Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Inès Alaya
SOIE/LIRIS, National School of Computer Sciences
Manouba Campus 2010
ines.alaya@isg.rnu.tn
Christine Solnon Khaled Ghédira
LIRIS, CNRS UMR 5205, Université de Lyon SOIE, National School of Computer Sciences
43 bd 11 novembre, 69622 Villeurbanne cedex Manouba Campus 2010
christine.solnon@liris.cnrs.fr khaled.ghedira@isg.rnu.tn
Table 2. Comparison of the 4 variants of m-ACO: each line successively displays the names of the
two compared variants, and the min, average and max values of the C measure for these two variants
(over 10 runs) for instances with 100, 250, and 500 objects.
Table 3. Comparison of m-ACO4 (1,m) with evolutionary algorithms: each line successively displays
the names of the two compared algorithms, and the min, average and max values of the C measure
for these two algorithms (over 10 runs) for instances with 100, 250, and 500 objects.
9700 19400
m-AC0(m,m) m-AC0(m,m)
m-AC0(1,1) m-AC0(1,1)
9600 m-AC0(1,m) m-AC0(1,m)
19300
9500
19200
9400
19100
9300
z2
z2
19000
9200
18900
9100
18800
9000
8900 18700
8800 18600
8600 8700 8800 8900 9000 9100 9200 9300 18200 18300 18400 18500 18600 18700 18800 18900 19000
z1 z1
Figure 4. Instance with 250 objects. Figure 5. Instance with 500 objects.
for all the tested instances. The C measure is equal to one can conclude that m-ACO4 (1,m) finds better results than
in several combinations. For these cases, the non dominated SPEA for large instances.
solutions of m-ACO4 (1,m) dominate all the non dominated
solutions returned by the other algorithm. 7 Conclusion
When comparing m-ACO4 (1,m) with SPEA, we note
that, for the 100 objects instance, there are non dominated We have proposed in this paper a generic ACO algorithm
solutions returned by m-ACO4 (1,m) that dominate others for solving multiobjective optimization problems called m-
returned by SPEA, and also there are solutions from SPEA ACO. This algorithm is parameterized by the number of
that dominate others returned by m-ACO4 (1,m). For the ant colonies and the number of pheromone trails. We have
250 objects instance, non dominated solutions of SPEA tested four variants of this algorithm on the multiobjec-
slightly dominate ones of m-ACO4 (1,m). But for the 500 tive knapsack problem (MOKP). We have found that m-
objects instance, non dominated solutions returned by m- ACO4 (1,m), where m is the number of criteria to opti-
ACO4 (1,m) dominate the ones returned by SPEA. So we mize, returns globally the best results. This variant is based
on new idea relatively to state-of-the-art ACO approaches. [9] L. Gambardella, E.D. Taillard, G. Agazzi, MACS-VRPTW:
In fact, it uses a single colony with several pheromone A Multiple Ant Colony System for Vehicle Routing Prob-
trails. At each construction step, an ant randomly chooses a lems with Time Windows, in F. G. D. Corne, M. Dorigo
pheromone trail corresponding to an objective to optimize. (ed.), New Ideas in Optimization, McGraw Hill, London,
The basic ideas of the other variants was used in other state- UK, 1999, p. 63-76.
of-the-art algorithms: using a single or several colonies with [10] M. Gravel, W. L. Price, C. Gagné, Scheduling Continu-
respectively single or several pheromone structures. Never- ous Casting of Aluminium using a Multiple Objective Ant
theless, these variants have some specificities. For example Colony Optimization Metaheuristic, European Journal of
in m-ACO(m+1,m), there are m colonies with m pheromone Operational Research, vol. 143, n1, 2002, p. 218-229.
structures but there is also an extra multiobjective colony [11] P. Hajela, C-Y. Lin, Genetic search strategies in multicri-
that considers a randomly chosen objective at each con- terion optimal design, Structural Optimization, n 4, 1992,
struction step. p. 99-107.
