Downloaded from http://iranpaper.
ir
2nd Conference on Swarm Intelligence and Evolutionary Computation (CSIEC2017), Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran, 2017
MOCSA: A Multi-Objective Crow Search Algorithm
for Multi-Objective Optimization
Hadi Nobahari, Ariyan Bighashdel
Department of Aerospace Engineering
Sharif University of Technology
Tehran, Iran
nobahari@sharif.edu
Abstract-In this paper, an extension of the recently developed
Crow Search Algorithm (CSA) to multi-objective optimization
problems is presented. The proposed algorithm, called Multi
Objective Crow Search Algorithm (MOCSA), defines the fitness
function using a set of determined weight vectors, employing the
max-min strategy. In order to improve the efficiency of the search
space, the performance space is regionalized using specific control
points. A new chasing operator is also employed in order to
improve the convergence process. Numerical results show that
MOCSA is closely comparable to well-known multi-objective
algorithms.
Keywords-Crow Search Algorithm; multi-objective
optimization; weight vectors; max-min strategy;
I. INTRODUCTION
Over the past decades, multi-objective optimization
problems (MOOPs) have attracted much attention, since real
world problems often involve several conflicting objectives.
Unlike a single-objective optimization problem (SOOP) in
which there is only one optimal point, there exists a set of
solutions in a typical MOOP which are superior to the rest of the
solutions in the search space when all objectives are considered,
but are inferior to other solutions in the space in one or more
objectives [ 1]. These solutions are known as Pareto-optimal
solutions or non-dominated solutions [2]. Generating Pareto
optimal solutions plays an important role in multi-objective
optimization , and mathematically the problem is considered to
be solved when the Pareto optimal set is found [3]. In
development of multi-objective algorithms, there has been an
intrinsic interest in employing population-based algorithms,
such as EAs, to MOOPs. The primary reason for this is their
ability to fmd multiple Pareto-optimal solutions in one single run
[4]. Therefore, many multi-objective variant of population
based, metaheuristic algorithms were proposed including
VEGA [5], NSGA [ 1], PAIA [6], MOPSOID [7], NSGSA [8]
and so on.
Crow Search Algorithm (CSA) is a new nature-inspired
metaheuristic optimizer based on the intelligent behavior of
crows [9]. CSA is a population-based technique which works
based on the crows' behavior when they store their excess food
in a hiding place and retrieve it when the food is needed. Due to
their greedy characteristics, crows follow each other to obtain
better food sources but their intelligence, make this procedure
978- 1-5090-433 0-9/ 17/$3 1.00 20 17 IEEE
60
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html
much harder. They fool each other to protect their caches [9].
The main problem in proposing a multi-objective variant for
CSA is the updating of crows' caches based on the value of
multiple objectives and also the chasing procedure. In other
words, the problem of fitness assignment arises, which is one of
the crucial issues in dealing with MOOPs
In general, two categories of common strategies to assign
fitness in a MOOP, are aggregation-based and
Pareto/dominance-based [ 10]. After the Goldenberg's
suggestion about the concept of domination [ 1 1], many
researchers proposed mUlti-objective optimization algorithms
using the same concept. Fonseca and Fleming [ 12] described a
rank-based fitness assignment method for Multiple Objective
Genetic Algorithms (MOGAs). Horn et al. [ 13] modified the GA
to deal with multiple objectives by incorporating the concept of
Pareto domination in its selection operator, and applying a
niching pressure to spread its population out along the Pareto
optimal tradeoff surface and introduced the Niched Pareto GA
(NPGA). Srinvas and Deb [ 1], presented another algorithm,
naed Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA),
whIch was different from two previous implementations and
was closer to Goldberg's suggestion. Until then, all proposed
multi-objective algorithms based on domination, were criticized
for their (i) computational complexity (ii) non-elitism approach,
and (iii) the need for specifying a sharing parameter [4].
Accordingly, Deb et al. [4], suggested a non-dominated sorting
based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (NSGA-II). It was
an improved version of NSGA which alleviated all mentioned
difficulties. With the emersion of NSGA-II and its impressive
success, more and more attention was attracted to this type of
fitness assignment. Zeng et al. [ 14], Reddy and Kwnar [ 15], AI
Jadaan et al. [ 16], Ghiasi et al. [ 17], Nobahari et al. [8], Costa et
al. [ 10], Salcedo-Sanz et al [ 18], all proposed multi-objective
algorithms using same concepts and their result indicated the
improvement in convergence and distribution of Pareto-front,
more or less. However, the steps of fmding non-dominated
solutions in all these algorithms are complicated and time
consuming [ 19].
In addition to dominance-based approaches, a MOOP can
also be solved by scalarization. Scalarization means converting
the MOOP into a single or a family of single objective
optimization problems with a real-valued objective function,
