Experimental Genetic Operators Analysis for the Multi-objective Permutation Flowshop

The aim of this paper is to show the influence of genetic operators such as crossover and mutation on the performance of a genetic algorithm (GA). The GA is applied to the multi-objective permutation flowshop problem. To achieve our goal an experimental study of a set of crossover and mutation operators is presented. A measure related to the dominance relations of different non-dominated sets, generated by different algorithms, is proposed so as to decide which algorithm is the best. The main conclusion is that there is a crossover operator having the best average performance on a very specific set of instances, and under a very specific criterion. Explaining the reason why a given operator is better than others remains an open problem.

[1]  Débora P. Ronconi,et al.  Tabu search for total tardiness minimization in flowshop scheduling problems , 1999, Comput. Oper. Res..

[2]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  A multi-objective genetic local search algorithm and its application to flowshop scheduling , 1998, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C.

[3]  Mitsuo Gen,et al.  Genetic Algorithms & Engineering Optimization , 2000 .

[4]  D.A. Van Veldhuizen,et al.  On measuring multiobjective evolutionary algorithm performance , 2000, Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC00 (Cat. No.00TH8512).

[5]  Mitsuo Gen,et al.  Genetic Algorithms and Manufacturing Systems Design , 1996 .

[6]  Hisashi Tamaki,et al.  A Genetic Algorithm Approach to Multi-Objective Scheduling Problems with Regular and Non-Regular Objective Functions , 1998 .

[7]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Why Quality Assessment Of Multiobjective Optimizers Is Difficult , 2002, GECCO.

[8]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Multi-objective Genetic Algorithms: Problem Difficulties and Construction of Test Problems , 1999, Evolutionary Computation.

[9]  Christian Bierwirth,et al.  On Permutation Representations for Scheduling Problems , 1996, PPSN.

[10]  Joshua D. Knowles,et al.  On metrics for comparing nondominated sets , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600).

[11]  D. E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search , 1989 .

[12]  Carlos A. Brizuela,et al.  Multi-objective Flow-Shop: Preliminary Results , 2001, EMO.

[13]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems , 2002, Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation.

[14]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Multi-objective genetic local search algorithm , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[15]  C. A. Coello Coello,et al.  A Comprehensive Survey of Evolutionary-Based Multiobjective Optimization Techniques , 1999, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[16]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[17]  Tapan P. Bagchi,et al.  Multiobjective Scheduling by Genetic Algorithms , 1999 .

[18]  Ravi Sethi,et al.  The Complexity of Flowshop and Jobshop Scheduling , 1976, Math. Oper. Res..

[19]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  MULTI-OBJECTIVE FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION USING NON-DOMINATED SORTING GENETIC ALGORITHMS , 1994 .

[20]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Muiltiobjective Optimization Using Nondominated Sorting in Genetic Algorithms , 1994, Evolutionary Computation.

[21]  El-Ghazali Talbi,et al.  Design of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms: application to the flow-shop scheduling problem , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600).