Advertisement

An Infeasibility Objective for Use in Constrained Pareto Optimization

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1993)

Abstract

A new method of constraint handling for multi-objective Pareto optimization is proposed. The method is compared to an approach in which each constraint function is treated as a separate objective in a Pareto optimization. The new method reduces the dimensionality of the optimization problem by representing the constraint violations by a single “infeasibility objective”. The performance of the method is examined using two constrained multi-objective test problems. It is shown that the method results in solutions that are equivalent to the constrained Pareto optimal solutions for the true objective functions. It is also concluded that the reduction in dimensionality of the problem results in a more transparent set of solutions. The method retains elegance of the underlying Pareto optimization and does not preclude the representation of a constraint as an objective function where this is considered important. The method is easily implemented and has no parameters to be tuned.

Keywords

Multiobjective Optimization Pareto Optimal Solution Constraint Violation Pareto Optimization Pareto Solution 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Narayanan S., Azarm S.: On improving multiobjective genetic algorithms for design optimization. Structural Optimization, 18 No.2-3, (1999), 146–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Fonseca C.M., Fleming P.J.: Multiobjective Optimization and Multiple Constraint Handling with Evolutionary Algorithms-Part 1: A Unified Formulation. IEEE Transactions on systems and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans 28 No.1, (1998), 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Fonesca C.M., Fleming P.J.: Multiobjective Genetic Algorithms Made Easy: Selection, Sharing and Mating Restriction. Genetic Algorithms in Engineering Systems: Innovations and Applications Conference Publication No.414, IEE, (1995), 12–14.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Goldberg D.E., Richardson J.: Genetic Algorithms with sharing for multi-modal function optimization. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms’, (1987), 41–49.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Deb K., Goldberg D.E.: An investigation of Niche and Species Formation in Genetic Function Optimization. Proceedings Of The Third International Conference On Genetic Algorithms, (1989), 42–50.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Srinivas N., Deb K.: Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evolutionary Computation, 2, (1995) 221–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Building EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations