ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Evolutionary algorithms and multi-objectivization for the travelling salesman problem
Full text PdfPdf (557 KB)
Source
Genetic And Evolutionary Computation Conference archive
Proceedings of the 11th Annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation table of contents
Montreal, Québec, Canada
SESSION: Track 7: evolutionary multiobjective optimization table of contents
Pages 595-602  
Year of Publication: 2009
ISBN:978-1-60558-325-9
Authors
Martin Jähne  Fraunhofer Institute for Autonomous Intelligent Systems, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Xiaodong Li  RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Jürgen Branke  Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe, Germany
Sponsors
SIGEVO: ACM Special Interest Group on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 21,   Downloads (12 Months): 52,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1569901.1569984
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

This paper studies the multi-objectivization of single-objective optimization problems (SOOP) using evolutionary multi-objective algorithms (EMOAs). In contrast to the single-objective case, diversity can be introduced by the multi-objective view of the algorithm and the dynamic use of objectives. Using the travelling salesman problem as an example we illustrate that two basic approaches, a) the addition of new objectives to the existing problem and b) the decomposition of the primary objective into sub-objectives, can improve performance compared to a single-objective genetic algorithm when objectives are used dynamically. Based on decomposition we propose the concept "Multi-Objectivization via Segmentation" (MOS), at which the original problem is reassembled. Experiments reveal that this new strategy clearly outperforms both the traditional genetic algorithm (GA) and the algorithms based on existing multiobjective approaches even without changing objectives.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
C. A. Coello Coello and G. Lamont. Applications of Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, 2004.
 
3
 
4
David S. Johnson and Lyle A. Mcgeoch. The traveling salesman problem: A case study in local optimization. In Local Search in Combinatorial Optimization. Wiley and Sons. Chapter 8, E. Aarts and J.K. Lenstra (Eds.).
 
5
 
6
K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6:182--197, 2002.
 
7
W. S. Gosset. The probable error of a mean. Biometrika, 6(1):1--25, March 1908. Originally published under the pseudonym "Student".
 
8
 
9
 
10
Jensen, M. T. Helper-objectives: Using multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for single-objective optimisation. Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Algorithms 3(4), pages 323--347, 2004.
 
11
 
12
S. Watanabe, K. Sakakibara. Multiobjective approaches in single objective optimization environment. In The 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, volume 2, pages 1714--1721, 2005.
 
13
T. Starkweather, S. Mcdaniel, C. Whitley, K. Mathias, D. Whitley, and M. E. Dept. A comparison of genetic sequencing operators. In Genetic Algorithms, pages 69--76. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.
 
14
Z. Yan, L. Zhang, L. Kang, and G. Lin. A new moea for multi-objective tsp and its convergence property analysis. In EMO, pages 342--354, 2003.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Martin Jähne: colleagues
Xiaodong Li: colleagues
Jürgen Branke: colleagues