Benchmarks for dynamic multi-objective optimisation algorithms

No Thumbnail Available
File version
Author(s)
Helbig, M
Engelbrecht, AP
Griffith University Author(s)
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
2014
Size
File type(s)
Location
License
Abstract

Algorithms that solve Dynamic Multi-Objective Optimisation Problems (DMOOPs) should be tested on benchmark functions to determine whether the algorithm can overcome specific difficulties that can occur in real-world problems. However, for Dynamic Multi-Objective Optimisation (DMOO), no standard benchmark functions are used. A number of DMOOPs have been proposed in recent years. However, no comprehensive overview of DMOOPs exist in the literature. Therefore, choosing which benchmark functions to use is not a trivial task. This article seeks to address this gap in the DMOO literature by providing a comprehensive overview of proposed DMOOPs, and proposing characteristics that an ideal DMOO benchmark function suite should exhibit. In addition, DMOOPs are proposed for each characteristic. Shortcomings of current DMOOPs that do not address certain characteristics of an ideal benchmark suite are highlighted. These identified shortcomings are addressed by proposing new DMOO benchmark functions with complicated Pareto-Optimal Sets (POSs), and approaches to develop DMOOPs with either an isolated or deceptive Pareto-Optimal Front (POF). In addition, DMOO application areas and real-world DMOOPs are discussed.

Journal Title

Computing Surveys

Conference Title
Book Title
Edition
Volume

46

Issue

3

Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
Publisher link
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights Statement
Item Access Status
Note
Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject

Information and computing sciences

Science & Technology

Technology

Computer Science, Theory & Methods

Computer Science

Measurement

Persistent link to this record
Citation

Helbig, M; Engelbrecht, AP, Benchmarks for dynamic multi-objective optimisation algorithms, Computing Surveys, 2014, 46 (3), pp. 1-39

Collections