IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v8y2020i11p2018-d443884.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison between Single and Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms to Solve the Knapsack Problem and the Travelling Salesman Problem

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammed Mahrach

    (Departamento de Ingeniería Informática y de Sistemas, Universidad de La Laguna, Apto. 456, 38200 San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain)

  • Gara Miranda

    (Departamento de Ingeniería Informática y de Sistemas, Universidad de La Laguna, Apto. 456, 38200 San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain)

  • Coromoto León

    (Departamento de Ingeniería Informática y de Sistemas, Universidad de La Laguna, Apto. 456, 38200 San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain)

  • Eduardo Segredo

    (Departamento de Ingeniería Informática y de Sistemas, Universidad de La Laguna, Apto. 456, 38200 San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain)

Abstract

One of the main components of most modern Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEAs) is to maintain a proper diversity within a population in order to avoid the premature convergence problem. Due to this implicit feature that most MOEAs share, their application for Single-Objective Optimization (SO) might be helpful, and provides a promising field of research. Some common approaches to this topic are based on adding extra—and generally artificial—objectives to the problem formulation. However, when applying MOEAs to implicit Multi-Objective Optimization Problems (MOPs), it is not common to analyze how effective said approaches are in relation to optimizing each objective separately. In this paper, we present a comparative study between MOEAs and Single-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms (SOEAs) when optimizing every objective in a MOP, considering here the bi-objective case. For the study, we focus on two well-known and widely studied optimization problems: the Knapsack Problem (KNP) and the Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP). The experimental study considers three MOEAs and two SOEAs. Each SOEA is applied independently for each optimization objective, such that the optimized values obtained for each objective can be compared to the multi-objective solutions achieved by the MOEAs. MOEAs, however, allow optimizing two objectives at once, since the resulting Pareto fronts can be used to analyze the endpoints, i.e., the point optimizing objective 1 and the point optimizing objective 2. The experimental results show that, although MOEAs have to deal with several objectives simultaneously, they can compete with SOEAs, especially when dealing with strongly correlated or large instances.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammed Mahrach & Gara Miranda & Coromoto León & Eduardo Segredo, 2020. "Comparison between Single and Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms to Solve the Knapsack Problem and the Travelling Salesman Problem," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-23, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:11:p:2018-:d:443884
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/11/2018/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/11/2018/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Florios, Kostas & Mavrotas, George, 2014. "Generation of the exact Pareto set in multi-objective traveling salesman and set covering problems," MPRA Paper 105074, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Beume, Nicola & Naujoks, Boris & Emmerich, Michael, 2007. "SMS-EMOA: Multiobjective selection based on dominated hypervolume," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1653-1669, September.
    3. Carlos Segura & Carlos A. Coello Coello & Gara Miranda & Coromoto León, 2016. "Using multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for single-objective constrained and unconstrained optimization," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 240(1), pages 217-250, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Harshini Mallawaarachchi & Gayani Karunasena & Yasangika Sandanayake & Chunlu Liu, 2023. "Conceptualising a Model to Assess the Optimum Water Flow of Industrial Symbiosis (IS)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Farras Ezra Carakapurwa & Sigit Puji Santosa, 2022. "Design Optimization of Auxetic Structure for Crashworthy Pouch Battery Protection Using Machine Learning Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liagkouras, Konstantinos & Metaxiotis, Konstantinos, 2021. "Improving multi-objective algorithms performance by emulating behaviors from the human social analogue in candidate solutions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 1019-1036.
