Distributed computing of Pareto-optimal solutions using multi-objective evolutionary algorithms, in: Proc. 2nd Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO-03) Conf., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2632, Springer, Berlin, pp. 535–549.Google Scholar
  28. Ehrgott, M., 2000, Multicriteria Optimization, Springer, Berlin.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Fonseca, C, Fleming, P., Zitzler, E., Deb, K. and Thiele, L., 2003, Proc. 2nd Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO-03) Conf., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2632, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  30. Goldberg, D. E., 1989, Genetic Algorithms for Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  31. Gravel, M., Price, W. L. and Gagné, C., 2002, Scheduling continuous casting of aluminum using a multiple objective ant colony optimization metaheuristic, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 143:218–229.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haimes, Y. Y., Lasdon, L. S. and Wismer, D. A., 1971, On a bicriterion formulation of the problems of integrated system identification and system optimization, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man Cybernet. 1:296–297.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hansen, M. P., 1997, Tabu search in multi-objective optimization: MOTS, Paper presented at The 13th Int. Conf. on Multi-Criterion Decision Making (MCDM’97), University of Cape Town.Google Scholar
  34. Jensen, M. T., 2003a, Guiding single-objective optimization using multiobjective methods, in: Applications of Evolutionary Computing. Evoworkshops 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2611, G. R. Raidl et al., ed., Springer, Berlin, pp. 199–210.Google Scholar
  35. Jensen, M. T., 2003b, Reducing the run-time complexity of multi-objective EAs, IEEE Trans. Evol Comput. 7:503–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Khor, E. F., Tan, K. C. and Lee, T. H., 2001, Tabu-based exploratory evolutionary algorithm for effective multi-objective optimization, in Proc. Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization (EMO-01), pp. 344–358.Google Scholar
  37. Knowles, J. D. and Corne, D. W., 2000, Approximating the non-dominated front using the Pareto archived evolution strategy, Evol. Comput. J. 8:149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kumral, M., 2003, Application of chance-constrained programming based on multi-objective simulated annealing to solve a mineral blending problem, Eng. Optim. 35:661–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kung, H. T., Luccio, F. and Preparata, F. P., 1975, On finding the maxima of a set of vectors, J. Assoc. Comput. Machinery 22:469–476.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. Laumanns, M., Thiele, L., Deb, K. and Zitzler, E., 2002, Combining convergence and diversity in evolutionary multi-objective optimization, Evol. Comput. 10:263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Laumanns, M., Thiele, L. and Zitzler, E., 2004, Running time analysis of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms on pseudo-Boolean functions. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 8:170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Loughlin, D. H. and Ranjithan, S., 1997, The neighborhood constraint method: A multi-objective optimization technique, in: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 666–673.Google Scholar
  43. McMullen, P. R., 2001, An ant colony optimization approach to addessing a JIT sequencing problem with multiple objectives, Artif. Intell. Eng. 15:309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miettinen, K., 1999, Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization, Kluwer, Boston, MA.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Mostaghim, S. and Teich, J., 2003, Strategies for finding good local guides in multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO), in: 2003 IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symp. Proc., Indianapolis, IN, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Osyczka, A., 2002, Evolutionary Algorithms for Single and Multicriteria Design Optimization, Physica, Heidelberg.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Parks, G. and Suppapitnarm, A., 1999, Multiobjective optimization of PWR reload core designs using simulated annealing, in: Proc. Int. Conf. on Mathematics and Computation, Reactor Physics and Environmental Analysis in Nuclear Applications, Vol. 2, Madrid, Spain, pp. 1435–1444.Google Scholar
  48. Rudolph, G., 1998, Evolutionary search for minimal elements in partially ordered finite sets, in: Proc. 7th Annual Conf on Evolutionary Programming, Berlin, Springer, pp. 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rudolph, G. and Agapie, A., 2000, Convergence properties of some multiobjective evolutionary algorithms, in: Proc. 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC2000), pp. 1010–1016.Google Scholar
  50. Srinivas, N. and Deb, K., 1994, Multi-objective function optimization using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms, Evol. Comput. J. 2:221–248.Google Scholar
  51. Surry, P. D., Radcliffe, N. J. and Boyd, I. D., 1995, A multi-objective approach to constrained optimisation of gas supply networks: The COMOGA method, in: Evolutionary Computing, AISB Workshop, Springer, Berlin, pp. 166–180.Google Scholar
  52. Veldhuizen, D. V. and Lamont, G. B., 2000, Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: analyzing the state-of-the-art, Evol. Comput. J. 8:125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zitzler, E., 1999, Evolutionary algorithms for multi-objective optimization: methods and applications, Ph.D. Thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ETH, Zürich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  54. Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele, L., Coello, C. A. C. and Corne, D., 2001a, Proc. 1st Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO-01) Conf., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1993, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  55. Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M. and Thiele, L., 2001b, SPEA2: Improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm for multi-objective optimization, in: Giannakoglou, K. C., Tsahalis, D. T., Périaux, J., Papailiou, K. D. and Fogarty, T., eds, Proc. Evolutionary Methods for Design Optimization and Control with Applications to Industrial Problems, Athens, Greece, International Centre for Numerical Methods in Engineering (Cmine), pp. 95–100.Google Scholar
  56. Zitzler, E. and Thiele, L., 1998, An evolutionary algorithm for multi-objective optimization: The strength Pareto approach, Technical Report No. 43, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  57. Zitzler, E., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Fonseca, C. M. and da Fonseca, V. G., 2003, Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 7:117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kalyanmoy Deb
    • 1
  1. 1.Kanpur Genetic Algorithms Laboratory (KanGAL), Department of Mechanical EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyKanpurIndia

Personalised recommendations