Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
0.5
-0.5
60 2
60
40
40 B
20
20 Luxury
0 0
A
1
Price
Multi-objective Problem (ctd.)
Mapping: Rd to Fn
Reference: S. Dehuri, A. Ghosh, and S.-B. Cho, Particle Swarm Optimized Polynomial Neural Network
for Classification: A Multi-objective View, International Journal of Intelligent Defence Support Systems,
vol. 1, no. 3, pp.225-253, 2008.
Concept of Domination
A solution x1 dominate other solution x2, if
both conditions 1 and 2 are true:
1. The solution x1 is no worse than x2 in all
objectives, or fi(x1) fj(x2) for all j.
2. The solution x1 is strictly better than x2 in
at least one objective or fi(x1) fj(x2) for
at least one j.
A Simple Visualization
Minimize f2
Time Complexity of non-
dominated set: O(MN2)
1
2
3 4 5
Maximize f1
Properties of Dominance
Reflexive: The dominance relation is not reflexive.
Symmetric: The dominance relation is also not symmetric.
Transitive: The dominance relation is transitive.
HOW?
Examples of MOP
Minimization Problem:
1. Minimize f1(x)=x1
f2(x)=(1+x2)/(x1)
Domain: {0.1 <= x1<=1, 0 <=x2 <=5}
20
18
16
14
12
10
2
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Examples (ctd.)
Maximize f1(x)=x1
f2(x)=1+x2-(x1*x1)
Domain:{0<=x1<=1, 0<=x2<=3}
3
-1
-2
-3
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
MOPS Approaches
1) Weighted Sum Approaches
2) Lexicography Approaches
3) Pareto Approaches
Weighted Sum Approach
Optimize M
F(x)= wm . f m ( x)
M
wm [0,1], wm 1
m 1
m 1
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Lexicography Approach
In the lexicographic approach, different
priorities are assigned to different
objectives, and then the objectives are
optimized in order of their priority.
Review of the Classical Methods
1. Only one Pareto optimal solution can be
expected to be found in one simulation run of
a classical algorithm.
2. Not all Pareto optimal solution can be found
by some algorithms in non-convex MOOPs.
3. All algorithms require some problem
knowledge, such as suitable weights, epsilon,
or target values, etc.
Pareto Approach from EA Domain
VEGA (Vector Evaluated Genetic Algorithms)
(Contributed by David Schaffer in 1984).
VOES(Vector Optimized Evolution Strategy) contributed by Frank Kursawe in
1990.
MOGA (Multi-objective GA) introduced by Fonseca and Fleming in 1993.
NSGA (Non-dominated Sorting GA) introduced by Srinivas and Deb in 1994.
NPGA (Niched-Pareto Genetic Algorithm) introduced by Horn et al. in 1994.
PPES (Predator-Prey Evolution Strategy) introduced by Laumanns et al. in 1998.
DSGA (Distributed Sharing GA) introduced by Hiroyasgu et al. in 1999.
DRLA (Distributed Reinforcement Learning Approach) introduced by Mariano
and Morales in 2000.
Nash GA introduced by Sefrioui and Periaux in 2000, motivated by a game
theoretic approach.
REMOEA (Rudolphs Elitist MOEA) introduced by Rudolph in 2001.
NSGA-II by Deb et a. in 2000. and so on..
Potential Research Directions
MOEA in Data Mining [-1]
MOEA in real time task scheduling [0]
MOEA for Ground-water Contamination [1]
MOEA for Land-use Management [2]
More about MOGA
Please Visit:
KANGAL-Kanpur Genetic Algorithm Laboratory
(Prof. Kalyanmoy Deb)
CINVESTA-Mexico (Prof. Carlos A. Coello Coello)
Particle Swarm Optimization
A new Paradigm of Swarm Intelligence
What is a Swarm Intelligence (SI)?
Examples from nature
Origins and Inspirations of SI
What is a Swarm?
Collection of interacting agents (Soft/Hardware).
Agents (Soft/Hardware):
Individuals that belong to a group (but are not necessarily
identical).
They contribute to and benefit from the group.
They can recognize, communicate, and/or interact with each
other.
The instinctive perception of swarms is a group of
agents in motion but that does not always have to
be the case.
A swarm is better understood if thought of as
agents exhibiting a collective behavior.
Example of Swarms in Nature
Classic Example: Swarm of Wasps/Bees
Can be extended to other similar systems:
Ant colony
Agents: ants
Flock of birds
Agents: birds
Traffic
Agents: cars
Crowd
Agents: humans
Immune system
Agents: cells and molecules
Beginnings of Swarm Intelligence
Dissimilarity
However, unlike GA, PSO has no evolution operators such as crossover
and mutation.
In PSO, the potential solutions, called particles, fly through the problem
space by following the current optimum particles.
Particles update themselves with the internal velocity.
They also have memory, which is important to the algorithm.
advantages
PSO is easy to implement and there are few parameters to adjust.
Compared with GA, all the particles tend to converge to the best solution
quickly even in the local version in most cases
Our Contribution towards PSO
[1]Mishra, B.B., and Dehuri, S., A Novel Stranger Sociometry
Particle Swarm Optimization (S2PSO), ICFAI Journal of
Computer Science, vol. 1, no. 1, 2007.
[2]Dehuri, S., An Empirical Study of Particle Swarm
Optimization for Cluster Analysis, ICFAI Journal of
Information Technology, 2007.
[3]Dehuri, S., Ghosh A., and Mall, R, Particles with Age for Data
Clustering, Proceedings of International Conference on
Information Technology, Dec. 18-21, Bhubaneswar, 2006.
[4]Dehuri, S, and Rath, B. K., gbest Multi-swarm for Multi-
objective Rule Mining, Proceedings of National Conference on
Advance Computing, March 22-23, Tezpur University, 2007.
PSO for MOP
Three main issues to be considered when extending PSO to multi-
objective optimization are: