MOTGA: A multiobjective Tchebycheff based genetic algorithm for the multidimensional knapsack problem

Computers and Operations Research

Volumn 34, Issue 11, 2007, Pages 3458-3470

  Alves, Maria João ^a   Almeida, Marla ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA   (Portugal)

^b NONE   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Genetic algorithms; Knapsack problem; Multiple objective programming

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL MECHANICS; EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS; FUNCTIONS; PARETO PRINCIPLE; PROBLEM SOLVING; VECTORS;

KNAPSACK PROBLEMS; MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PROGRAMMING; MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE TCHEBYCHEFF BASED GENETIC ALGORITHM (MOTGA); SCALARIZING FUNCTIONS;

GENETIC ALGORITHMS;

EID: 34047209478     PISSN: 03050548     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cor.2006.02.008     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Deb K. Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms (2001), Wiley, New York
2. Coello Coello C.A., Van Veldhuizen D.A., and Lamont G.B. Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems (2002), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
3. http://www.lania.mx/∼ccoello/EMOO/EMOObib.html
4. Jones D.F., Mirrazavi S.K., and Tamiz M. Multi-objective meta-heuristics: an overview of the current state-of-art. European Journal of Operational Research 137 1 (2002) 1-9
5. Alves M.J., and Clímaco J. An interactive method for 0-1 multiobjective problems using simulated annealing and tabu search. Journal of Heuristics 6 3 (2000) 385-403
6. Phelps S.P., and Köksalan M. An interactive evolutionary metaheuristic for multiobjective combinatorial optimization. Management Science 49 12 (2003) 1726-1738
7. Ulungu E.L., Teghem J., and Ost Ch. Efficiency of interactive multi-objective simulated annealing through a case study. Journal of the Operational Research Society 49 (1998) 1044-1050
8. Jaszkiewicz A. Comparison of local search-based metaheuristics on the multiple-objective knapsack problem. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 26 1 (2001) 99-120
9. Zitzler E., and Thiele L. Multiple objective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 3 4 (1999) 257-271
10. Knowles J.D., and Corne D.W. A comparison of diverse approaches to memetic multi-objective combinatorial optimization. Proceedings of the 2000 genetic and evolutionary computation conference workshop program. Las Vegas, Nevada (2000) 103-108
11. Jaszkiewicz A. Genetic local search for multiple objective combinatorial optimization. Technical Report RA-014/98, Institute of Computing Science, Poznan University of Technology, 1998.
12. Serafini P. Simulated annealing for multiple objective optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on multiple criteria decision making, Taipei, vol. 1; 1992. p. 87-96.
13. Ulungu E.L., Teghem J., Fortemps P.h., and Tuyttens D. MOSA method: a tool for solving multiobjective combinatorial optimization problems. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 8 (1999) 221-236
14. Czyzak P., and Jaszkiewicz A. Pareto simulated annealing-a metaheuristic technique for multiple objective combinatorial optimisation. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 7 (1998) 34-47
15. Jaszkiewicz A. On the performance of multiple objective genetic local search on the 0/1 knapsack problem. A comparative experiment. Technical Report RA-002/2000, Institute of Computing Science, Poznan University of Technology, 2000.
16. Jaszkiewicz A. On the performance of multiple objective genetic local search on the 0/1 knapsack problem-a comparative experiment. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6 4 (2002) 402-412
17. Ishibuchi H., and Murata T. Multi-objective genetic local search algorithm and its application to flowshop scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 28 3 (1998) 392-403
18. Jaszkiewicz A. On the computational efficiency of multiple objective metaheuristics. The knapsack problem case study. European Journal of Operational Research 158 (2004) 418-433
19. Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L. SPEA2: Improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm. Zuerich, TIK-Report Nr. 103, Computer Engineering and Networks Lab (TIK). Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, 2001.
20. Chankong V., and Haimes Y.Y. Multiobjective decision making: theory and methodology (1983), North Holland, New York
21. Steuer R. Multiple criteria optimization: theory, computation and application (1986), Wiley, New York
22. Wierzbicki A.P. Reference point approaches. In: Gal T., Stewart T.J., and Hanne T. (Eds). Multiple criteria decision making: advances in MCDM models, algorithms, theory and applications (1999), Kluwer, Boston 1-39 [Chapter 9]
23. Bowman, Jr VJ. On the relationship of the Tchebycheff norm and the efficient frontier of multiple-criteria objectives. In: H. Thiriez, S. Zionts editors, Multiple criteria decision making, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 130. Berlin: Springer; 1976. p. 76-86.
24. http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/∼zitzler/testdata.html
25. http://www-idss.cs.put.poznan.pl./∼jaszkiewicz/mokp/
26. Veldhuizen D.V., and Lamont G.B. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithm test suites. In: Carroll J., et al. (Ed). Proceedings of the 1999 ACM symposium on applied computing. San Antonio, TX: ACM (1999) 351-357