An Approach for the Ordering of Evaluation of Objectives in Multiobjective Optimization

  • Preeti Gupta
  • Sanghamitra Bandyopadhyay
  • Ujjwal Maulik
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 201)


The computational complexity of the multiobjective optimization (MOO) increases drastically in the presence of the large number of objectives. It is desirable to lower the complexity of the existing MOO algorithms. In this work we present an algorithm which periodically rearranges the objectives in the objective set such that the conflicting objectives are evaluated and compared earlier than non-conflicting ones. Differential Evolution (DE) is used as the underlying search technique. DE is designed especially for the real optimization problems. We have studied the reduction in the number of function computations and timing requirement achieved with the proposed technique. Remarkably, it is found to be much reduced as compared to the traditional approach. The variation of the gain in the number of objective computations vis-a-vis the number of objectives is demonstrated for a large number of benchmark MOO problems. Additionally, the relationship between the frequency of reordering the objectives and the number of objective computations is also established experimentally.


Multiobjective optimization Manyobjective optimization Non-domination Differential evolution. 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors acknowledge support from Department of Science and Technology, Government of India for Indo-Mexico project (DST/INT/MEX/RPO/04/08). The first author also acknowledges Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India for providing senior research fellowship (File No: 9/93 (0/23)/2010 EMR-I).


  1. Hussein A. Abbas, Rahul Sarker, and Charles Newton. PDE: A Pareto-frontier Differential Evolution Approach for Multi-objective Optimization Problems. In In Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation 2001 (CEC’2001), pages 971–978, Piscataway, New Jersey, (2001).Google Scholar
  2. B. V. Babu, M. Mathew, and Leenus Jehan. Differential Evolution For Multiobjective Optimisation. In In Proceedings of the 2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation(CEC’2003), pages 2696–2703, Canberra, Australia, (2003).Google Scholar
  3. S. Bandyopadhyay, S. K. Pal, and B. Aruna. Multi-objective GAs, quantitative indices and pattern classification. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernatics-B, 34(5):2088–2099, (2004).Google Scholar
  4. D. Brockhoff and E. Zitzler. Objective Reduction in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization: Theory and Applications. Evolutionary Computation, 17(2):135–166, (2009).Google Scholar
  5. C. Coello, D. V. Veldhuizen, and G. Lamont. Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems. Wiley, (2002).Google Scholar
  6. K. Deb. Multiobjective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Wiley, (2001).Google Scholar
  7. Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and T. Meyariavan. Scalable Test Problems for Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pages 825–830, Honolulu, May 12–17 (2002).Google Scholar
  8. M. Farina and P. Amato. A fuzzy definition of “optimality” for many-criteria optimization problems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A-Systems and Humans, 34(3):315–326, May (2004).Google Scholar
  9. P. J. Fleming, R. C. Purhouse, and R. J. Lygoe. Many objective optimization: An engineering design perspective. In lecture Notes in Computer Science 3410: Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimisation-EMO, pages 14–32. Springer, Berlin, March (2005).Google Scholar
  10. E. J. Hughes. Evolutionary many objective optimization: Many once or one many ? In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pages 222–227, Edinburgh, September 2–5 (2005).Google Scholar
  11. Antonio López Jaimes, Hernán Aguirre, Kiyoshi Tanaka, and Carlos A. Coello Coello. Objective Space Partitioning Using Conflict Information for Many-Objective Optimization. In Robert Schaefer, Carlos Cotta, Joanna Kołodziej, and Günter Rudolph, editors, Parallel Problem Solving from Nature-PPSN XI, 11th International Conference, Proceedings, Part I, pages 657–666. Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 6238, Kraków, Poland, September (2010).Google Scholar
  12. Julin Molina, Luis V. Santana, Alfredo G. Hernndez-Daz, Carlos A. Coello Coello, and Rafael Caballero. g-dominance: Reference point based dominance for Multi-Objective Metaheuristics. European Journal of Operational Research, 197(2):685–692, September (2009).Google Scholar
  13. K. Price, R. Storn, and J. Lampien. Differential Evolution- A Practical Approach to Global Optimization. Springer, Berlin, (2005).Google Scholar
  14. R. C. Purhouse and P. J. Fleming. Evolutionary many objective optimization: An exploratory analysis. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pages 2066–2073, Canberra, December 8–12 (2003).Google Scholar
  15. J. R. Schott. Fault tolerant design using single and multi-criteria genetic algorithms. PhD thesis, (1995).Google Scholar
  16. R. Storn and K. Price. Differential Evolution-a Simple and Efficient Heuristic for Global Optimization over Continuous Spaces. Journal of Global Optimization, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 11:341–359, (1997).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Preeti Gupta
    • 1
  • Sanghamitra Bandyopadhyay
    • 1
  • Ujjwal Maulik
    • 2
  1. 1.Machine Intelligence UnitIndian Statistical InstituteKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringJadavpur UniversityKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations