Abstract
Solving a multiple-criteria optimization problem with severe constraints remains a significant issue in multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. The problem primarily stems from the need for a suitable constraint handling technique. One potential approach is balancing the search in feasible and infeasible regions to find the Pareto front efficiently. The justification for such a strategy is that the infeasible region also provides valuable information, especially in problems with a small percentage of feasibility areas. To that end, this paper investigates the potential of the infeasibility-driven principle based on multiple constraint ranking-based techniques to solve a multi-objective problem with a small feasibility ratio. By analyzing the results from intensive experiments on a set of test problems, including the realistic multi-objective car structure design and actuator design problem, it is shown that there is a significant improvement gained in terms of convergence by utilizing the generalized version of the multiple constraint ranking techniques.
References
1.
Watanabe
, T.
, Tatsukawa
, T.
, Jaimes
, A. L.
, Aono
, H.
, Nonomura
, T.
, Oyama
, A.
, and Fujii
, K.
, 2014
, “Many-Objective Evolutionary Computation for Optimization of Separated-Flow Control Using a DBD Plasma Actuator
,” IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) 2014
, Beijing, China
, July 6–11
, IEEE, pp. 2849–2854
.2.
Schlueter
, M.
, Yam
, C. H.
, Watanabe
, T.
, and Oyama
, A.
, 2015
, “Many-Objective Optimization of Interplanetary Space Mission Trajectories
,” IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) 2015
, Sendai, Japan
, May 25–28
, IEEE, pp. 3256–3262
.3.
Kohira
, T.
, Kemmotsu
, H.
, Akira
, O.
, and Tatsukawa
, T.
, 2018
, “Proposal of Benchmark Problem Based on Real-World Car Structure Design Optimization
,” Proceedings of the 2018 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
, Kyoto, Japan
, July 15–19
, pp. 183
–184
.4.
Homaifar
, A.
, Qi
, C. X.
, and Lai
, S. H.
, 1994
, “Constrained Optimization Via Genetic Algorithms
,” Simulation
, 62
(4
), pp. 242
–253
. 5.
Mezura-Montes
, E.
, and Coello
, C. A. C.
, 2011
, “Constraint-Handling in Nature-Inspired Numerical Optimization: Past, Present and Future
,” Swarm Evolut. Comput.
, 1
(4
), pp. 173
–194
. 6.
Deb
, K.
, 2000
, “An Efficient Constraint Handling Method for Genetic Algorithms
,” Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng.
, 186
(2–4
), pp. 311
–338
. 7.
Barbosa
, H. J.
, and Lemonge
, A. C.
, 2008
, An Adaptive Penalty Method for Genetic Algorithms in Constrained Optimization Problems
, INTECH Open Access Publisher
, London, UK
.8.
Runarsson
, T. P.
, and Yao
, X.
, 2000
, “Stochastic Ranking for Constrained Evolutionary Optimization
,” IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput.
, 4
(3
), pp. 284
–294
. 9.
Runarsson
, T.
, and Yao
, X.
, 2003
, “Constrained Evolutionary Optimization,” Evolutionary Optimization
, R.
Sarker
, M.
Masoud
and Y.
Xin
, eds., Springer
, New York
, pp. 87
–113
.10.
Ho
, P. Y.
, and Shimizu
, K.
, 2007
, “Evolutionary Constrained Optimization Using an Addition of Ranking Method and a Percentage-Based Tolerance Value Adjustment Scheme
,” Inf. Sci.
, 177
(14
), pp. 2985
–3004
. 11.
de Paula Garcia
, R.
, de Lima
, B. S. L. P.
, de Castro Lemonge
, A. C.
, and Jacob
, B. P.
, 2017
, “A Rank-Based Constraint Handling Technique for Engineering Design Optimization Problems Solved by Genetic Algorithms
,” Comput. Struct.
, 187
, pp. 77
–87
.12.
de Castro Rodrigues
, M.
, de Lima
, B. S. L. P.
, and Guimarães
, S.
, 2016
, “Balanced Ranking Method for Constrained Optimization Problems Using Evolutionary Algorithms
,” Inf. Sci.
, 327
, pp. 71
–90
.13.
de Castro Rodrigues
, M.
, Guimarães
, S.
, and de Lima
, B. S. L. P.
, 2018
, “E-BRM: A Constraint Handling Technique to Solve Optimization Problems With Evolutionary Algorithms
,” Appl. Soft. Comput.
, 72
, pp. 14
–29
.14.
Xiahou
, T.
, Liu
, Y.
, and Zhang
, Q.