termed the scalarizing function [3]. A Pareto optimal solution to
 Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
a MOOP could be an optimal solution of a scalar optimization
problem in which the objective is an aggregation function of all
individual objectives. Thus, a MOOP can be decomposed into a
number of single objective optimization sub-problems. This is
the basic idea of the aggregating or decomposition approach [7].
Schaffer Probably was the first who employed scalarization in
multi-objective optimization [20]. He proposed the Vector
Evaluated Genetic Algorithm (VEGA) to find the Pareto optimal
solutions of MOOPs. In VEGA, the population was divided into
disjoint sub-populations each of which were governed by one
objective function. Despite the relatively good reported results,
VEGA seemed to be able to fmd only extreme solutions on the
Pareto front [2 1]. In order to employ various search directions to
find all non-dominated solutions of a MOOP, Murata and
Ishibuchi [2 1] employed a novel method and proposed a Multi
Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA) for solving MOOPs.
MOGA used a weighted sum of mUltiple objective function to
combine them into a scalar fitness function, but its characteristic
feature was that the weights attached to the multiple objective
functions were generated randomly. The method of random
weights later used by Leung and Wang [22], Zhang and Li [23]
and Yang et al. [24]. All proposed algorithms benefited from
many advantages, e.g. simplicity, easiness to implement, and so
on. Nevertheless, they were unable to find the solutions on the
non-convex parts of the Pareto frontier [25]. In order to
overcome the above drawback and maintain the advantages, Liu
and Li [26] proposed a new fitness function scheme with each
individual fitness defmed as the maximum value of the weighted
normalized objectives, in which the weights were properly
constructed via the sphere coordinate transformation and
uniform design. The proposed method, called max-min strategy
which could gradually fmd approximate uniformly distributed
solutions on the Pareto frontier regardless of whether the Pareto
front is convex or non-convex [25].
In this paper, an extension of the CSA to multi-objective
optimization problems is presented. The proposed algorithm,
called MOCSA, defmes the fitness function by using a set of
predetermined weight vectors, employing the max-min strategy
and spherical coordinate transformation, similar to the one in
literature [26]. In order to improve the efficiency of the
searching, the performance space is divided into some sub
regions using specific control points. A new chasing mechanism
is also employed in order to improve the convergence process.
The reminder of the paper is organized as follows: Section II
describes the structure of the CSA. In section III, the details of
MOCSA is presented. Section IV presents the numerical results
and finally, the conclusions are made in section V.
II. CROW SEARCH ALGORITHM
In this section, CSA is briefly described and more details on
this algorithm can be found in [9]. CSA works based on four
principles, listed below:
Crows live in the form of flock
Crows memorizes the position of their hiding places
Crows follow each other to do thievery
61
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html
Crows protect their caches from being pilfered by a
probability
Assuming that there is a d-dimensional environment,
including a flock of n crows. The position of each crow (crow i)
at any time (iteration iter) in the search space can be specified
by a vector ( U1er = XI , X2 , , Xd) . Each crow has a memory in
x
. .
which the position of its hiding place is memorized (mi.iter = ml
, m2 , , md). This is the best position that crow i has obtained
. . .
so far. Assume that at iteration iter, crow j wants to visit its
hiding place. At the same time, crow i decides to follow crow j.
In this situation, two states may happen:
State A:
Crow j does not realize that it has been followed by another
crow. In this case the new position of crow i is obtained as
follows:
(
xi,ifer+l = xi,ifer +'1 xFE,iter x mj,ifer _ xi,iter ) ( 1)
where r, is a random number with uniform distribution
between 0 and 1 and FD,iler denotes the flight length of crow i at
iteration iter.
State B:
Crow j realizes that it has been followed by another crow. As a
result, in order to protect its cache from being pilfered, crow j
will fool crow i by going to another position in search space.
In general, two states can be expressed as follows:
Xi,iler +rxFE.iterx mJ.iter _xuter
( ) r. Apj,iler
Xi'!',,+l
{ (2)
= Randompossition therwise
where rj is a random number with uniform distribution between
pJ '
o and 1 and A ,i er denotes the Awareness Probability of crow j
at iteration iter,
III. MULTI-OBJECTIVE CROW SEARCH ALGORITHM
In this section, a multi-objective variant of CSA, called
MOCSA is introduced. The fitness assignment during memory
updating and chasing procedure, has been dealt with based on
aggregating approach. As mentioned before, in aggregating
approach, the MOOP is converted into a family of single
objective problems in which the transformed objectives are
aggregation function of all individual objectives. The
conversion procedure happens using some weight vectors which
could be generated either randomly or systematically. In this
