2021
DOI: 10.1109/tevc.2020.3004012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Coevolutionary Framework for Constrained Multiobjective Optimization Problems

Abstract: Constrained multi-objective optimization problems (CMOPs) are challenging because of the difficulty in handling both multiple objectives and constraints. While some evolutionary algorithms have demonstrated high performance on most CMOPs, they exhibit bad convergence or diversity performance on CMOPs with small feasible regions. To remedy this issue, this paper proposes a coevolutionary framework for constrained multi-objective optimization, which solves a complex CMOP assisted by a simple helper problem. The … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
117
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 388 publications
(117 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
117
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Figure 4(c) shows that Pareto fronts obtained by 10 algorithms with 10 runs are converted into an approximate ideal Pareto surface. To better compare the convergence and diversity of the algorithms, the performance indexes of four algorithms are evaluated in Table 5, including inverted generational distance (IGD) [30], generational distance (GD) [31], pure diversity (PD) [32], hyper volume (HV) [33], DM (diversity metric) [34], spread [35], and spacing [36], where IGD [37] and HV denote the accuracy and diversity of algorithm; GD considers the accuracy of the algorithm; PD and spread denote the diversity of the algorithm; spacing denotes the evenness of the solutions obtained by algorithm; GD, IGD, spread, and spacing are the negative indexes, while DM, HV, and PD are the positive indexes [38][39][40].…”
Section: Static Test Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 4(c) shows that Pareto fronts obtained by 10 algorithms with 10 runs are converted into an approximate ideal Pareto surface. To better compare the convergence and diversity of the algorithms, the performance indexes of four algorithms are evaluated in Table 5, including inverted generational distance (IGD) [30], generational distance (GD) [31], pure diversity (PD) [32], hyper volume (HV) [33], DM (diversity metric) [34], spread [35], and spacing [36], where IGD [37] and HV denote the accuracy and diversity of algorithm; GD considers the accuracy of the algorithm; PD and spread denote the diversity of the algorithm; spacing denotes the evenness of the solutions obtained by algorithm; GD, IGD, spread, and spacing are the negative indexes, while DM, HV, and PD are the positive indexes [38][39][40].…”
Section: Static Test Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reducing the overlap between sensing areas of adjacent UAVs is beneficial to improve the efficiency of marine coverage. Using the segmentation methods in references (Papatheodorou et al, 2016;Tian et al, 2020b), a sensing set segmentation method that can avoid overlapping sensing sets between adjacent UAVs is given below.…”
Section: Undirected Sensing Set Segmentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to its simple definition and light implementation, CDP is widely used in various CMOEAs, such as NSGA-II [21] and C-MOEA/D [24]. Nevertheless, CDP prefers feasible solutions over infeasible ones [25], [26], which always results in premature convergence, especially when the feasible regions are discontinuous or faulted.…”
Section: Background and Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Experimental results showed that the C-TAEA can handle CMOPs and CMaOPs with intersected and discontinuous feasible regions [10]. However, as pointed out in [26], its mating selection strategy usually chooses one parent individual from CA and the other from DA. The generated offspring will locate in the middle region between CA and DA; thus, neither possessing better convergence, feasibility than individuals in CA, nor being able to promote the diversity of DA.…”
Section: Background and Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%