Adapting evolutionary dynamics of variation for multi-objective optimization

Many real-world applications involve complex optimization problem with various competing specifications and constraints that are often difficult, if not impossible, to be solved without the aid of powerful and efficient optimization algorithms. Although evolutionary algorithms have proven to be successful with respect to the optimization goals of proximity and diversity, their capability is bottlenecked by the evolutionary operators' abilities to deal with the complicated search spaces. Furthermore, it is well known that the algorithm's performances in different problems are sensitive to the parameter setting of the operators. In an effort to adapt the evolutionary search ability along the different regions of the search space, this paper proposes a dynamic variation operator whose parameter value is deterministically adapted during the algorithm run so as to maintain a balance between the extensive exploration in the early phase and local fine-tuning in the end phase. Comparative studies with some representative variation operators are performed on different benchmark problems to illustrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed operator.

[1]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  An Experimental Comparison of Binary and Floating Point Representations in Genetic Algorithms , 1991, ICGA.

[2]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  W. Spears,et al.  On the Virtues of Parameterized Uniform Crossover , 1995 .

[4]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms , 2001, Wiley-Interscience series in systems and optimization.

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

[6]  Tong Heng Lee,et al.  Evolving better population distribution and exploration in evolutionary multi-objective optimization , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[7]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Optimization for Engineering Design: Algorithms and Examples , 2004 .

[8]  William M. Spears,et al.  Crossover or Mutation? , 1992, FOGA.

[9]  Steven Guan,et al.  Incremental multiple objective genetic algorithms , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).

[10]  Peter Nordin,et al.  Complexity Compression and Evolution , 1995, ICGA.

[11]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Parameter Control in Evolutionary Algorithms , 2007, Parameter Setting in Evolutionary Algorithms.

[12]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Parameter control in evolutionary algorithms , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[13]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: classifications, analyses, and new innovations , 1999 .

[14]  Susana Cecilia Esquivel Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objetive problems . Carlos A. Coello Coello, David A. van Veldhuizen and Gary R., Lamont , 2002 .

[15]  J. David Schaffer,et al.  An Adaptive Crossover Distribution Mechanism for Genetic Algorithms , 1987, ICGA.

[16]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  Multiobjective optimization and multiple constraint handling with evolutionary algorithms. II. Application example , 1998, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[17]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Optimal Mutation Rates in Genetic Search , 1993, ICGA.

[18]  Terence C. Fogarty,et al.  Varying the Probability of Mutation in the Genetic Algorithm , 1989, ICGA.

[19]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Analyzing the State-of-the-Art , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[20]  Frank Kursawe,et al.  A Variant of Evolution Strategies for Vector Optimization , 1990, PPSN.