2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.690
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A NSGA-II and NSGA-III comparison for solving an open shop scheduling problem with resource constraints

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
23
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 92 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
2
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this paper, Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) is adopted for the multi-objective optimization solving. NSGA-II already gains excellent convergence and diversity performance compared with other variant, and still yields the most concise programing and fast non-dominated sorting for two-objective optimization problem [27], [28], which matches our optimization case, in this paper.…”
Section: A Nsga-ii Based Multi-objective Optimizationsupporting
confidence: 67%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this paper, Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) is adopted for the multi-objective optimization solving. NSGA-II already gains excellent convergence and diversity performance compared with other variant, and still yields the most concise programing and fast non-dominated sorting for two-objective optimization problem [27], [28], which matches our optimization case, in this paper.…”
Section: A Nsga-ii Based Multi-objective Optimizationsupporting
confidence: 67%
“…With a properly designed maximum iteration, the optimality (i.e. convergence and diversity performance) of NSGA-II is well proven, in previous researches [10], [28].…”
Section: ) Multi-objective Searching Processmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The higher running time of SPEA2 is due to the maintenance of a separate archive population and a higher volume of computations that it needs in order to rank the solutions for selection since it uses an additional factor (i.e., domination strength [116]) to determine the ranks of the solutions. Similarly, previous work showed that NSGA-III was found to be worse than NSGA-II for some problems [49], and generally slower when used with fewer objectives or smaller instances [18]. On the other hand, IBEA, which also uses an additional computation of a quality indicator (i.e., Hypervolume) to rank its solutions, fails to produce good quality solutions for the problem investigated herein.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…However, when the number of objectives is above three, multiobjective search algorithms, such as NSGA-II [13], do not scale well [9,23]. This is where many-objective search algorithms come into play.…”
Section: Background 21 Search-based Testingmentioning
confidence: 99%