study, Similar to the method of Lui and Li [26], the weight
vectors are generated via sphere coordinate transformation and
uniform design. The transformed fitness functions are obtained
using these predetermined weight. After the construction of the
transformed fitness functions, the updating and chasing process
happen. The details of MOSCA are described in the following
subsections,
A, Construction of the transformedfitness function
A typical weight vector (ith weight vector) is defined as
follows [26]:
 Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
l/ cosB/
1/ sin B/ cosB2i
W _
m
/ (x) l/ sin B/ sin B2i ... sin Bm_2i cos Bm_/
w i
m
(x) 1/ sin B/ sin B21 ... sin B _2i sin B _/
m m
where 6i (eli, e2i, ... , em) are the generalized spherical
coordinates in performance space and m is the number of
objectives. With a flock of size n, we can generate p (n is a
mUltiple of p) evenly distributed Memorized Points (MPs), a) ,
a2 , ... , ap on unit hypersphere in the first quadrant by
appropriately selecting 61 (i 1 , 2 , ... , p), leading to p
2
=
Memorized Weight Vectors (MWVs), Wi , w , , wp. The . .
fitness vector of crow c in the performance space can be
specified by fC if/ , H , ... , Inn. Let
h/ = log2 ( 1+.f/-fn , j = I,2,"'m
where jj* is the instantaneous minimum (in the case of
minimization) of the fitness vector in dimension j. The
transformed fitness function of crow c with respect to the ith MP
is defined as
p,e (x) = max { wh/}
IJ::;;
m D.
B. Classification of MPs, MWVs and crows
In order to improve the efficiency of search, the MPs and MWVs
are divided into q (q < p) classes. First we generate q evenly
distributed Control Points (CPs) on unit hypersphere in the first
quadrant, c), C2 , , cq Then we calculate the Euclidian distance
.
between each MP with CPs and put the nearest MPs from each
CP in a specific class (see Fig. 1 a). This way, we can classify
MPs and the corresponding MWVs into q classes .Obviously,
the total number of classes is q (Note that the class lengths are
not necessarily equal).
a b
Figure I. The deffinition of Class and Crow-Group in performance space
Crows also will be grouped. First, all crows' fitness vectors
are mapped on the unit hypersphere. The mapped fitness vector
for crow c ( UC) can be calculated as
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html
(3
U
J h Jh .
e =
m
e
' j = 1,2,,,,m (6)
) L/ I
J
Suppose that the bth class has the length h. we calculte the
Euclidian distance between each mapped fitness vector wIth the
bth CP and put the first (nip) xh crows who have the least
distance from the bth CP in the bth group of crows (see Fig.l b).
Each Crow-group corresponds to the class of the same CPo
Obviously, the total number of groups is q.
C. Chasing process
There is a little difference in the chasing process of MOCSA,
compared with CSA. As mentioned in section II, two states may
happen when crow j wants to visit its hiding place and crow i
decides to chase him. When state A happens, i.e. crow j doesn't
(4) realize the chasing, there will be no difference and the same
process will be done. But when the latter happens and crow j
.
realizes the chasing, crow i moves towards the target, but wIll be
misled in some directions. For this purposes, we introduce a
parameter called MdR for misdirection rate. So, crow i will be
misdirected in each dimension, with the probability MdRiler
(5)
Main framework
Fig. 2 shows the general iterative steps of MOCSA in he
form of a pseudo code which will be discussed in the followmg
subsections.
Initialization: In this stage, all MPs, MWVs and CPs are
generated and classified. Crows are spread randomly within the
search space and are classified. At each group of crows, the
transformed function of the members are calculated and sorted I
times (l is the length of the corresponding class) and the best one
is selected, each time based on one MP and MWV. The best
crows of each group, form a new group, called S-group (note
that each S-group corresponds to one group of crows and one
class). Each S-group, consists of I crows, every of which is
related to one specific MP. Since at the initialization step, the
members of S-groups have no experiences, it is assumed that
they have hidden their foods at their initial positions. At each
iteration, the positions of the S-groups will form the Pareto set
and their fitnesses form the Pareto front.
Main Loop: At each interaction, crows of each group, only
chase one of the members of the corresponding S-group.
Suppose a typical class has a length of I. first, I greedy crows
from the group are selected and then, each greedy crow chases
one member of the corresponding S-group. Therefore, at the end
of each iteration, there will be p (number of MPs) greedy crows,
each of which has a new position and fitness vector and needs to
be classified. For this purpose, first we map them on the unit
hypersphere and calculate their Euclidian distance from each
CPo Then, I nearest greedy crows form a group called N-group.
Note that each N-group has I members and corresponds to one
S-group, one class and one group of crows. At each N-group, the
transformed fitness function of the members are calculated and
sorted I times (Each time, based on one MP). After each sorting,
the best crow is compared with the hiding place position of the
62
 Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html

