Muiltiobjective Optimization Using Nondominated Sorting in Genetic Algorithms
Abstract
In trying to solve multiobjective optimization problems, many traditional methods scalarize the objective vector into a single objective. In those cases, the obtained solution is highly sensitive to the weight vector used in the scalarization process and demands that the user have knowledge about the underlying problem. Moreover, in solving multiobjective problems, designers may be interested in a set of Pareto-optimal points, instead of a single point. Since genetic algorithms (GAs) work with a population of points, it seems natural to use GAs in multiobjective optimization problems to capture a number of solutions simultaneously. Although a vector evaluated GA (VEGA) has been implemented by Schaffer and has been tried to solve a number of multiobjective problems, the algorithm seems to have bias toward some regions. In this paper, we investigate Goldberg's notion of nondominated sorting in GAs along with a niche and speciation method to find multiple Pareto-optimal points simultaneously. The proof-of-principle results obtained on three problems used by Schaffer and others suggest that the proposed method can be extended to higher dimensional and more difficult multiobjective problems. A number of suggestions for extension and application of the algorithm are also discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Evolutionary algorithms such as Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-I) and Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm based on Decomposition (MOEA/D) can approximate the true Pareto Optimal solutions of multi-objective problems.
“It has been shown that evolutionary algorithms such as Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-I) [73] and Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm based on Decomposition (MOEA/D) [74], can approximate the true PO solutions of multi-objective problems [70].”
From Applications and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in Space Missions (2024) · cites this paper as [74]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A review on genetic algorithm: past, present, and future
Katoch, S., Chauhan, S. S., & Kumar, V. (2021) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-020-10139-6 · Cited by 4,655 · see citing works
Platemo: a matlab platform for evolutionary multi-objective optimization [educational forum]
Tian, Y., Cheng, R., Zhang, X., & Jin, Y. (2017) · IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine · doi:10.1109/mci.2017.2742868 · Cited by 2,777 · see citing works
Deb, K., Mohan, M., & Mishra, S. (2005) · Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1162/106365605774666895 · Cited by 637 · see citing works
Self-citationQuantum Optimization and Quantum Learning: A Survey
Li, Y., Tian, M., Liu, G., Peng, C., & Jiao, L. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2970105 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Kazmi, H., Mehmood, F., Lodeweyckx, S., & Driesen, J. (2018) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.12.019 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Mattiussi, A., Rosano, M., & Simeoni, P. (2014) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2013.08.013 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Applications and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in Space Missions
Oche, P. A., Ewa, G. A., & Ibekwe, N. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3132500 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
“It has been shown that evolutionary algorithms such as Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-I) [73] and Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm based on Decomposition (MOEA/D) [74], can approximate the true PO solutions of multi-objective problems [70].”
MethodMulti-objective routing optimization using evolutionary algorithms
Yetgin, H., Cheung, K. T. K., & Hanzo, L. (2012) · 2012 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2012.6214324 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Deng, S., Zhu, Y., Yu, Y., & Huang, X. (2024) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121710 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Martínez-Álvarez, A., Crespo-Cano, R., Díaz-Tahoces, A., Cuenca-Asensi, S., Ferrández Vicente, J. M., & Fernández, E. (2016) · International Journal of Neural Systems · doi:10.1142/s0129065716500210 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Srinivas, N., & Deb, K.
- Affiliations
- Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur (IN)
- ORCID
- Deb, Kalyanmoy
- Venue
- Evolutionary Computation
- Publisher
- MIT Press
- Published
- 1994-09
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 221-248
- ISSN
- 1063-6560 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9304
- OpenAlex
- W2116661285
- Cited by
- 6,935
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 196 · 2025: 291 · 2024: 331 · 2023: 312 · 2022: 328 · 2021: 374 · 2020: 327 · 2019: 311 · 2018: 326 · 2017: 367 · 2016: 303 · 2015: 307 · 2014: 309 · 2013: 331 · 2012: 299
- FWCI
- 11.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Evolutionary Computation (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Advanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
- Keywords
- multi-objective optimization, non-dominated sorting, genetic algorithm, Pareto optimal solutions, scalarization, population-based optimization
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