PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 1, 2007View284 citations

An Investigation on Preference Order Ranking Scheme for Multiobjective Evolutionary Optimization

View Full Paper
FPFrancesco Di PierroUniversity of InsubriaSKSoon‐Thiam KhuTianjin UniversityDSDragan A. SaviUniversity of Exeter

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

It may be generalized that all Evolutionary Algorithms (EA) draw their strength from two sources: exploration and exploitation. Surprisingly, within the context of multiobjective (MO) optimization, the impact of fitness assignment on the exploration-exploitation balance has drawn little attention. The vast majority of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) presented to date resort to Pareto dominance classification as a fitness assignment methodology. However, the proportion of Pareto optimal elements in a set P grows with the dimensionality of P. Therefore, when the number of objectives of a multiobjective problem (MOP) is large, Pareto dominance-based ranking procedures become ineffective in sorting out the quality of solutions. This paper investigates the potential of using preference order-based approach as an optimality criterion in the ranking stage of MOEAs. A ranking procedure that exploits the definition of preference ordering (PO) is proposed, along with two strategies that make different use of the conditions of efficiency provided, and it is compared with a more traditional Pareto dominance-based ranking scheme within the framework of NSGA-II. A series of extensive experiments is performed on seven widely applied test functions, namely, DTLZ1, DTLZ2, DTLZ3, DTLZ4, DTLZ5, DTLZ6, and DTLZ7, for up to eight objectives. The results are analyzed through a suite of five performance metrics and indicate that the ranking procedure based on PO enables NSGA-II to achieve better scalability properties compared with the standard ranking scheme and suggest that the proposed methodology could be successfully extended to other MOEAs

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Pierro et al. (2007) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1c284369a4af5b15a9684chttps://doi.org/10.1109/tevc.2006.876362
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1EVALUATING EVOLUTIONARY MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHMS USING RUNNING PERFORMANCE METRICS2004 · 11 citations
  2. 2Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems2007 · 5,737 citations
  3. 3Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures with Unequal N’s and/or Variances: A Monte Carlo Study1976 · 916 citations
  4. 4Automatic calibration of urban drainage model using a novel multi-objective genetic algorithm2005 · 17 citations
  5. 5HFC: a Continuing EA Framework for Scalable Evolutionary Synthesis2003 · 5 citations