Comparison of Constraint Handling Approaches in Multi-objective Optimization
When considering real-world optimization problems the possibility of encountering problems having constraints is quite high. Constraint handling approaches such as the penalty function and others have been researched and developed to incorporate an optimization problem’s constraints into the optimization process. With regards to multi-objective optimization, in this paper the two main approaches of incorporating constraints are explored, namely: Penalty functions and dominance based selection operators. This paper aims to measure the effectiveness of these two approaches by comparing the empirical results produced by each approach. Each approach is tested using a set of ten benchmark problems, where each problem has certain constraints. The analysis of the results in this paper showed no overall statistical difference between the effectiveness of penalty functions and dominance based selection operators. However, significant statistical differences between the constraint handling approaches were found with regards to specific performance indicators.
KeywordsConstrained multi-objective optimization Pareto dominance Penalty functions
This work is based on the research supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa (Grant Number 46712). The opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article is that of the author(s) alone, and not that of the NRF. The NRF accepts no liability whatsoever in this regard.
- 1.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 1998. LNCS, vol. 1498, pp. 292–301. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0056872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Coello Coello, C.A.: A survey of constraint handling techniques used with evolutionary algorithms. Lania-RI-99-04, Laboratorio Nacional de Informática Avanzada (1999)Google Scholar
- 9.Le Riche, R., Knopf-Lenoir, C., Haftka, R.T.: A segregated genetic algorithm for constrained structural optimization. In: ICGA, pp. 558–565. Citeseer (1995)Google Scholar
- 10.Joines, J.A., Houck, C.R.: On the use of non-stationary penalty functions to solve nonlinear constrained optimization problems with GA’s. In: Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, pp. 579–584. IEEE (1994)Google Scholar
- 12.Horn, J., Nafpliotis, N., Goldberg, D.E.: A niched Pareto genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization. In: Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, pp. 82–87. IEEE (1994)Google Scholar
- 15.Sierra, M.R., Coello Coello, C.A.: Improving PSO-based multi-objective optimization using crowding, mutation and \(\in \)-dominance. In: Coello Coello, C.A., Hernández Aguirre, A., Zitzler, E. (eds.) EMO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3410, pp. 505–519. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-31880-4_35CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 17.Kukkonen, S., Lampinen, J.: GDE3: the third evolution step of generalized differential evolution. In: The 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 1, pp. 443–450. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
- 18.Riquelme, N., Von Lücken, C., Baran, B.: Performance metrics in multi-objective optimization. In: Computing Conference (CLEI), 2015 Latin American, pp. 1–11. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
- 19.Jmetal 5. https://jmetal.github.io/jMetal/. Accessed 03 May 2017
- 20.Zhang, Q., Zhou, A., Zhao, S., Suganthan, P.N., Liu, W., Tiwari, S.: Multiobjective optimization test instances for the CEC 2009 special session and competition. University of Essex, Colchester, UK and Nanyang technological University, Singapore, Special Session on Performance Assessment of Multi-objective Optimization Algorithms, Technical report 264 (2008)Google Scholar