corresponding member of the S-group and is replaced if possess TABLE I. PARAMETERS OF THE ALGORlTM
a better hiding place. When the iteration reaches its maximum Two- Three- Five-
value, the algorithm stops and the fmal Pareto front will be the Parameters
Objective Objective Objective
final fitnesses of all S-groups. Dimension 30 30 30
Flock Size 600 900 4290
FL 2 2 2
Pseudo Code
AP 0.3 0.22 0.2
MdR 0.02 0.015 0.1
Initialization
I. Generate and classity MPs,MWVs and CPs Number of MPs 100 150 715
2. Initialize the position of crows and classity them Number of CPs 15 36 126
3. Form S-groups
Main Loop
In order to measure the quality of solutions, the IGD metric
While iter < max iteration
4. Select greedy crows has been used [27]. IGD is defmed as follows: Let P * be a set of
5. Perform the chasing process uniformly distributed points along the Pareto Front (in the
6. Form N-groups performance space). Let A be an approximate set to the Pareto
7. Update S-groups Front, the average distance from P * to A is defined as
End
I .d(v,A)
!.Elp*1
IGD= (7)
Figure 2. MOCSA Pseudo Code

where d(v A) is the minimum Euclidean distance between v and

,

IV. RESULTS
the points in A.
To evaluate the performance of MOCSA, we simulate 13 30 random simulations are performed for each problem and
unconstrained multi-objective test from the literature [27] and the mean and standard deviation (Std) of the IGD metric are
compare the results with 10 well-known algorithms, namely, reported. The respective results for 10 mentioned algorithms, as
ClusteringMOEA [28], DECMOSA-SQP [29], DMOEADD well as MOCSA, are shown in Tables II and III. In Table IV and
[3 0], GDE3 [3 1], LuiLi [26], MOEAD [32], MOEP [ 19], MTS V, the results of MOCSA are compared with the mean results of
[33], OWMOSaDE [34], and NSGAIILS [35]. The parameters other algorithms. It is observed that the proposed algorithm can
of the algorithm are set as follows: obtain comparable performance compared to other algorithms.
The dimensions of all problems are 30. The flock size is 600
for two-objective problems, 900 for three-objective problems
and 4290 for five-objective problems. The number of MPs (P)
and CPs (q) are also defmed based on the optimization problem.
All parameters are listed in Table I.

TABLE II. MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF IGD FOR PROBLEMS I TO 7

Problem
Algorithm
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0.0043 0.0068 0.0074 0.0638 0.1807 0.0059 0.0044
MOEAD
(0.0003) (0.0018) (0.0059) (0.0053) (0.0681) (0.0017) (0.0012)
0.0053 0.0119 0.1064 0.0265 0.0393 0.2509 0.0252
GDE3
(0.0003) (0.0015) (0.0130) (0.0003) (0.0039) (0.0196) (0.0089)
0.0065 0.0062 0.0531 0.0236 0.0149 0.0592 0.0408
MTS
(0.0003) (0.0005) (0.01l7) (0.0007) (0.0033) (0.0106) (0.0144)
0.0078 0.0123 0.0150 0.0435 0.1619 0.1755 0.0073
LuiLi
(0.0021) (0.0033) (0.0240) (0.0006) (0.0282) (0.0830) (0.0009)
0.0103 0.0068 0.0334 0.0427 0.3145 0.0667 0.0103
DMOEADD
(0.0023) (0.0020) (0.0057) (0.0014) (0.0466) (0.0238) (0.0022)
0.0115 0.0124 0.0106 0.0584 0.5657 0.3103 0.0213
NSGAIILS
(0.0073) (0.0091) (0.0686) (0.0051) (0.1827) (0.1933) (0.0194)
0.0122 0.0081 0.1030 0.0513 0.4303 0.1918 0.0585
OWMOSaDE
(0.0012) (0.0023) (0.0190) (0.0019) (0.0174) (0.0290) (0.029 I)
0.0299 0.0228 0.0549 0.0585 0.2473 0.0871 0.0233
ClusteringMOEA
(0.0033) (0.0023) (0.0147) (0.0147) (0.0384) (0.0057) (0.0020)
0.0770 0.0283 0.0935 0.0340 0.1671 0.1260 0.0242
DECMOSA-SQP
(0.0393) (0.0313) (0.1980) (0.0054) (0.0895) (0.5617) (0.0223)
0.0596 0.0189 0.0990 0.0427 0.2245 0.1031 0.0197
MOEP
(0.0128) (0.0038) (0.0132) (0.0008) (0.0344) (0.0345) (0.0008)
0.0061 0.0125 0.0242 0.0333 0.1157 0.2390 0.0239
MOCSA
(0.0006) (0.0037) (0.0103) (0.001O) (0.021O) (0.0891) (0.0005)

63
 Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html

TABLE III. MEAN AND STANDARDDEVIATlON oF IGD FOR PROBLEMS 8 TO 13

Problem
Algorithm
8 9 10 11 12 13
0.0584 0.0790 0.4741 0.1103 146.781 1.8489
MOEAD
(0.0032) (0.053 I) (0.0736) (0.0023) (41.828) (0.0198)
0.2485 0.0824 0.4333 0.2342 202.126 3.2057
GDE3
(0.0355) (0.0225) (0.0123) (0.0100) (37.705) (0.0821)
0.1125 0.1144 0.1531 0.4550 350.206 1.9090
MTS
(0.0129) (0.0255) (0.0158) (0.0372) (45.119) (0.0253)
0.0824 0.0939 0.4469 0.1325 444.825 2.2885
LuiLi
(0.0073) (0.0471) (0.1296) (0.0036) (83.775) (0.0872)
0.0684 0.0490 0.3221 1.2032 477.656 1.997
DMOEADD
(0.0094) (0.0091) (0.0222) (0.0713) (93.471) (0.0115)
0.0863 0.0719 0.8447 0.1752 158.05 3.2323
NSGAIILS
(0.0124) (0.0450) (0.1626) (0.0071) (40.437) (0.2273)
0.0945 0.0983 0.7430 0.3951 734.568 3.2573
OWMOSaDE
(0.0119) (0.0244) (0.0885) (0.0384) (65.065) (0.3521)
0.2383 0.2934 0.4111 1.2401 1039.4 3.4043
ClusteringMOEA
(0.0230) (0.0781) (0.0501) (0.0954) (290.03) (0.1363)
0.2158 0.1411 0.3699 0.3830 943.352 1.9178
DECMOSA-SQP
(0.1215) (0.3453) (0.6532) (0.1170) (551.65) (1.4243)
0.4230 0.3420 0.3621 0.4337 885.89 2.0145
MOEP
{0.05651 {0.15841 {0.04441 {0.03541 {77.6581 {0.01371
0.0837 0.1046 0.4038 0.1276 421.164 2.5424
MOCSA
(0.0062) (0.0461) (0.1059) (0.0026) (114.95) (0.1265)

TABLE IV. IGD RESULTS COMPARISONS FOR PROBLEMS 1 TO 7

Problem
J 2 3 4 5 6 7

MOCSA IGD Results 0.0061 0.0125 0.0242 0.0333 0.1157 0.2390 0.0239
Mean IGD Results 0.0224 0.0135 0.0576 0.0445 0.2346 0.1376 0.0235

TABLE V. IGD RESULTS COMPARISONS FOR PROBLEMS 8 TO 13

Problem
8 9 10 11 12 13

MOCSA IGD Results 0.0837 0.1046 0.4038 0.1276 421.164 2.5424

Mean IGD Results 0.1628 0.1365 0.4560 0.4762 538.282 2.5075

closely comparable to other well-known multi-objective

v. CONCLUSIONS optimization algorithms.
In this study, the single-objective crow search algorithm
successfully extended to solve multi-objective optimization
problems. In the proposed algorithm, the fitness functions was
[ I]
defmed using a set of determined weight vectors and max-min
strategy. The weight vectors in fitness function are designed in
such a way that an evenly distributed Pareto front is achieved. [2]
In order to improve the efficiency of the search, the performance
[3]
space was divided into some sub-regions. A new chasing
operator was also developed in order to improve the [4]
convergence process. Performance of MOSCA was compared
with 10 well-known multi-objective optimization algorithms.
Numerical results show that the performance of MOCSA is
REFERENCES
N. Srinvas and K. Deb, "Multi-objective function optimization using non
dominated sorting genetic algorithms," Evolutionary Computation. vol. 2,
pp. 221-248, 1994.
C. Vira and Y. Y. Haimes, Multiobjective decision making: theory and
methodology: North-Holland,1983.
K. Mieninen, Nonlinear multiobjective optimization vol. 12: Springer
Science & Business Media,2012.
K. Deb, S. Agrawal, A. Pratap, and T. Meyarivan, "A fast elitist non
dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization:
NSGA-II," in international Conference on Parallel Problem Solving
From Nature, 2000, pp. 849-858.

