2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.swevo.2021.100987
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A dynamic multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm based on adversarial decomposition and neighborhood evolution

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Considering adversarial decomposition and neighborhood evolution using the complementary characteristics in the search area, the authors of [20] proposed a dynamic multi-objective PSO approach. In [21], the authors proposed a neighborhood-based PSO with discrete crossover using a two-stage framework to balance exploitation and exploration.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Considering adversarial decomposition and neighborhood evolution using the complementary characteristics in the search area, the authors of [20] proposed a dynamic multi-objective PSO approach. In [21], the authors proposed a neighborhood-based PSO with discrete crossover using a two-stage framework to balance exploitation and exploration.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To gauge the potency of this proposed method, we employ distinct benchmark test functions: ZDT 65 , DTLZ 66 , Constraint 67 , 68 (CONSTR, TNK, SRN, BNH, OSY and KITA) and real-world engineering design Brushless DC wheel motor 69 (RWMOP1), Helical spring 68 (RWMOP2), Two-bar truss 68 (RWMOP3), Welded beam 70 (RWMOP4), Disk brake 71 (RWMOP5). The objective of this assessment is to compare the efficacy of our proposed method against MOMPA, NSGA-II, MOAOA, MOEA/D and MOGNDO, using metrics like generational distance (GD) 34 , inverse generational distance (IGD) 35 , hypervolume 36 , Spacing 37 , Spread 36 and run time (RT). The approximations of the Pareto-front produced by our method are evaluated using these metrics.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We aimed to gauge their capabilities in swiftly converging to the true Pareto optimal front and the distribution of the obtained non-dominated solutions. Upon assessing their convergence and coverage using MO metrics and the produced Pareto optimal fronts on benchmark suites (ZDT [ 54 ], DTLZ [ 54 ], Constraint [ 68 , 69 ] and engineering design problems [ 55 , 56 ]), we discerned that these algorithms still exhibited shortcomings in convergence and coverage using metrics like generational distance (GD) [ 70 ], inverse generational distance (IGD) [ 71 ], hypervolume [ 72 ], Spacing [ 73 ], Spread [ 72 ] and run time (RT). The approximations of the Pareto-front produced by our method are evaluated using these metrics.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%