Enhanced distribution and exploration for multiobjective evolutionary algorithms

The main objectives of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms are to minimize the distance between the solution set and true Pareto front, to distribute the solutions evenly and to maximize the spread of solution set. This paper addresses these issues by presenting two features that enhance the ability of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. The first feature is a variant of the mutation operator that adapts the mutation rate along the evolution process to maintain a balance between the introduction of diversity and local fine-tuning. In addition, this adaptive mutation operator adopts a new approach to strike a compromise between the preservation and disruption of genetic information. The second feature is a novel enhanced exploration strategy that encourages the exploration towards less populated areas and hence achieves better discovery of gaps in the generated front. This strategy also preserves nondominated solutions in the evolving population and hence gives good convergence. Comparative studies show that the proposed features are effective.

[1]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  SPEA2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm , 2001 .

[2]  David W. Corne,et al.  Approximating the Nondominated Front Using the Pareto Archived Evolution Strategy , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  Tong Heng Lee,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms with dynamic population size and local exploration for multiobjective optimization , 2001, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[4]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  Multiobjective genetic algorithms made easy: selection sharing and mating restriction , 1995 .

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

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

[7]  Tong Heng Lee,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Performance Assessments and Comparisons , 2001, Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No.01TH8546).

[8]  E. F. Khor,et al.  An Evolutionary Algorithm with Advanced Goal and Priority Specification for Multi-objective Optimization , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[9]  Martin J. Oates,et al.  The Pareto Envelope-Based Selection Algorithm for Multi-objective Optimisation , 2000, PPSN.

[10]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[11]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

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

[13]  C. Fonseca,et al.  GENETIC ALGORITHMS FOR MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION: FORMULATION, DISCUSSION, AND GENERALIZATION , 1993 .

[14]  I. Harvey,et al.  On recombination and optimal mutation rates , 1999 .

[15]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  Genetic Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: FormulationDiscussion and Generalization , 1993, ICGA.

[16]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  An Investigation of Niche and Species Formation in Genetic Function Optimization , 1989, ICGA.

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

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

[19]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Intelligent Mutation Rate Control in Canonical Genetic Algorithms , 1996, ISMIS.

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