Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,234

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multiobjective optimization and multiple constraint handling with evolutionary algorithms. I. A unified formulation

Fonseca, C.M., Fleming, P.J.·1998·IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans

Abstract

In optimization, multiple objectives and constraints cannot be handled independently of the underlying optimizer. Requirements such as continuity and differentiability of the cost surface add yet another conflicting element to the decision process. While "better" solutions should be rated higher than "worse" ones, the resulting cost landscape must also comply with such requirements. Evolutionary algorithms (EAs), which have found application in many areas not amenable to optimization by other methods, possess many characteristics desirable in a multiobjective optimizer, most notably the concerted handling of multiple candidate solutions. However, EAs are essentially unconstrained search techniques which require the assignment of a scalar measure of quality, or fitness, to such candidate solutions. After reviewing current revolutionary approaches to multiobjective and constrained optimization, the paper proposes that fitness assignment be interpreted as, or at least related to, a multicriterion decision process. A suitable decision making framework based on goals and priorities is subsequently formulated in terms of a relational operator, characterized, and shown to encompass a number of simpler decision strategies. Finally, the ranking of an arbitrary number of candidates is considered. The effect of preference changes on the cost surface seen by an EA is illustrated graphically for a simple problem. The paper concludes with the formulation of a multiobjective genetic algorithm based on the proposed decision strategy. Niche formation techniques are used to promote diversity among preferable candidates, and progressive articulation of preferences is shown to be possible as long as the genetic algorithm can recover from abrupt changes in the cost landscape.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/3468.650319

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 1,234

Metadata

Authors
Fonseca, C. M., & Fleming, P. J.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans
Published
1998
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
26-37
ISSN
1083-4427 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2155019998
Cited by
1,234
References
1
FWCI
28.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.