64
 Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
[5] E. Zitzler and L. Thiele, "Multiobjective optimization using evolutionary
algorithms - A comparative case study," in Parallel Problem Solving
from Nature ed: Springer Berlin Heidelberg,1998,pp. 292-30I.
[6] 1. Chen and M. Mahfouf, "A population adaptive based immune algorithm
for solving multi-objective optimization problems," in International
Conference on Artificial Immune Systems, 2006,pp. 280-293.
[7] W. Peng and Q. Zhang, "A decomposition-based multi-objective particle
swarm optimization algorithm for continuous optimization problems," in
IEEE International Conference on, 2008,pp. 534-537.
[8] H. Nobahari, M. Nikusokhan, and P. Siarry, "A Multi-Objective
Gravitational Search Algorithm Based on Non-Dominated Sorting,"
International Journal Of Swarm Intelligence Research (!jsir), vol. 3,pp.
32-49,2012.
[9] A. Askarzadeh, "A novel metaheuristic method for solving constrained
engineering optimization problems: Crow search algorithm," Computers
& Structures, vol. 169,pp. 1-12,6// 2016.
[10] M. F. P. Costa,A. M. A. Rocha,and E. M. Fernandes, "Combining Non
dominance, Objective-order and Spread Metric to Extend Firefly
Algorithm to Multi-objective Optimization," in international Conference
on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, 2015,pp. 292-306.
[II] J. Holland and D. Goldberg, "Genetic Algorithms in Search,Optimization
and Machine Learning," ed: Addison-Wesley,Reading,MA,1989.
[12] C. M. Fonseca and P. 1. Fleming, "Genetic Algorithms for Multiobjective
Optimization: FormulationDiscussion and Generalization," in ICGA,
1993,pp. 416-423.
[13] 1. Hom, N. Nafpliotis, and D. E. Goldberg, "A niched Pareto genetic
algorithm for multiobjective optimization," in IEEE World Congress on
Computational Intelligence, 1994,pp. 82-87.
[14] S. Y. Zeng, L. S. Kang, and L. X. Ding, "An orthogonal multi-objective
evolutionary algorithm for multi-objective optimization problems with
constraints," Evolutionary computation, vol. 12,pp. 77-98,2004.
[15] M. Janga Reddy and D. Nagesh Kumar, "An efficient multi-objective
optimization algorithm based on swarm intelligence for engineering
design," Engineering Optimization, vol. 39,pp. 49-68,2007.
[16] O. Al Jadaan,L. Rajamani,and C. Rao, "NON-DOMINATED RANKED
GENETIC ALGORITHM FOR SOLVING MULTI-OBJECTIVE
OPTIMlZATION PROBLEMS: NRGA," Journal of Theoretical &
Applied information Technology, vol. 4,2008.
[17] H. Ghiasi, D. Pasini, and L. Lessard, "A non-dominated sorting hybrid
algorithm for multi-objective optimization of engineering problems,"
Engineering Optimization, vol. 43,pp. 39-59,2011.
[18] S. Salcedo-Sanz, A. Pastor-Sanchez, J. Portilla-Figueras, and L. Prieto,
"Effective multi-objective optimization with the coral reefs optimization
algorithm," Engineering Optimization, vol. 48,pp. 966-984,2016.
[19] B.-Y. Qu and P. N. Suganthan, "Multi-objective evolutionary
programming without non-domination sorting is up to twenty times
faster," in 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2009, pp.
2934-2939.
[20] J. D. Schaffer, "Some experiments in machine learning using vector
evaluated genetic algorithms," Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN
(USA)1985.
[21] T. Murata and H. Ishibuchi, "MOGA: multi-objective genetic
algorithms," in IEEE international Conference on Evolutionary
Computation, 1995,p. 289.
65
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html
[22] Y.-W. Leung and Y. Wang, "Multiobjective programming using uniform
design and genetic algorithm," iEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), vol. 30, pp. 293-304,
2000.
[23] Q. Zhang and H. Li, "MOEAlD: A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm
based on decomposition," IEEE Transactions on evolutionary
computation, vol. 11,pp. 712-731,2007.
[24] x.-S. Yang, M. Karamanoglu, and X. He, "Multi-objective flower
algorithm for optimization," Procedia Computer Science, vol. 18, pp.
861-868,2013.
[25] H.-I. Liu, Y. Wang, and Y.-m. Cheung, "A multi-objective evolutionary
algorithm using min-max strategy and sphere coordinate transformation,"
Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing, vol. 15,pp. 361-384,2009.
[26] H.-L. Liu and X. Li, "The multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on
determined weight and sub-regional search," in 2009 IEEE Congress on
Evolutionary Computation, 2009,pp. 1928-1934.
[27] Q. Zhang, A. Zhou, S. Zhao, P. N. Suganthan, W. Liu, and S. Tiwari,
"Multiobjective optimization test instances for the CEC 2009 special
session and competition," University of Essex, Colchester, UK and
Nanyang technological University, Singapore, special session on
peljormance assessment of multi-objective optimization algorithms,
technical report, vol. 264,2008.
[28] Y. Wang, C. Dang, H. Li, L. Han, and J. Wei, "A clustering multi
objective evolutionary algorithm based on orthogonal and uniform
design," in 20091EEE Congress on EvolutionGlY Computation, 2009,pp.
2927-2933.
[29] A. Zamuda,J. Brest,B. Boskovic,and V. Zumer, "Differential evolution
with self-adaptation and local search for constrained multiobjective
optimization," in 2009 iEEE Congress on EvolutionGlY Computation,
2009,pp. 195-202.
[30] M. Liu, X. Zou, Y. Chen, and Z. Wu, "Performance assessment of
DMOEA-DD with CEC 2009 MOEA competition test instances," in
IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2009,pp. 2913-2918.
[31] S. Kukkonen and 1. Lampinen, "Performance assessment of generalized
differential evolution 3 with a given set of constrained multi-objective test
problems," in 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2009,
pp. 1943-1950.
[32] Q. Zhang, W. Liu, and H. Li, 'The performance of a new version of
MOEAlD on CEC09 unconstrained MOP test instances," in IEEE
congress on evolutionary computation, 2009, pp. 203-208.
[33] L.-Y. Tseng and C. Chen, "Multiple trajectory search for
unconstrained/constrained multi-objective optimization," in 2009 IEEE
Congress on EvolutionGlY Computation, 2009, pp. 1951-1958.
[34] V. L. Huang, S. Z. Zhao, R. Mallipeddi, and P. N. Suganthan, "Multi
objective optimization using self-adaptive differential evolution
algorithm," in 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2009,
pp. 190-194.
[35] K. Sindhya, A. Sinha, K. Deb, and K. Miettinen, "Local search based
evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithm for constrained and
unconstrained problems," in 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary
Computation, 2009,pp. 2919-2926.