Normalized Ranking Based Particle Swarm Optimizer for Many Objective Optimization
Nearly all solutions are Pareto non-dominated for multi-objective problems with more than three conflicting objectives. Thus, the comparison of solutions is a critical issue in many objective optimization. A simple but effective normalized ranking metric based method is proposed to compare solutions in this paper. All solutions are ranked by the sum of normalized fitness value of each objective. A solution with a small value is considered to be a good solution for minimum optimization problems. To enhance the population diversity of all solutions, the solutions with small values and the solutions with better fitness values on each objective are kept in an archive and updated per iteration. This ranking metric is further utilized in a particle swarm optimization algorithm to solve multiobjective and many objective problems. Four benchmark problems are utilized to test the proposed algorithm. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed algorithm is a promising approach for solving the multiobjective and many objective optimization problems.
KeywordsDiversity maintaining Multiple/many objective optimization Particle swarm optimizer Normalized ranking
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61672334, 61403121, and 61273367; in part by the Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Committee under grant number ZDSYS201703031748284; and in part by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant GK201703062.
- 1.Bhattacharjee, K., Singh, H., Ryan, M., Ray, T.: Bridging the gap: many-objective optimization and informed decision-making. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. (2017, in press)Google Scholar
- 2.Cheng, R., Jin, Y., Olhofer, M., Sendhoff, B.: Test problems for large-scale multiobjective and many-objective optimization. IEEE Trans. Cybern. (2017, in press)Google Scholar
- 4.Cheng, S., Shi, Y., Qin, Q.: Population diversity based study on search information propagation in particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of 2012 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2012), pp. 1272–1279. IEEE, Brisbane (2012)Google Scholar
- 7.Corne, D., Knowles, J.: Techniques for highly multiobjective optimisation: some nondominated points are better than others. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 2002), London, pp. 773–780 (2007)Google Scholar
- 8.Deb, K., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Zitzler, E.: Scalable multi-objective optimization test problems. In: Proceedings of 2002 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2002), pp. 825–830 (2002)Google Scholar
- 10.Farina, M., Amato, P.: On the optimal solution definition for many-criteria optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS-FLINT 2002), pp. 233–238 (2002)Google Scholar
- 12.Jaimes, A.L., Quintero, L.V.S., Coello, C.A.C.: Ranking methods in many-objective evolutionary algorithms. In: Chiong, R. (ed.) Nature-Inspired Algorithms for Optimisation. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 193, pp. 413–434. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-00267-0_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R., Shi, Y.: Swarm Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
- 19.Yuan, Y., Ong, Y.S., Gupta, A., Xu, H.: Objective reduction in many-objective optimization: evolutionary multiobjective approaches and comprehensive analysis. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. (2017, in press)Google Scholar