Specification of Genetic Search Directions in Cellular Multi-objective Genetic Algorithms
- 3.9k Downloads
When we try to implement a multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) with variable weights for finding a set of Pareto optimal solutions, one difficulty lies in determining appropriate search directions for genetic search. In our MOGA, a weight value for each objective in a scalar fitness function was randomly specified. Based on the fitness function with the randomly specified weight values, a pair of parent solutions are selected for generating a new solution by genetic operations. In order to find a variety of Pareto optimal solutions of a multi-objective optimization problem, weight vectors should be distributed uniformly on the Pareto optimal surface. In this paper, we propose a proportional weight specification method for our MOGA and its variants. We apply the proposed weight specification method to our MOGA and a cellular MOGA for examining its effect on their search ability.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley (1989).Google Scholar
- 2.Schaffer, J.D.: Multi-objective optimization with vector evaluated genetic algorithms. Proc. of 1st Int’l Conf. on Genetic Algorithms (1985) 93–100.Google Scholar
- 4.Horn, J., Nafpliotis, N. and Goldberg, D.E.: A niched Pareto genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization. Proc. of 1st IEEE Int’l Conf. on Evolutionary Computation (1994) 82–87.Google Scholar
- 6.Murata, T. and Ishibuchi, H.: Multi-objective genetic algorithm and its applications to flowshop scheduling. International Journal of Computers and Engineering 30, 4 (1996) 957–968.Google Scholar
- 9.Murata, T. and Gen, M.: Cellular genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization. Proc. of 4th Asian Fuzzy System Symposium (2000) 538–542.Google Scholar
- 10.Murata, T., Ishibuchi, H., and Gen, M.: Cellular genetic local search for multi-objective optimization. Proc. of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2000 (2000) 307–314.Google Scholar
- 11.Whitley, D.: Cellular Genetic Algorithms. Proc. of 5th Int’l Conf. on Genetic Algorithms (1993) 658.Google Scholar
- 12.Manderick, B. and Spiessens, P.: Fine-grained parallel genetic algorithms. Proc. of 3rd Int’l Conf. on Genetic Algorithms (1989) 428–433.Google Scholar
- 17.Oliphant, M.: Evolving cooperation in the non-iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma: The importance of spatial organization. in R. A. Brooks and P. Maes (Eds.), Artificial Life IV, MIT Press, Cambridge (1994) 349–352.Google Scholar
- 19.Ishibuchi, H., Nakari, T., and Nakashima T.: Evolution of Strategies in Spatial IPD Games with Structured Demes, Proc. of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2000 (2000).Google Scholar
- 23.Esbensen, H.: Defining solution set quality. Memorandum (No.UCB/ERL M96/1, Electric Research Laboratory, College of Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley, USA, Jan., 1996).Google Scholar