Comparing the Transform-based Algorithms to Handle Constraint Multiobjective Optimization Problems
Abstract views: 2
/ 
PDF downloads: 3
Keywords:
Multiobjective Optimization, Constraint Handling, Transform, Evolutionary AlgorithmsAbstract
Engineering problems are converted to multiobjective problems and the methods to solve these
problems have progressed significantly in recent years. However, most of these algorithms are designed to
solve unconstrained multiobjective optimization problems. In fact, many engineering problems contains s
large number of constraints. For this reason, handling the constraints is relatively hard challenge for
multiobjective algorithms. In recent years, the constraint handling methods have achieved promising
performance. Among these handling techniques, transforming the problem to a different problem to handle
the constraint looks promising and relatively new papers have been focusing on these frameworks. Hence
in this research this constraint handling algorithms discussed on a set of multiobjective algorithms and
analyzed their performances by comparing them with each other.
Downloads
References
Z. Liu and Y. Wang, “Handling constrained multiobjective optimization problems with constraints in both the decision and objective spaces,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 870-884, 2019.
Y. Tian, Y. Zhang, Y. Su, X. Zhang, K. C. Tan, and Y. Jin, “Balancing objective optimization and constraint satisfaction in constrained evolutionary multi-objective optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 9559-9572, 2022.
K. Li, R. Chen, G. Fu, and X. Yao, “Two-archive evolutionary algorithm for constrained multi-objective optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 303-315, 2018.
Y. Tian, T. Zhang, J. Xiao, X. Zhang, and Y. Jin, “A coevolutionary framework for constrained multi-objective optimization problems,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 102-116, 2021.
Z. Fan, W. Li, X. Cai, H. Li, C. Wei, Q. Zhang, K. Deb, and E. Goodman, “Difficulty adjustable and scalable constrained multi objective test problem toolkit,” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 339-378, 2020.
Z. Xia, Y. Liu, J. Lu, J. Cao, and L. Rutkowski, “Penalty method for constrained distributed quaternion-variable optimization,” IEEE Trans. Cybern., vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 5631–5636, 2021.
B.-C. Wang, H.-X. Li, J.-P. Li, and Y. Wang, “Composite differential evolution for constrained evolutionary optimization,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., Syst., vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 1482–1495, 2019.
C. Segura, C. A. Coello Coello, G. Miranda, and C. León, “Using multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for single-objective constrained and unconstrained optimization,” Ann. Oper. Res., vol. 240, no. 1, pp. 217–250, 2016.
Z. Fan et al., “Push and pull search for solving constrained multi-objective optimization problems,” Swarm Evol. Comput., vol. 44, pp. 665–679, 2019.
V. Kelner, F. Capitanescu, O. Léonard, and L. Wehenkel, “A hybrid optimization technique coupling an evolutionary and a local search algorithm,” J. Comput. Appl. Math., vol. 215, no. 2, pp. 448–456, 2008.
L. V. Santana-Quintero, A. G. Hernández-Díaz, J. Molina, C. A. Coello Coello, and R. Caballero, “DEMORS: A hybrid multi-objective optimization algorithm using differential evolution and rough set theory for constrained problems,” Comput. Oper. Res., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 470–480, 2010.
Z. Fan et al., “Push and pull search for solving constrained multi-objective optimization problems,” Swarm Evol. Comput., vol. 44, pp. 665–679, 2019.
C. Garcia-Garcia, M.-G. Martínez-Peñaloza, and A. Morales-Reyes, “CMOGA/D: A novel cellular ga based on decomposition to tackle constrained multiobjetive problems,” in Proc. Genet. Evol. Comput. Conf. Compan., pp. 1721–1729, 2020.
P. A. N. Bosman and D. Thierens, “The balance between proximity and diversity in multiobjective evolutionary algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 174–188, 2003.
E. Zitzler and L. Thiele, “Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 257–271, 1999.
