Journal Article10.1016/j.swevo.2022.101104
Evolutionary Algorithm with Dynamic Population Size for Constrained Multiobjective Optimization
25
TL;DR: In this article , an effective evolutionary algorithm with a dynamic population size (DPSEA) was proposed to balance exploration and exploitation, in which the population size of DPSEA decreases continually as generation increases.
read more
Abstract: The core task of constrained multiobjective optimization is to achieve a tradeoff between exploration and exploitation as well as a tradeoff between constraints and objectives. We present an effective evolutionary algorithm with a dynamic population size (DPSEA) to achieve these two tradeoffs. In order to balance exploration and exploitation, the population size of DPSEA decreases continually as generation increases. In this manner, a bigger population size can encourage exploration in the early stage, while a smaller one can promote exploitation in the later stage. Aiming to balance constraints and objectives, a two-stage environmental selection strategy is proposed. In this strategy, objective information and constraint information is used to select two sets of solutions, respectively. Note that the sizes of these two sets are also adjusted dynamically. In this way, the information of both objectives and constraints can be used. Moreover, a novel mating selection strategy is designed to select promising parents. By assembling the above processes, DPSEA is able to achieve the two tradeoffs which are critical to constrained multiobjective optimization. Experiments on three sets of benchmark test functions owning difficult characteristics validate that DPSEA is competitive against some state-of-the-art constrained multiobjective optimization evolutionary algorithms.
read more
Chat with Paper
AI Agents for this Paper
Find similar papers on Google Scholar, PubMed and Arxiv
Write a critical review of this paper
Analyze citations of this paper to find unaddressed research gaps
Citations
Constrained multimodal multi-objective optimization: Test problem construction and algorithm design
TL;DR: Zhang et al. as mentioned in this paper proposed a test problem construction approach for constrained multimodal multi-objective optimization (MMOP) problems and a new evolutionary framework is tailored for this kind of problem.
24
A dual-population evolutionary algorithm based on dynamic constraint processing and resources allocation for constrained multi-objective optimization problems
Kangjia Qiao,Zhaolin Chen,Boyang Qu,Kunjie Yu,Caitong Yue,Ke Chen,Jing Liang +6 more
TL;DR: This paper proposes a dual-population evolutionary algorithm for constrained multi-objective optimization problems, incorporating dynamic constraint processing and resource allocation to improve search ability and feasibility, outperforming state-of-the-art algorithms on various test suites and practical problems.
13
Benchmark problems for large-scale constrained multi-objective optimization with baseline results
Kangjia Qiao,Jing Liang,Kunjie Yu,Weifeng Guo,Caitong Yue,Boyang Qu,P. Suganthan +6 more
TL;DR: This paper proposes a new large-scale constrained multi-objective optimization benchmark with realistic features and a bidirectional sampling strategy to accelerate convergence and maintain diversity, outperforming existing algorithms on a network structure control-based problem with 2000+ variables.
11
A parallel approximate evaluation-based model for multi-objective operation optimization of reservoir group
Yongmei Liu,Tao Bai,Mingjiang Deng,Qiang Huang,Xiaoting Wei,Jian Liu +5 more
TL;DR: Zhang et al. as mentioned in this paper proposed a parallel approximate evaluation-based model (PAEM) to enhance search ability and shorten calculation time as well as realize accurate control of approximation errors, and established a multi-objective operation model PAEM-LSTM by combining PAEM and LSTM for the fast formulation of operating rule.
11
Adaptive constraint handling technique selection for constrained multi-objective optimization
Chao Wang,Zhihao Liu,Jian Feng Qiu,Lei Zhang +3 more
TL;DR: This study proposes an adaptive constraint handling technique selection method using deep reinforcement learning for constrained multi-objective optimization problems, enabling tailored CHT selection across different evolutionary states and achieving optimal results on 19 out of 37 test problems.
9
References
A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II
TL;DR: This paper suggests a non-dominated sorting-based MOEA, called NSGA-II (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II), which alleviates all of the above three difficulties, and modify the definition of dominance in order to solve constrained multi-objective problems efficiently.
MOEA/D: A Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition
Qingfu Zhang,Hui Li +1 more
TL;DR: Experimental results have demonstrated that MOEA/D with simple decomposition methods outperforms or performs similarly to MOGLS and NSGA-II on multiobjective 0-1 knapsack problems and continuous multiobjectives optimization problems.
SPEA2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm
Eckart Zitzler,Marco Laumanns,Lothar Thiele +2 more
- 01 Jan 2001
TL;DR: An improved version of SPEA, namely SPEA2, is proposed, which incorporates in contrast to its predecessor a fine-grained fitness assignment strategy, a density estimation technique, and an enhanced archive truncation method.
6K
An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms
TL;DR: GA's population-based approach and ability to make pair-wise comparison in tournament selection operator are exploited to devise a penalty function approach that does not require any penalty parameter to guide the search towards the constrained optimum.
3.9K
•Journal Article
Simulated Binary Crossover for Continuous Search Space.
TL;DR: A real-coded crossover operator is developed whose search power is similar to that of the single-point crossover used in binary-coded GAs, and SBX is found to be particularly useful in problems having mult ip le optimal solutions with a narrow global basin where the lower and upper bo unds of the global optimum are not known a priori.
3.3K