Compressed-Objective Genetic Algorithm

  • Kuntinee Maneeratana
  • Kittipong Boonlong
  • Nachol Chaiyaratana
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4193)


A strategy for solving an optimisation problem with a large number of objectives by transforming the original objective vector into a two-objective vector during survival selection is presented. The transformed objectives, referred to as preference objectives, consist of a winning score and a vicinity index. The winning score, a maximisation criterion, describes the difference of the number of superior and inferior objectives between two solutions. The minimisation vicinity index describes the level of solution clustering around a search location, particularly the best value of each individual objective, is used to encourage the results to spread throughout the Pareto front. With this strategy, a new multi-objective algorithm, the compressed-objective genetic algorithm (COGA), is introduced. COGA is subsequently benchmarked against a non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) and an improved strength Pareto genetic algorithm (SPEA-II) in six scalable DTLZ benchmark problems with three to six objectives. The results reveal that the proposed strategy plays a crucial role in the generation of a superior solution set compared to the other two techniques in terms of the solution set coverage and the closeness to the true Pareto front. Furthermore, the spacing of COGA solutions is very similar to that of SPEA-II solutions. Overall, the functionality of the multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) with preference objectives is effectively demonstrated.


Genetic Algorithm Pareto Front Multiobjective Optimization Extreme Solution Preference Objective 
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. 1.
    Horn, J., Nafpliotis, N.: Multiobjective optimization using the niched Pareto genetic algorithm. IlliGAL Report No. 93005, Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Srinivas, N., Deb, K.: Multi-objective function optimization using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms. Evol. Comput. 2(3), 221–248 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fonseca, C.M., Fleming, P.J.: Multiobjective optimization and multiple constraint handling with evolutionary algorithms–Part 1: A unified formulation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A Syst. Hum. 28(1), 26–37 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L.: Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 3(4), 257–271 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deb, K., Goel, T.: Controlled Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithms for Better Convergence. In: Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele, L., Coello Coello, C.A., Corne, D.W. (eds.) EMO 2001. LNCS, vol. 1993, pp. 67–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6(2), 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., Thiele, L.: SPEA2: Improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization. In: Giannakoglou, K., Tsahalis, D., Periaux, J., Papailiou, K., Fogarty, T. (eds.) Evolutionary Methods for Design, Optimisation and Control, CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 95–100 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaiyaratana, N., Piroonratana, T., Sangkawelert, N.: Effects of diversity control in single-objective and multi-objective genetic algorithms. J. Heuristics (in press, 2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deb, K., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Zitzler, E.: Scalable test problems for evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In: Abraham, A., Jain, L.C., Goldberg, R. (eds.) Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization: Theoretical Advances and Applications, pp. 105–145. Springer, London (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele, L.: Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical results. Evol. Comput. 8(2), 173–195 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deb, K.: Multi-objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Wiley, Chichester (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Purshouse, R.C., Fleming, P.J.: Conflict, harmony, and independence: Relationships in evolutionary multi-criterion optimisation. In: Fonseca, C.M., Fleming, P.J., Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele, L. (eds.) EMO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2632, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kuntinee Maneeratana
    • 1
  • Kittipong Boonlong
    • 1
  • Nachol Chaiyaratana
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand
  2. 2.Research and Development Center for Intelligent SystemsKing Mongkut’s Institute of Technology North BangkokBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations