Evaluation of the Evolutionary Algorithms Performance in Many-Objective Optimization Problems Using Quality Indicators
The need to address more complex real-world problems gives rise to new research issues in many-objective optimization field. Recently, researchers have focused in developing algorithms able to solve optimization problems with more than three objectives known as many-objective optimization problems. Some methodologies have been developed into the context of this kind of problems, such as A2-NSGA-III that is an adaptive extension of the well-known NSGA-II (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II). A2-NSGA-III was developed for promoting a better spreading of the solutions in the Pareto front using an improved approach based on reference points. In this paper, a comparative study between NSGA-II and A2-NSGA-III is presented. We examine the performance of both algorithms by applying them to the project portfolio problem with 9 and 16 objectives. Our purpose is to validate the effectiveness of A2-NSGA-III to deal with many-objective problems and increase the variety of problems that this method can solve. Several quality indicators were used to measure the performance of the two algorithms.
KeywordsMany-objective problems Project portfolio selection Algorithm performance analysis
This work was partially financed by CONACYT, COTACYT, DGEST, TECNM, and ITCM.
- 1.Deb, K.: Multi-Objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms (Vol. 16). John Wiley & Sons. (2001).Google Scholar
- 2.Talbi, E. G.: Metaheuristics: from design to implementation (Vol. 74). John Wiley & Sons. (2009).Google Scholar
- 3.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
- 4.Yang, S., Li, M., Liu, X., & Zheng, J. A grid-based evolutionary algorithm for many-objective optimization. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, 17(5), 721-736.(2013).Google Scholar
- 5.Jain, H., & Deb, K. An improved adaptive approach for elitist nondominated sorting genetic algorithm for many-objective optimization. In Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (pp. 307-321). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.(2013).Google Scholar
- 6.Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A. and Meyarivan, T.: A fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II. Lecture notes in computer science, 1917, pp. 849-858. (2000).Google Scholar
- 7.Pareto, V.: Politique, Cours D’ economie. Rouge, Lausanne, Switzerland. (1896).Google Scholar
- 8.Nebro, A. J., Luna, F., Alba, E., Dorronsoro, B., & Durillo, J. J. Un algoritmo multiobjetivo basado en búsqueda dispersa.Google Scholar
- 9.Mirjalili, S., & Lewis, A. Novel performance metrics for robust multi-objective optimization algorithms. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 21, 1-23.(2015).Google Scholar
- 10.Yen, G. G., & He, Z. Performance metric ensemble for multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, 18(1), 131-144.(2014).Google Scholar
- 11.Fabre, M. G. Optimización de problemas con más de tres objetivos mediante algoritmos evolutivos (Doctoral dissertation, Master’s thesis, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas, México).(2009).Google Scholar
- 12.Cruz-Reyes, L., Fernandez, E., Gomez, C., Sanchez, P., Castilla, G., & Martinez, D. Verifying the Effectiveness of an Evolutionary Approach in Solving Many-Objective Optimization Problems. In Design of Intelligent Systems Based on Fuzzy Logic, Neural Networks and Nature-Inspired Optimization (pp. 455-464). Springer International Publishing (2015).Google Scholar