Content uploaded by Jeffrey Horn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jeffrey Horn on Sep 03, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Comparison Set Individuals
Candidate Individuals
Sigma Share
Equivalence Class Region
Candidate 1
Candidate 2
Niches Determined by
x
y
x
y
x
y
p < 1
x
y
p = 2 p > 2p = 1
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
5
10
15
20
25
f21
f22
30
35
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-1 1
VEGA
f21f22
2
X
1
2
3
4
5
6
-1 1
Niched
Pareto GA
f21f22
X
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Average Volume Detected
Number of Plumes Detected
Generation 0
gen 0 =
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Average Volume Detected
Number of Plumes Detected
Generation 230
gen 230 =
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Average Volume Detected
Number of Plumes Detected
Generation 0 and Generation 230
gen 0 =
230 =
Curve
Actual Population Members on the
Pareto Optimal Front
Interpolated Tradeoff
optimal front
Solution choice is on front
but not represented in
best-of-run set
Solution choice is
in front of the Pareto
evolve by using sharing
and single objective GA
Individuals that should
Test Point
Fitness value is distance
from point outside front.
B
Marketshare
FALSE DOMINATION
Pareto Frontier
Pareto Frontier
Marketshare
Profit Profit
FALSE INFERIORITY
C
C
A
B
A