Take a look at the new version of this page: [ beta version ]. Tell us what you think.

ABSTRACT

The resolution of a Multi-Objective Optimization Problem (MOOP) does not end when the Pareto-optimal set is found. In real problems, a single solution must be selected. Ideally, this solution must belong to the non-dominated solutions set and must take into account the preferences of a Decision Maker (DM). Therefore, the searching for a single solution (or solutions) in MOOP is done in two steps. First, a Pareto optimal set is found. Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEA), based on the principle of Pareto optimality, are designed to produce the complete set of non-dominated solutions. Second, a methodology able to select a single solution from the set of non-dominated solutions (or a region of the Pareto frontier), and taking into account the preferences of a Decision Maker (DM), can be applied. In this work, a method, based on a weighted stress function, is proposed. It is able to integrate the user's preferences in order to find the best region of the Pareto frontier accordingly with these preferences. This method was tested on some benchmark test problems, with two and three criteria. This methodology is able to select efficiently the best Pareto-frontier region for the specified relative importance of the criteria.

REFERENCES

• 1: Branke, J., and Deb, K. Integrating User Preferences into Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization. Technical report (http://www.iitk.ac.in/kangal/reports.shtml), 2004.
• 2: Miettinen, K. M. Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization. Kluwer, Boston, 1999.
• 3: Kaliszewski, I. Soft Computing for Complex Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Springer, NY, 2006.
• 4: Deb, K., Sundar, J., Bhaskara, U., and Chaudhuri, S. Reference Point Based Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. ISSN International Journal of Computational Intelligence Research, 2, 3, (2006), 273--286.
• 5: Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agrawal, S., and Meyarivan, T. A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. on Evol. Comp., 6, 2 (2002), 182--197.
• 6: Kalyanmoy Deb , Deb Kalyanmoy, Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2001
• 7: Carlos M. Fonseca , Peter J. Fleming, Genetic Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: FormulationDiscussion and Generalization, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, p.416-423, June 01, 1993
• 8: Fonseca, C. M., and Fleming, P. J. Multiobjective optimization and multiple constraint handling with evolutionary algorithms, part I: A unified formulation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 28, 1 (1998), 26--37.
• 9: Ded, K., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., and Zitzler E. Scalable Multi-Objective Optimization Test Problems. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1, (2002), 825--830.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.8 Problem Solving, Control Methods, and Search
          Subjects: Heuristic methods

General Terms:
Algorithms

Keywords:
decision making, multi-objective, optimization