4.7 Article

An enhancing many-objective evolutionary algorithm using chaotic mapping and solution ranking mechanism for large-scale optimization

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jcde/qwac090

关键词

chaotic mapping; solution ranking; many-objective optimization; large-scale optimization; evolutionary algorithm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes an improved many-objective evolutionary algorithm called 1by1EA-CHV, which achieves better performance in solving large-scale optimization problems by using circle chaotic mapping and a solution ranking mechanism based on the hypervolume indicator.
There are many complex optimization problems in the real world, and various evolutionary algorithms are proposed to solve them. Recently, the many-objective evolutionary algorithm using a one-by-one selection strategy (1by1EA) adopts a convergence indicator and a distribution indicator to balance convergence and diversity. However, the algorithm is too random in initialization and the fitness evaluation of solutions in the mating selection is single, which leads to poor performance in solving large-scale problems. Therefore, this paper proposes an improved method called 1by1EA-CHV by using circle chaotic mapping and a solution ranking mechanism based on the hypervolume (HV) indicator. We first map each component of solutions into a certain value space to initialize the population. Then, we calculate the contribution of each partition divided based on HV and apply the aggregation method to guide the reallocation of fitness, which achieves the ranking of solutions by using it before the old calculation method. To validate the performance, experiments compared 1by1EA-CHV with 1by1EA and other seven many-objective algorithms on large-scale functions, and the differences between these algorithms were analyzed statistically by a non-parametric test. The results showed the superiority of 1by1EA-CHV in solving large-scale many-objective optimization problems with up to 2000 decision variables.

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