We have compared the variant m-ACO4 (1,m) with sev- [12] J. Horn, N. Nafpliotis, D.E. Goldberg, A niched pareto ge-
eral evolutionary algorithms (EA) proposed in the literature netic algorithm for multiobjective optimization, in I. S. Cen-
for solving the MOKP. We have found that our algorithm m- ter (ed.), First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computa-
ACO4 (1,m) returns generally the best results for all the con- tion, vol. 1, IEEE World Congress on Computational Com-
sidered algorithms. More precisely, m-ACO4 (1,m) finds in putation, Piscataway, 1994, p. 82-87.
the Pareto set solutions that dominate others from the Pareto [13] S. Iredi, D. Merkle, M. Middendorf, Bi-Criterion Optimiza-
sets returned by the tested EA. But these algorithms, ex- tion with Multi Colony Ant Algorithms, First International
cept the SPEA algorithm, don’t find solutions that dominate Conference on Evolutionary Multi-criterion Optimization
others returned by m-ACO4 (1,m). SPEA finds better solu- (EMO’01), vol. 1993, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
2001, p. 359-372.
tions than m-ACO4 (1,m) for the small instances, but for the
largest instance tested m-ACO4 (1,m) finds better results. [14] C. E. Mariano, E. Morales, A Multiple Objective Ant-Q Al-
gorithm for the Design of Water Distribution Irrigation Net-
works, Technical Report n HC-9904, Instituto Mexicano de
References Tecnologa del Agua, Mexico, June, 1999.
[15] P. R. McMullen, An Ant Colony Optimization Approach to
[1] I. Alaya, C. Solnon, K. Ghédira, Ant algorithm for the
Addressing a JIT Sequencing Problem with Multiple Ob-
multi-dimensional knapsack problem, Proceedings of Inter-
jectives, Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, vol. 15, n3,
national Conference on Bioinspired Optimization Methods ,
2001, p. 309-317.
their Applications (BIOMA 2004), 2004, p. 63-72.
[2] B. Barán, M. Schaerer, A Multiobjective Ant Colony Sys- [16] J. Schaffer, Multiple objective optimization with vector eval-
tem for Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Windows, Proc. uated genetic algorithms, in J. Grefenstette (ed.), ICGA
Twenty first IASTED International Conference on Applied International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Lecture
Informatics, Insbruck, Austria, 2003, p. 97-102. Notes in Computer Science, 1985, p. 93-100.
[3] B. Bullnheimer R.F. Hartl C. Strauss, An Improved Ant sys- [17] N. Srinivas, K. Deb, Multiobjective optimization using non
tem Algorithm for the Vehicule Routing Problem, Annals of dominated sorting in genetic algorithms, Evolutionary Com-
Operations Research, vol. 89, 1999, p. 319-328. putation, vol. 2, 1994, p. 221-248.
[4] K. Doerner, R. F. Hartl, M. Teimann, Are COMPETants [18] C. Solnon, Ants can Solve Constraint Satisfaction Problems ,
More Competent for Problem Solving? The Case of Full IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 6, n4,
Truckload Transportation, Central European Journal of Op- 2002, p. 347-357.
erations Research, vol. 11, n2, 2003, p. 115-141. [19] C. Solnon, S. Fenet, A study of ACO capabilities for solv-
[5] K. Doerner, W. J. Gutjahr, R. F. Hartl, C. Strauss, C. Stum- ing the Maximum Clique Problem, Journal of Heuristics,
mer, Pareto Ant Colony Optimization: A Metaheuristic Ap- vol. 12, n3, 2006, p. 155-180.
proach to Multiobjective Portfolio Selection, Annals of Op- [20] T. Stützle, H. Hoos, MAX −MIN Ant System, Journal of
erations Research, 2004. Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 16, 2000, p. 889-
[6] M. Dorigo, Optimization, Learning, Natural Algorithms (in 914.
Italian), PhD thesis, Dipartimento di Elettronica, Politecnico
[21] E. Zitzler, L. Thiele, Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms:
di Milano, Italy, 1992.
a comparative case study, the strength Pareto approach,
[7] M. Dorigo, T. Stüzle, Ant Colony Optimization, MIT Press, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, n 3, 1999,
2004. p. 257-271.
[8] C.M. Fonseca, P.J. Fleming, Genetic algorithms for multi-
objective optimization: formulation, discussion, generaliza-
tion, The Fifth International Conference on Genetic Algo-
rithms, 1993, p. 416-423.