A Fast Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-objective Optimization: NSGA-II
Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms which use non-dominated sorting and sharing have been mainly criticized for their (i) O(MN 3) computational complexity (where M is the number of objectives and N is the population size), (ii) non-elitism approach, and (iii) the need for specifying a sharing parameter. In this paper, we suggest a non-dominated sorting based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (we called it the Non-dominated Sorting GA-II or NSGA-II) which alleviates all the above three difficulties. Specifically, a fast non-dominated sorting approach with O(MN 2) computational complexity is presented. Second, a selection operator is presented which creates a mating pool by combining the parent and child populations and selecting the best (with respect to fitness and spread) N solutions. Simulation results on five difficult test problems show that the proposed NSGA-II, in most problems, is able to find much better spread of solutions and better convergence near the true Pareto-optimal front compared to PAES and SPEA—two other elitist multi-objective EAs which pay special attention towards creating a diverse Pareto-optimal front. Because of NSGA-II’s low computational requirements, elitist approach, and parameter-less sharing approach, NSGA-II should find increasing applications in the years to come.
KeywordsMultiobjective Optimization Sharing Parameter Binary Tournament Selection Simulated Binary Crossover Niched Pareto Genetic Algorithm
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Deb, K. (1999) Multi-objective genetic algorithms: Problem difficulties and construction of test Functions. Evolutionary Computation, 7(3), 205–230.Google Scholar
- 3.Fonseca, C. M. and Fleming, P. J. (1993) Genetic algorithms for multi-objective optimization: Formulation, discussion and generalization. In Forrest, S., editor, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 416–423, Morgan Kauffman, San Mateo, California.Google Scholar
- 4.Fonseca, C. M. and Fleming, P. J. (1998). Multiobjective optimization and multiple constraint handling with evolutionary algorithms-Part II: Application example. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Part A: Systems and Humans. 38–47.Google Scholar
- 5.Horn, J. and Nafploitis, N., and Goldberg, D. E. (1994) A niched Pareto genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization. In Michalewicz, Z., editor, Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation, pages 82–87, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, New Jersey.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Rudolph, G. (1999) Evolutionary search under partially ordered sets. Technical Report No. CI-67/99, Dortmund: Department of Computer Science/LS11, University of Dortmund, Germany.Google Scholar
- 8.Srinivas, N. and Deb, K. (1995) Multi-Objective function optimization using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms, Evolutionary Computation, 2(3):221–248.Google Scholar
- 9.van Veldhuizen, D. and Lamont, G. B. (1998). Multiobjective evolutionary algorithm research: A history and analysis. Report Number TR-98-03. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Air Force Institute of Technology.Google Scholar