An Improvement on NSGA-II for Finding Fast the Better Optimal Solution in Multi-objective Optimization Problem

  • Praloy Shankar De
  • B. S. P. Mishra
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 308)


Nowadays, the most real-life problems are multi-objective or many objective in nature, which needs to be optimized to give a promising solution to the user. But the problem comes when we have to select the most significant solution from the large solution space. As a result, by applying genetic algorithm, we get a front which contains number of optimal solutions named as Pareto-optimal front. To select the most significant solution from a number of optimal solutions is a very difficult task as all solutions are nondominated to each other. The decision maker has to select a single solution. In this paper, we have shown an improvement on NSGA-II in order to select quickly the most significant and acceptable solution by the decision maker.


Multi-objective optimization Pareto-optimal front Genetic algorithm NSGA-II Decision maker 


  1. 1.
    Deb, K.: Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithm. Wiley, New York, ISBN 9814-12-685-3 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Srinivas, N., Deb, K.: Multi-objective optimization using non-dominated sorting in Genetic Algorithm. J. Evol. Comput. 2(3), 221–248 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6(2), 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L.: Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms: a case study and the strength pareto approach. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 3(4), 257–271 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knowles, J., Corne, D.: The pareto archived evolution strategy: a new baseline algorithm for multi-objective optimization In: Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on evolutionary computation. NJ:IEEE Press, Piscataway, pp. 98–105 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., Thiele, L.: SPEA2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm, pp. 1–21. Department of Electrical Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tamura, K., Miura, S.: Necessary and sufficient conditions for local and global nondominated solutions in decision problems with multi-objectives. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 28(24), August (1979)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sudeng, S., Wattana Pongsakorn, N.: Pruning Algorithm for multi-objective optimization. In: 10th International joint conference on computer science and software engineering (JCSE), IEEE, pp. 70–75 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huband, Simon, Hingston, Philip, Barone, Luigi, While, Lyndon: A review of multi-objective test problems and a scalable test problem toolkit. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 10(5), 477–506 (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deb, K., Mohan, M., Mishra, S.: A fast multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for finding well-spread pareto optimal solutions. KanGAL report number 20032002, pp. 1–18 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chaudhari, P.M., Dharaskar, R.V., Thakare, V.M.: Computing the most significant solution from Pareto front obtained in multi-objective evolutionary. Int. J. Adv. Comp. Sci. Appl. (IJACSA) 1(4), 63–68 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morse, J.N.: Reducing the size of the nondominated set pruning by clustering. Comput. Oper. Res. 7, 55–56 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosenman, M.A., Gero, J.S.: Reducing the Pareto optimal set in multicriteria optimization (with applications to Pareto optimal dynamic programming). Eng. Optim. 8, 189–206 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ward Jr., J.H.: Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 58(301), 236–244 (1963)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ishibuchi, H., Tsukamato, N., Nojima, Y.: Evolutionary many objective optimization: a short review. In: Proceedings of 2008 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp. 2424–2431. Hong Kong, June 1–6, (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Köppen, M., Yoshida, K.: Substitute Distance Assignment in NSGA-II for Handling Many Objective Optimization Problems, EMO 2007, LNCS 4403, pp. 727–741. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jain, H., Deb, K.: An Improved Adaptive Approach for Elitist Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithms for Many-objective Optimization, EMO 2013, LNCS 7811, pp. 307–321. Springer, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu, L., Özyer, T., Alhajj, R., Barker, K.: Cluster validity analysis of alternative results from multi-objective optimization. In: Proceedings of the fifth SIAM international conference on data mining, pp. 496–500, Newport Beach, Canada (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer EngineeringKIIT UniversityBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations