Advertisement

A Preliminary Study on Impact of Dying of Solution on Performance of Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm

  • Rahila Patel
  • M. M. Raghuwanshi
  • Latesh Malik
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 259)

Abstract

Genetic Algorithm (GA) mimics natural evolutionary process. Since dying of an organism is important part of natural evolutionary process, GA should have some mechanism for dying of solutions just like GA have crossover operator for birth of solutions. In nature, occurrence of event of dying of an organism has some reasons like aging, disease, malnutrition and so on. In this work we propose three strategies of dying or removal of solution from next generation population. Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA) takes decision of removal of solution, based on one of these three strategies. Experiments were performed to show impact of dying of solutions and dying strategies on the performance of MOGA.

Keywords

Multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) Diversity Convergence Dying of solutions Dying strategies 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimisation and Machine Learning. Addison Wesley, Reading (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deb, K.: Multi-objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms. Wiley, West Sussex (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A., Meyarivan, T.: A fast elitist nondominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference, PPSN VI, LNCS, vol. 1917, Paris, France, pp. 849–858 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corne, D., Knowles, J., Oates, M.: The Pareto envelope-based selection algorithm for multi-objective optimization. In: Proceedings of International Conference on PPSN VI, LNCS, vol. 1917, pp. 839–848 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horn, J., Nafpliotis, N., Goldberg, D.E.: A niched Pareto genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization. In: Proceedings of the First IEEE CEC, USA, pp. 82–87 (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Knowles, J., Corne, D.: The Pareto archived evolution strategy: a new baseline algorithm for Pareto multi-objective optimisation. In: Proceedings of CEC99, USA, pp. 98–105 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schaffer, J.D: Multiple objective optimization with vector evaluated genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of First International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and Their Applications, pp. 93–100 (1985)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patel, R., Raghuwanshi, M., Malik L.: An improved ranking scheme for selection of parents in multi-objective genetic algorithm. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on CSNT 2011, SMVDU (J&K), pp. 734–739 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Al-Qunaieer, F.S., Tizhoosh, H.R., Rahnamayan, S.: Opposition based computing—a survey. In: Proceedings of IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raghuwanshi, M., Kakde, O.: Multi-parent recombination operator with polynomial or lognormal distribution for real coded genetic algorithm. In: Proceedings of 2nd Indian International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IICAI), pp. 3274–3290 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang, Q., Zhou, A., Zhao, S.Z., Suganthan, P.N., Liu, W., Tiwari, S.: Multi-objective optimization test instances for the CEC 2009 special session and competition. Technical report, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rahila Patel
    • 1
  • M. M. Raghuwanshi
    • 2
  • Latesh Malik
    • 1
  1. 1.G.H. Raisoni College of EngineeringNagpurIndia
  2. 2.Rajiv Gandhi College of Engineering and ResearchNagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations