4.7 Article

Balanced multi-objective optimization algorithm using improvement based reference points approach

期刊

SWARM AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION
卷 60, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.swevo.2020.100791

关键词

Multi-objective optimization problem; CEC 2020; CEC 2009; Equilibrium optimizer; Reference directions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduces a novel equilibrium optimizer algorithm for multi-objective optimization problems, which enhances the algorithm's performance by balancing the trade-off between convergence and diversity, as well as improving the exploration and exploitation factors of the algorithm.
In this work, we explore a novel multi-objective optimization algorithm to identify a set of solutions that could be optimal for more than one task. The proposed approach is used to generate a set of solutions that balance the tradeoffbetween convergence and diversity in multi-objective optimization problems. Equilibrium Optimizer (EO) algorithm is a novel developed meta-heuristic algorithm inspired by the physics laws. In this paper, we propose a Multi-objective Equilibrium Optimizer Algorithm (MEOA) for tackling multi-objective optimization problems. We suggest an enhancement for exploration and exploitation factors of the EO algorithm to randomize the values of these factors with decreasing the initial value of the exploration factor with the iteration and increasing the exploitation factor to accelerate the convergence toward the best solution. To achieve good convergence and well-distributed solutions, the proposed algorithm is integrated with the Improvement-Based Reference Points Method (IBRPM). The proposed approach is applied to the CEC 2020, CEC 2009, DTLZ, and ZDT test functions. Also, the inverted generational and spread spacing metrics are used to compare the proposed algorithm with the most recent evolutionary algorithms. It's obvious from the results that the proposed algorithm is better in both convergence and diversity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据