, 2020
, “Multi-objective Redundancy Allocation for Multi-state System Design Under Epistemic Uncertainty of Component States
,” ASME J. Mech. Des.
, 142
(11
), p. 111703
. 15.
Sullivan
, T. A.
, Van De Ven
, J. D.
, Northrop
, W. F.
, and McCabe
, K.
, 2015
, “Integrated Mechanical and Thermodynamic Optimization of an Engine Linkage Using a Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm
,” ASME J. Mech. Des.
, 137
(2
), p. 024501
. 16.
Shankar Bhattacharjee
, K.
, Kumar Singh
, H.
, and Ray
, T.
, 2017
, “A Novel Decomposition-Based Evolutionary Algorithm for Engineering Design Optimization
,” ASME J. Mech. Des.
, 139
(4
), p. 041403
. 17.
Tian
, X.
, and Li
, J.
, 2020
, “Robust Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Using a Novel Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithm Coupled With Surrogate Model
,” Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim.
, 62
(4
), pp. 1969
–1987
. 18.
Ray
, T.
, Singh
, H. K.
, Isaacs
, A.
, and Smith
, W.
, 2009
, “Infeasibility Driven Evolutionary Algorithm for Constrained Optimization,” Constraint-Handling in Evolutionary Optimization
, E.
Mezura-Montes
, ed., Springer
, Berlin
, pp. 145
–165
.19.
Dwianto
, Y. B.
, Fukumoto
, H.
, and Oyama
, A.
, 2019
, “On Improving the Constraint-Handling Performance With Modified Multiple Constraint Ranking (MCR-MOD) for Engineering Design Optimization Problems Solved by Evolutionary Algorithms
,” Proceedings of the 2019 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
, Prague, Czech Republic
, July 13–17
, pp. 762
–770
.20.
Dwianto
, Y. B.
, Fukumoto
, H.
, and Oyama
, A.
, 2020
, “Adaptively Preserving Solutions in Both Feasible and Infeasible Regions on Generalized Multiple Constraint Ranking
,” Proceedings of the 2020 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
, Virtual
, July 8–12
, pp. 690
–698
.21.
Deb
, K.
, Agrawal
, S.
, Pratap
, A.
, and Meyarivan
, T.
, 2000
, “A Fast Elitist Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-objective Optimization: NSGA-II
,” International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature
, Paris, France
, Sept. 18–20
, Springer, pp. 849
–858
.22.
Fan
, Z.
, Li
, W.
, Cai
, X.
, Li
, H.
, Wei
, C.
, Zhang
, Q.
, Deb
, K.
, and Goodman
, E.
, 2020
, “Difficulty Adjustable and Scalable Constrained Multiobjective Test Problem Toolkit
,” Evolut. Comput.
, 28
(3
), pp. 339
–378
. 23.
Dwianto
, Y. B.
, Fukumoto
, H.
, and Oyama
, A.
, 2020
, “Adaptively Enhancing Infeasible Region Exploration on Multiple Constraint Ranking
,” Trans. Japanese Soc. Evolut. Comput.
, 11
(2
), pp. 18
–28
.24.
Deb
, K.
, and Jain
, H.
, 2013
, “An Evolutionary Many-objective Optimization Algorithm Using Reference-Point-Based Nondominated Sorting Approach, Part I: Solving Problems With Box Constraints
,” IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput.
, 18
(4
), pp. 577
–601
. 25.
Fukumoto
, H.
, and Oyama
, A.
, 2018
, “A Generic Framework for Incorporating Constraint Handling Techniques Into Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithms
,” International Conference on the Applications of Evolutionary Computation
, Parma, Italy
, Apr. 4–6
, Springer, pp. 634
–649
.26.
Picard
, C.
, and Schiffmann
, J.
, 2020
, “Realistic Constrained Multiobjective Optimization Benchmark Problems From Design
,” IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput.
, 25
(2
), pp. 234
–246
. 27.
Zitzler
, E.
, Thiele
, L.
, Laumanns
, M.
, Fonseca
, C. M.
, and Da Fonseca
, V. G.
, 2003
, “Performance Assessment of Multiobjective Optimizers: An Analysis and Review
,” IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput.
, 7
(2
), pp. 117
–132
. 28.
Blank
, J.
, and Deb
, K.
, 2020
, “Pymoo: Multi-Objective Optimization in Python
,” IEEE Access
, 8
, pp. 89497
–89509
. 29.
“
Benchmark Problem Based on Real-World Car Structure Design Optimization Mazda Bechmark Problem
,” http://ladse.eng.isas.jaxa.jp/benchmark/Accessed August 4, 2022.Copyright © 2023 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.
