Advertisement

Verifying the Effectiveness of an Evolutionary Approach in Solving Many-Objective Optimization Problems

  • Laura Cruz-Reyes
  • Eduardo Fernandez
  • Claudia Gomez
  • Patricia Sanchez
  • Guadalupe Castilla
  • Daniel Martinez
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 601)

Abstract

Most approaches in the evolutionary multi-objective optimization were found to be vulnerable in solving many-objective optimization problems (four or more objectives). This is mainly due to the fact that these algorithms lack from ability to handle more than three objectives adequately. For this reason, researchers have been focusing in developing algorithms capable of addressing many-objective optimization problems. Recently, authors of the Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II (NSGA-II) have proposed an extension of this approach, called NSGA-III. This new approach has opened new directions for research and development to solve many-objective optimization problems. In this algorithm the maintenance of diversity among population members is aided by supplying a number of well-spread reference points. In this work, a comparative study of the performance of NSGA-II and NSGA-III was carried out. Our aim is to verify the effectiveness of NSGA-III to deal with many-objectives problems and extend the range of problems that this approach can solve. For this, the comparison was made addressing the project portfolio problem, using instances with three and nine objectives.

Keywords

Pareto Front Parent Population Pareto Dominance Offspring Population Orthogonal Distance 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was partially financed by CONACYT, COTACYT, DGEST, TECNM and ITCM.

References

  1. 1.
    Deb, K.: Multi-Objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms, vol. 16. Wiley, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coello, C.C., Lamont, G.B., Van Veldhuizen, D.A.: Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Talbi, E.G.: Metaheuristics: from Design to Implementation, vol. 74. Wiley, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deb, K., Jain, H.: An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point based nondominated sorting approach, part i: solving problems with box constraints. In: Proceedings of IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pareto, V.: Politique, Cours D’ economie. Rouge, Lausanne, Switzerland (1896)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L.: Multiobjective optimization using evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study. In: Eiben, A.E., Bäck, T., Schoenauer, M., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) PPSN. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1498, pp. 292–301. Springer, Berlin (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zitzler, E.: Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: methods and applications. Ph.D. dissertation, Swiss Federal Inst. Technology (ETH) Zurich, Switzerland (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Laumanns, M., Zitzler, E., Thiele, L.: A unified model for multi-objective evolutionary algorithms with elitism. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2000, vol. 1, pp. 46–53. IEEE (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    While, L., Hingston, P., Barone, L., Huband, S.: A faster algorithm for calculating hypervolume. Evol. Comput. IEEE Trans. 10(1), 29–38 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    While, L., Bradstreet, L., Barone, L.: A fast way of calculating exact hypervolumes. Evol. Comput. IEEE Trans. 16(1), 86–95 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A., Meyarivan, T.: A fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 1917, 849–858 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. Evol. Comput. IEEE Trans. 6(2), 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kukkonen, S., Deb, K.: Improved pruning of non-dominated solutions based on crowding distance for bi-objective optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Computational Intelligence (WCCI-2006), pp. 1179–1186. IEEE Press, Vancouver (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carazo, A., Gomez, T., Molina, J., Hernandez-Diaz, A., Guerrero, F., Caballero, R.: Solving a comprehensive model for multiobjective project portfolio selection. Comput. Oper. Res. 37(4), 630–639 (2010)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Castro, M.: Development and implementation of a framework for I&D in public organizations. Master’s thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Mexico (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garcia, R.: Hyper-Heuristic for solving social portfolio problem. Master’s Thesis, Instituto Tecnológico de Cd. Madero (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fernandez, E., Navarro, J.: A genetic search for exploiting a fuzzy preference model of portfolio problems with public projects. Annals OR 117, 191–213 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Cruz-Reyes
    • 1
  • Eduardo Fernandez
    • 2
  • Claudia Gomez
    • 1
  • Patricia Sanchez
    • 1
  • Guadalupe Castilla
    • 1
  • Daniel Martinez
    • 1
  1. 1.Tecnologico Nacional de MexicoInstituto Tecnologico de Ciudad MaderoCiudad MaderoMexico
  2. 2.Universidad Autonoma de SinaloaCuliacanMexico

Personalised recommendations