World Scientific
  • Search
Skip main navigation

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
×
Our website is made possible by displaying certain online content using javascript.
In order to view the full content, please disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website www.worldscientific.com.

System Upgrade on Tue, Oct 25th, 2022 at 2am (EDT)

Existing users will be able to log into the site and access content. However, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at [email protected] for any enquiries.

COMPARING MINIMUM NEIGHBORHOOD EVALUATION SCHEMES FOR FINDING SPATIALLY ROBUST SOLUTIONS

    The common definition for robust solutions considers a solution robust if it remains optimal when the parameters defining the fitness function are perturbed. A second definition that can be found in the literature: robustness occurs when a solution can be varied spatially without a significant drop in fitness. We propose an alternative operational definition for spatial robustness: both the solution and the neighbourhood around the solution has fitness above a given threshold. With this new definition, we created a set of functions with useful properties to allow for the testing of solution robustness. The performance of a Genetic Algorithm (GA) is then evaluated based on its ability to identify multiple robust solutions based on the above robustness definition. Different neighbourhood evaluation schemes are identified from the literature and compared, with the minimum neighbour technique proving to be the most effective.

    References

    • K.   Hacker and K.   Lewis , Robust Design Through the Use of a Hybrid Genetic Algorithm , ASME 2002 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference ( 2002 ) . Google Scholar
    • Ray, T., Constrained Robust Optimal Design using a Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm. IEEE, 2002 . Google Scholar
    • Sevaux, M. and K. Sörensen, A genetic algorithm for robust schedules. 2002, University of Valenciennes: Valenciennes . Google Scholar
    • Jensen, M.T. and T.K. Hansen, Robust solutions to Job Shop problems. 1999, Aarhus University . Google Scholar
    • K.   Sörensen , Tabu Searching for Robust Solutions , 4th Metaheuristics International Conference ( 2001 ) . Google Scholar
    • Y. Jin and J. Branke, IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation 9(3), 303 (2005), DOI: 10.1109/TEVC.2005.846356. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • S. Tsutsui and A. Ghosh, IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation 1(3), 201 (1997), DOI: 10.1109/4235.661550. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Y.   Jin and B.   Sendhoff , Trade-off between Performance and Robustness: An Evolutionary Multiobjective Approach , Second International Conference on Evolutionary Multicriterion Optimization ( Springer , 2003 ) . Google Scholar
    • G.   Venter , R. T.   Haftka and J.   Sobieszczanski-Sobieski , Robust Design Using Particle Swarm and Genetic Algorithm Optimization , 5th World Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization ( 2003 ) . Google Scholar
    • J. Branke, Creating Robust Solutions by Means of Evolutionary Algorithms, 1498th edn., Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer, 1998) pp. 119–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • D.   Lim , Y.-S.   Ong and B.-S.   Lee , Inverse Multi-Objective Robust Evolutionary Design Optimization in the Presence of Uncertainty , GECCO'05 ( 2005 ) . Google Scholar
    • K.   Deb and H.   Gupta , Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization ( Springer-Verlag , 2005 ) . CrossrefGoogle Scholar