    2. Gong, Wenyin & Cai, Zhihua, 2009. "An improved multiobjective differential evolution based on Pareto-adaptive [epsilon]-dominance and orthogonal design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(2), pages 576-601, October.
    3. Andrea Ponti & Antonio Candelieri & Ilaria Giordani & Francesco Archetti, 2023. "Intrusion Detection in Networks by Wasserstein Enabled Many-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, May.
    4. David Quintana & Roman Denysiuk & Sandra García-Rodríguez & Antonio Gaspar-Cunha, 2017. "Portfolio implementation risk management using evolutionary multiobjective optimization," Post-Print hal-01881379, HAL.
    5. Yunsong Han & Hong Yu & Cheng Sun, 2017. "Simulation-Based Multiobjective Optimization of Timber-Glass Residential Buildings in Severe Cold Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-18, December.
    6. Laumanns, Marco & Zenklusen, Rico, 2011. "Stochastic convergence of random search methods to fixed size Pareto front approximations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(2), pages 414-421, September.
    7. Ivo Couckuyt & Dirk Deschrijver & Tom Dhaene, 2014. "Fast calculation of multiobjective probability of improvement and expected improvement criteria for Pareto optimization," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 575-594, November.
    8. Derbel, Bilel & Humeau, Jérémie & Liefooghe, Arnaud & Verel, Sébastien, 2014. "Distributed localized bi-objective search," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 731-743.
    9. Sergio Cabello, 2023. "Faster distance-based representative skyline and k-center along pareto front in the plane," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 86(2), pages 441-466, June.
    10. Sven Schulz & Udo Buscher & Liji Shen, 2020. "Multi-objective hybrid flow shop scheduling with variable discrete production speed levels and time-of-use energy prices," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(9), pages 1315-1343, November.
    11. Lourdes Uribe & Johan M Bogoya & Andrés Vargas & Adriana Lara & Günter Rudolph & Oliver Schütze, 2020. "A Set Based Newton Method for the Averaged Hausdorff Distance for Multi-Objective Reference Set Problems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-29, October.
    12. Houssem R. E. H. Bouchekara & Yusuf A. Sha’aban & Mohammad S. Shahriar & Makbul A. M. Ramli & Abdullahi A. Mas’ud, 2023. "Wind Farm Layout Optimization/Expansion with Real Wind Turbines Using a Multi-Objective EA Based on an Enhanced Inverted Generational Distance Metric Combined with the Two-Archive Algorithm 2," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-32, January.
    13. Yugong Dang & Hongen Ma & Jun Wang & Zhigang Zhou & Zhidong Xu, 2022. "An Improved Multi-Objective Optimization Decision Method Using NSGA-III for a Bivariate Precision Fertilizer Applicator," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-23, September.
    14. Taimoor Akhtar & Christine Shoemaker, 2016. "Multi objective optimization of computationally expensive multi-modal functions with RBF surrogates and multi-rule selection," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 17-32, January.
    15. Álvaro Rubio-Largo & Miguel Vega-Rodríguez & David González-Álvarez, 2015. "Multiobjective swarm intelligence for the traffic grooming problem," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 479-511, March.
    16. Prashant Singh & Ivo Couckuyt & Khairy Elsayed & Dirk Deschrijver & Tom Dhaene, 2017. "Multi-objective Geometry Optimization of a Gas Cyclone Using Triple-Fidelity Co-Kriging Surrogate Models," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 172-193, October.
    17. Fernanda Nakano Kazama & Aluizio Fausto Ribeiro Araujo & Paulo Barros Correia & Elaine Guerrero-Peña, 2021. "Constraint-guided evolutionary algorithm for solving the winner determination problem," Journal of Heuristics, Springer, vol. 27(6), pages 1111-1150, December.
    18. Oracio I. Barbosa-Ayala & Jhon A. Montañez-Barrera & Cesar E. Damian-Ascencio & Adriana Saldaña-Robles & J. Arturo Alfaro-Ayala & Jose Alfredo Padilla-Medina & Sergio Cano-Andrade, 2020. "Solution to the Economic Emission Dispatch Problem Using Numerical Polynomial Homotopy Continuation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-15, August.
    19. Jesús Martínez-Frutos & David Herrero-Pérez, 2016. "Kriging-based infill sampling criterion for constraint handling in multi-objective optimization," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 97-115, January.
    20. Juergen Branke & Wen Zhang, 2019. "Identifying efficient solutions via simulation: myopic multi-objective budget allocation for the bi-objective case," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 41(3), pages 831-865, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:11:p:2018-:d:443884. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.