Progressively Interactive Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Abstract Aalto University, P.O. Box 11000, FI-00076 Aalto www.aalto.fi Author Ankur Sinha Name of the doctoral dissertation Progressively Interactive Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization Publisher Aalto University School of Economics Unit Department of Business Technology Series Aalto University publication series DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS 17/2011 Field of research Decision Making and Optimization Abstract A complete optimization procedure for a multi-objective problem essentially comprises of search and decision making. Depending upon how the search and decision making task is integrated, algorithms can be classified into various categories. Following `a decision making after search' approach, which is common with evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithms, requires to produce all the possible alternatives before a decision can be taken. This, with the intricacies involved in producing the entire Pareto-front, is not a wise approach for high objective problems. Rather, for such kind of problems, the most preferred point on the front should be the target. In this study we propose and evaluate algorithms where search and decision making tasks work in tandem and the most preferred solution is the outcome. For the two tasks to work simultaneously, an interaction of the decision maker with the algorithm is necessary, therefore, preference information from the decision maker is accepted periodically by the algorithm and progress towards the most preferred point is made. Two different progressively interactive procedures have been suggested in the dissertation which can be integrated with any existing evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithm to improve its effectiveness in handling high objective problems by making it capable to accept preference information at the intermediate steps of the algorithm. A number of high objective un-constrained as well as constrained problems have been successfully solved using the procedures. One of the less explored and difficult domains, i.e., bilevel multiobjective optimization has also been targeted and a solution methodology has been proposed. Initially, the bilevel multi-objective optimization problem has been solved by developing a hybrid bilevel evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithm. Thereafter, the progressively interactive procedure has been incorporated in the algorithm leading to an increased accuracy and savings in computational cost. The efficacy of using a progressively interactive approach for solving difficult multi-objective problems has, therefore, further been justified. Keywords Evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithms, multiple criteria decisionmaking, interactive multi-objective optimization algorithms, bilevel optimization ISBN (printed) 978-952-60-4052-3 ISBN (pdf) 978-952-60-4053-0 ISSN-L 1799-4934 ISSN (printed) 1799-4934 ISSN (pdf) 1799-4942 Pages 135 Location of publisher Espoo Location of printing Helsinki Year 2011
Progressively Interactive Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization Ankur Sinha Department of Business Technology P.O. Box 21210, FI-00076 Aalto University School of Economics Helsinki, Finland Ankur.Sinha@aalto.fi Abstract A complete optimization procedure for a multi-objective problem essentially comprises of search and decision making. Depending upon how the search and decision making task is integrated, algorithms can be classified into various categories. Following ‘a decision making after search’ approach, which is common with evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithms, requires to produce all the possible alternatives before a decision can be taken. This, with the intricacies involved in producing the entire Pareto-front, is not a wise approach for high objective problems. Rather, for such kind of problems, the most preferred point on the front should be the target. In this study we propose and evaluate algorithms where search and decision making tasks work in tandem and the most preferred solution is the outcome. For the two tasks to work simultaneously, an interaction of the decision maker with the algorithm is necessary, therefore, preference information from the decision maker is accepted periodically by the algorithm and progress towards the most preferred point is made. Two different progressively interactive procedures have been suggested in the dissertation which can be integrated with any existing evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithm to improve its effectiveness in handling high objective problems by making it capable to accept preference information at the intermediate steps of the algorithm. A number of
Page 1 and 2: Department of Business Technology P
Page 3: Aalto University publication series
Page 7: Acknowledgements The dissertation h
Page 10 and 11: II List of Papers 27 1 An interacti
Page 12 and 13: 1 Introduction Many real-world appl
Page 14 and 15: • f(x (1) ) ≥ f(x (2) ) fi(x (1
Page 16 and 17: for a maximization problem. Mathema
Page 18 and 19: • x (1) ∼ x (2) ⇔ x (1) and x
Page 20 and 21: Start Initialise Population Assign
Page 22 and 23: ithm can approximate the Pareto-opt
Page 24 and 25: Minimize/Maximize F(x) = (f1(x), f2
Page 26 and 27: the search is chosen. A scalarizing
Page 28 and 29: of the papers is provided in this s
Page 30: problems. The study discusses some
Page 33 and 34: [9] K. Deb and A. Sinha. An efficie
Page 35 and 36: [31] L. Thiele, K. Miettinen, P. Ko
Page 37 and 38: 1 An interactive evolutionary multi
Page 39 and 40: DM and an MCDM-based EMO algorithm
Page 41 and 42: In Step 2, points in the best non-d
Page 43 and 44: esulting constraints then become ki
Page 45 and 46: mechanisms) and their emphasis of n
Page 47 and 48: f2 10 8 6 4 2 P1 P2 Most preferred
Page 49 and 50: DM calls. As mentioned earlier, the
Page 51 and 52: A linear value function similar to
Page 53 and 54: on developed value function. For ex
Page 55 and 56:
2 Progressively interactive evoluti
Page 57 and 58:
DM one or more pairs of alternative
Page 59 and 60:
f 2 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 P
Page 61 and 62:
TABLE III DISTANCE OF OBTAINED SOLU
Page 63:
The PI-EMO-VF algorithm has been te
Page 66 and 67:
An Interactive Evolutionary Multi-O
Page 68 and 69:
direction has been done by Phelps a
Page 70 and 71:
0 ∀ i ∈ {1, . . . , M}, then th
Page 72 and 73:
f2 0000000000000 1111111111111 0000
Page 74 and 75:
Table 1. Final solutions obtained b
Page 76 and 77:
Table 4. Distance of obtained solut
Page 78 and 79:
DM Calls and Func. Evals. (in thous
Page 80 and 81:
13. P. Korhonen and J. Laakso, “A
Page 82 and 83:
An EfficientandAccurateSolution Met
Page 84 and 85:
eight differentproblems areshown. A
Page 86 and 87:
3.2 AlgorithmicDevelopments Onesimp
Page 88 and 89:
more studies are performed, the alg
Page 90 and 91:
4.4 TestProblemTP4 The next problem
Page 92 and 93:
F2 Step 3: Map (U1,U2) to (f1*,f2*)
Page 94 and 95:
F2 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 A y1
Page 96 and 97:
• Theupperlevelproblemhas multi-m
Page 98 and 99:
are K + L + 1real-valuedvariablesin
Page 100 and 101:
thereafterinaself-adaptivemannerbyd
Page 102 and 103:
ulation of Nl(x (1) u ) lower level
Page 104 and 105:
NSGA-II is able to bring the member
Page 106 and 107:
F2 0 −0.2 −0.4 −0.6 −0.8
Page 108 and 109:
LL Function Evals. UL Function Eval
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Table 1: Total function evaluations
Page 116 and 117:
Difference in HV, DH(T) 350000 3000
Page 118 and 119:
Table 4: Comparison of function eva
Page 120 and 121:
Deb, K. and Sinha, A. (2009a). Cons
Page 122 and 123:
Sun, D., Benekohal, R. F., and Wall
Page 124 and 125:
Bilevel Multi-Objective Optimizatio
Page 126 and 127:
The constraint functions g(x) and h
Page 128 and 129:
value function which are required t
Page 130 and 131:
to get close to the most preferred
Page 132 and 133:
F2 0.4 0.2 0 −0.2 Lower level P
Page 134 and 135:
F2 2 1.5 1 0.5 Most Preferred Point
Page 136 and 137:
provement in terms of function eval
Page 138:
9HSTFMG*aeafcd+ ISBN: 978-952-60-40
show all

Progressively Interactive Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?