Controlled Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithms for Better Convergence

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


Preserving elitism is found to be an important issue in the study of evolutionary multi-objective optimization (EMO). Although there exists a number of new elitist algorithms, where elitism is introduced in different ways, the extent of elitism is likely to be an important matter. The desired extent of elitism is directly related to the so-called exploitation-exploration issue of an evolutionary algorithm (EA). For a particular recombination and mutation operators, there may exist a selection operator with a particular extent of elitism that will cause a smooth working of an EA. In this paper, we suggest an approach where the extent of elitism can be controlled by fixing a user-defined parameter. By applying an elitist multi-objective EA (NSGA-II) to a number of diffcult test problems, we show that the NSGA-II with controlled elitism has much better convergence property than the original NSGA-II. The need for a controlled elitism in evolutionary multi-objective optimiza- tion, demonstrated in this paper should encourage similar or other ways of implementing controlled elitism in other multi-objective evolutionary algorithms.


Multiobjective Optimization Elitist Solution Good Convergence Property Control Elitism Elitist Algorithm 
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.
    Corne, D. W., Knowles, J. D., and Oates, M. J. (2000). The Pareto envelopebased selection algorithm for multiobjective optimization. Proceedings of the Parallel Problem Solving from Nature VI Conference, pp. 839–848.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agrawal, S. and Meyarivan, T. (2000). A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. Technical Report No. 2000001. Kanpur: Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deb, K., Mathur, A. P., Meyarivan, T. (2000). Constrained test problems for multiobjective evolutionary optimization. Technical Report No. 200002. Kanpur: Kanpur Genetic Algorithms Laboratory, IIT Kanpur, India.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A., Meyarivan, T. (2000). A Fast Elitist Non dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II. Proceedings of the Parallel Problem Solving from Nature VI Conference, pp. 849–858.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deb, K. (1999) Multi-objective genetic algorithms: Problem difficulties and construction of test functions. Evolutionary Computation, 7(3), 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deb, K. and Agrawal, R. B. (1995) Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space. Complex Systems, 9 115–148.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Knowles, J. and Corne, D. (1999) The Pareto archived evolution strategy: A new baseline algorithm for multiobjective optimisation. Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Piscataway: New Jersey: IEEE Service Center, 98–105.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Srinivas, N. and Deb, K. (1995). Multi-objective function optimization using nondominated sorting genetic algorithms. Evolutionary Computation(2), 221–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steuer, R. E. (1986). Multiple criteria optimization: Theory, computation, and application. New York: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zitzler, E. (1999). Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: Methods and applications. Doctoral thesis ETH NO. 13398, Zürich: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zitzler, E., Deb, K., and Thiele, L. (2000). Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical results. Evolutionary Computation Journal, 8(2), 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zitzler, E. and Thiele, L. (1998). An evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization: The strength Pareto approach. Technical Report No. 43 (May 1998).Zürich: Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kanpur Genetic Algorithms Laboratory (KanGAL)Indian Institute of Technology KanpurKanpurIndia

Personalised recommendations