4.7 Article

MOMPA: Multi-objective marine predator algorithm

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cma.2021.114029

关键词

Multi-objective marine predator algorithm; Pareto optimal solutions; Engineering design problems; Multi-objective optimization; Meta-heuristic

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [62066005]
  2. Project of Guangxi Province Natural Science Foundation, China [2018GXNSFAA138146]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper presents a multi-objective version of the marine predator algorithm, called MOMPA, which introduces an external archive and a top predator selection mechanism for optimization. The performance of the algorithm is evaluated on benchmark functions and engineering design problems, showing competitive results and outperforming other algorithms.
In this paper, a multi-objective version of the recently proposed marine predator algorithm (MPA) is presented, which is called the multi-objective marine predator algorithm (MOMPA). In this algorithm, an external archive component is introduced to store the non dominated Pareto optimal solutions found so far. Based on the elite selection method, a top predator selection mechanism is proposed, which selects the effective solutions from the archive as the top predators to simulate the predator's foraging behavior. The CEC2019 multi-modal multi-objective benchmark functions are utilized to evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm and compared with nine state-of-the-art multi-objective meta-heuristics algorithms. In addition, seven multi-objective engineering design problems (car side impact problem, gear train design problem, welded beam design problem, disk brake design problem, two bar truss design problem, spring design problem and cantilever beam design problem) are used to further verify the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. The results demonstrate that the proposed MOMPA algorithm not only provides very competitive results but also outperforms other algorithms. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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