An Overview of “An Overview of Evolutionary Algorithms in Multiobjective Optimization” Kenny Ayers This paper seeks to discuss, compare and

contrast the use of evolutionary algorithms for solving multiobjective optimization problems. Initially evolutionary algorithms were only applied to single-objective optimization problems. The application of evolutionary algorithms in multiobjective optimization problems brings about issues unique apart from single-objective applications and requires the development of new methods for creating new generations of optimized children in the evolutionary process as well as new methods for quantifying the objective qualities of each subsequent generation. Objectives sought in multiobjective issues are often directly competitive and in some cases mutually exclusive. As the number of objectives increases, so does the complexity of the problem being analyzed, and the metrics for determining what an optimal solution is increases in complexity as well. This competition between objectives is a key attribute for multiobjective optimization problems. The optimized solution set is described as Pareto optimal, or the non-dominated set: “The family of solutions of a multiobjective optimization problem is composed of all those elements of the search space which are such that the components of the corresponding objective vectors cannot be all simultaneously improved.” (Fonseca and Fleming, 1995) There are varied approaches to finding the Pareto optimal set: plain aggregating, population-based non-Pareto, Pareto-based, and niche-induction. Using plain aggregating approaches, quantifying the objective value of a resultant generation in a genetic algorithm requires applying a scalar fitness function to the measurable information about that generation of offspring. Aggregating functions can use a weighted sum of attributes, simply applying a weight to each attribute to measure its quality. Target vector optimization is another technique which seeks to put the solution point on in between the multiple optimal solution peaks of a given goal-set. Multiple attribute utility analysis (MAUA) is a technique that has yet to be applied to (as of the writing of Fonseca and Fleming’s paper – 1995) but has been posited as a possibly valid approach. Schaefer applied the Vector Evaluated Genetic Algorithm (VEGA) populationbased non-Pareto approach to seeking an optimized result for multiobjective genetic algorithms (Fonseca and Fleming – 8). VEGA resulted in an important phenomena described as speciation, where the offspring of the genetic algorithms show strong traits towards optimizing a few, but not all objectives. Furthermore his approach is different in that the objective rating of the non-dominated offspring (whose objective ratings are equal) over another non-dominated offspring – which runs counter to the non-dominated definition. They should be equal, but they are not. These approaches used some parts of the Pareto optimality theory, but did not apply the true definition wherein each non-dominated member is assigned an equivalent

using two different metrics for comparison: maximum/minimum averaging (Figure 6) and Pareto-ranking (Figure 7): (Fonseca and Fleming. 1995) . Here are two representations of what is called the cost landscape for two objectives. however they are still a useful tool in understanding fitness. Another Pareto-based approach was developed by Fonseca and Fleming.rank. It was not until 1989 that Goldberg first used true Pareto optimality theory to find a non-dominated solution set of optimizations. where-in there is no preferential treatment for any one objective or it can use a sliding scale of preference information to decide which objective is more important than others. His Pareto-based approach created a solution set. Fitness assignment can either be purely Pareto-based. Despite the equivalent ranking of all members of the non-dominated set. These landscapes change dynamically as subsequent generations evolve their genetic traits. This technique was also adopted by Fonseca and Fleming as well as Horn and Nafpliotis who created a variation of the technique. whereby they assigned a rank of 1 to the nondominated set. Next he removed those from the set and again assigned a rank to the equivalent. nondominated solutions – this time the rank of 2. it is common for the subsequent generations to favor a the genetic traits of a single member. Mating restrictions have been implemented as well to ensure that those offspring located around a local optimal region share genetics that aren’t drastically different. and then assigned a rank of 1 to the equivalent. thus ensuring their offspring are going to be near the region of optimality. non-dominated solutions. Goldberg and Richardson proposed the use of fitness sharing as a mechanism to defeat genetic drift. This phenomena known as genetic drift can defeat an important attribute of the Pareto optimal set – varied. and the subsequent ranks were assigned in accordance to the proportion of the population that dominated any given member. This technique provides a visual cue as to what the overall fitness map is like for a given region of optimization. It must be noted that assigning fitness to optimizations and search strategies both play integral roles in the final outcome of multiobjective optimization problems being solved with Evolutionary Algorithms. niche genetics. A useful tool in viewing the fitness of multiple objectives is a 3-dimensional planar representation of the total fitness of an optimization.

Selection based on the optimal regions can result in genetic drift and thus sub par sampling of the solution set. Evolutionary algorithms are a viable technique for multiobjective optimization problems. Another issue search strategies for optimal reproduction encounters is that of high-performers possibly creating poor performing offspring when they are mated with other high-performers that are not in the same local optimal region. Again. . There are many avenues in the area of search strategy that still need to be researched.Search strategies using the optimal regions defined in these diagrams (ridges) encounter unique problems. self-regulating approach to be used when optimizing problems. Once again. mating partner control can mitigate this risk. 1995) as shown in figures 6 and 7 above. and it can be said that the Pareto-based strategies do offer one advantage in that they are not sensitive “to the possible concavity of the trade-off surface” (Fonseca and Fleming. Pareto-based evolutionary algorithms are poised to provide solutions to real-world problems and they merit further study and eventually a clearly stated theory to include fitness assignment. fitness sharing solves this issue mostly. search strategies and reproductive selection techniques. as with the optimization. Fitness assignment strategies are varied. similar to those detailed above for optimization. These algorithms allow an automated.

edu/horn93multiobjective.edu/108172.ist. (1995). Diagram and description. (1993). Quotation. Quotation. P. J. An Overview of Evolutionary Algorithms in Multiobjective Optimization. and Fleming. and Fleming. (1995).psu. Fonseca. An Overview of Evolutionary Algorithms in Multiobjective Optimization. An Overview of Evolutionary Algorithms in Multiobjective Optimization. An Overview of Evolutionary Algorithms in Multiobjective Optimization.Bibliography: Fonseca. P.ist. Multiobjective Optimization Using the Niched Pareto Genetic Algorithm. (1995). . and Nafpliotis. and Fleming. and Fleming. (1995).psu. http://citeseer. P. P. C. Page 19. Page 4. C. C. Page 17. N.html Horn.html References: Fonseca. Fonseca. C. http://citeseer.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful