4.7 Article

A tri-population based co-evolutionary framework for constrained multi-objective optimization problems

期刊

SWARM AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION
卷 70, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.swevo.2022.101055

关键词

Constrained multi-objective optimization; Evolutionary algorithm; Co-evolution; Tri-population

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [62076225]
  2. Natural Sci-ence Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of Hubei [2019CFA081]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes a tri-population based co-evolutionary framework (TriP) to handle complex CMOPs. The experiments show that the proposed framework has competitive performance and versatility, and it is also effective in handling real-world CMOPs.
Balancing between the optimization of objective functions and constraint satisfaction is essential to handle constrained multi-objective optimization problems (CMOPs). Recently, various methods have been presented to enhance the performance for the constrained multi-objective optimization evolutionary algorithms (CMOEAs). However, most of them encounter difficulties when dealing with the CMOPs with complex feasible regions. To overcome this drawback, this paper proposes a tri-population based co-evolutionary framework (TriP): i) the first and second populations are evolved through a weak co-evolutionary relation for the original and unconstrained problems respectively to handle CMOPs with relatively simple constraints; and ii) the third population is evolved solely for the constraint relaxed problem with constraint relaxation technique. The cooperation of three populations preserve the advantages of weak co-evolution and constraint relaxation. Experiments on six benchmark CMOPs with 65 instances and diverse features are performed. Compared to 9 state-of-the-art CMOEAs, the proposed framework yields highly competitive performance and the best versatility. In addition, the effectiveness of the proposed framework on handling real-world CMOPs is also verified.

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