Advances and Applications in Discrete Mathematics

The Advances and Applications in Discrete Mathematics is a prestigious peer-reviewed journal indexed in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). It is dedicated to publishing original research articles in the field of discrete mathematics and combinatorics, including topics such as graphs, coding theory, and block design. The journal emphasizes efficient and powerful tools for real-world applications and welcomes expository articles that highlight current developments in the field.

Submit Article

ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS OF INTEGRATING THE OPPOSITION BASED LEARNING TECHNIQUE INTO NON-DOMINATED SORTING GENETIC ALGORITHM III

Authors

  • Shilpi Jain
  • Kamlesh Kumar Dubey

Keywords:

multi-objective optimization, NSGA III, Pareto-optimal solutions, performance metrics, opposition-based learning, convergence, diversity.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17654/0974165823007

Abstract

Deterministic and heuristic approaches have shown significant contributions in solving the mono-objective optimization problems. In the case of multi-objective optimization problems, metaheuristic approaches have achieved great success in providing quality Pareto-optimal solutions, rather than deterministic and heuristic approaches. Basically, quality of Pareto-optimal solutions depends upon convergence and diversity maintained by optimization algorithm, where convergence and diversity refer to the search capabilities of optimization algorithm towards and along Pareto-optimal front, respectively. In this line, the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm III (NSGA III), a population-based metaheuristic method, has become a widely accepted multi-objective optimization algorithm. However, random generation of initial population might generate the undiversified initial population and that may lead to premature convergence giving the local Pareto-optimal solutions rather than global Pareto-optimal solutions. To alleviate, this paper integrates the opposition-based learning (OBL) method in NSGA III for population initialization and generation jumping. The usefulness of OBL integrated NSGA III is demonstrated through solving a numerical example of construction project. Based on several performance metrics, the results of numerical example indicate that the OBL integrated NSGA III outperforms the NSGA III and other existing algorithms in a significant manner.

Received: October 20, 2022;
Revised: November 23, 2022;
Accepted: December 28, 2022;

References

N. Gunantara, A review of multi-objective optimization: methods and its applications, Cogent Eng. 5(1) (2018), 1-16.

doi:10.1080/23311916.2018.1502242.

J. H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence, 1975.

N. Srinivas and K. Deb, Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms, Evol. Comput. 2 (1994), 221-248.

doi:10.1162/evco.1994.2.3.221.

K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal and T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6 (2002), 182-197. doi:10.1109/4235.996017.

K. Deb and H. Jain, An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point-based nondominated sorting approach, Part I: solving problems with box constraints, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 18 (2014), 577-601.

doi:10.1109/TEVC.2013.2281535.

K. Sharma and M. K. Trivedi, Latin hypercube sampling-based NSGA-III optimization model for multimode resource constrained time-cost-quality-safety trade-off in construction projects, Int. J. Constr. Manag. 22 (2022), 3158-3168. doi:10.1080/15623599.2020.1843769.

H. R. Tizhoosh, Opposition-based learning: a new scheme for machine intelligence, Proceedings - International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modelling, Control and Automation, CIMCA 2005 and International Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies and Internet, 2005. doi:10.1109/cimca.2005.1631345.

M. Y. Cheng and D. H. Tran, Opposition-based multiple-objective differential evolution to solve the time-cost-environment impact trade-off problem in construction projects, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 29 (2015).

doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000386.

I. Das and J. E. Dennis, Normal-boundary intersection: a new method for generating the Pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimization problems, SIAM J. Optim. 8 (1998). doi:10.1137/S1052623496307510.

R. Storn and K. Price, Differential evolution - a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces, J. Global Optim. 11 (1997), 341-359. doi:10.1023/A:1008202821328.

K. Deb and R. B. Agrawal, Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space, Complex Syst. 9 (1995), 115-148. doi:10.1.1.26.8485Cached.

S. Rahnamayan, H. R. Tizhoosh and M. M. Salama, Opposition-based differential evolution, Stud. Comput. Intell.143 (2008), 155-171.

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68830-3_6.

A. Panwar and K. N. Jha, A many-objective optimization model for construction scheduling, Constr. Manag. Econ. 37 (2019), 727-739.

doi:10.1080/01446193.2019.1590615.

F. Habibi, F. Barzinpour and S. J. Sadjadi, Resource-constrained project scheduling problem: review of past and recent developments, J. Proj. Manag. 3 (2018), 55-88. doi:10.5267/j.jpm.2018.1.005.

S. Tiwari and S. Johari, Project scheduling by integration of time cost trade-off and constrained resource scheduling, J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 96 (2015), 37-46. doi:10.1007/s40030-014-0099-2.

K. Feng, W. Lu, S. Chen and Y. Wang, An integrated environment-cost-time optimisation method for construction contractors considering global warming, Sustain. 10(11) (2018), 1-22. doi:10.3390/su10114207.

D. L. Luong, D. H. Tran and P. T. Nguyen, Optimizing multi-mode time-cost-quality trade-off of construction project using opposition multiple objective difference evolution. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 21 (2021), 271-283.

doi:10.1080/15623599.2018.1526630.

K. El-Rayes and A. Kandil, Time-cost-quality trade-off analysis for highway construction, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 131(4) (2005).

doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:4(477).

A. Afshar and H. R. Z. Dolabi, Multi-objective optimization of time-cost-safety using genetic algorithm, Int. J. Optim. Civ. Eng. 4 (2014), 433-450.

E. Elbeltagi, M. Ammar, H. Sanad and M. Kassab, Overall multiobjective optimization of construction projects scheduling using particle swarm, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 23 (2016), 265-282. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-11-2014-0135.

G. Singh, A. T. Ernst, Resource constraint scheduling with a fractional shared resource, Oper. Res. Lett. 39(5) (2011), 363-368. doi:10.1016/j.orl.2011.06.003

K. Khalili-Damghani, M. Tavana, A. R. Abtahi and F. J. Santos Arteaga, Solving multi-mode time-cost-quality trade-off problems under generalized precedence relations, Optim. Methods Softw. 30 (2015), 965-1001.

doi:10.1080/10556788.2015.1005838.

K. Deb and M. Goyal, A combined genetic adaptive search (GeneAS) for engineering design, Comput. Sci. Informatics 26 (1996), 30-45. doi: citeulike-article-id:9625478.

J. C. Ferreira, C. M. Fonseca and A. Gaspar-Cunha, Methodology to select solutions from the Pareto-optimal set: a comparative study, Proceedings of GECCO 2007: Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, 2007. doi:10.1145/1276958.1277117.

S. E. Elmaghraby, Activity Networks: Project Planning and Control by Network Models, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1977.

Published

2023-01-12

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS OF INTEGRATING THE OPPOSITION BASED LEARNING TECHNIQUE INTO NON-DOMINATED SORTING GENETIC ALGORITHM III. (2023). Advances and Applications in Discrete Mathematics, 36, 93-119. https://doi.org/10.17654/0974165823007

Similar Articles

1-10 of 61

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.