[19] S. Phelps and M. Koksalan, “An interactive evolutionary metaheuristic for multiobjective combinatorial optimization,” Management Science, vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 1726–1738, December 2003. [20] J. W. Fowler, E. S. Gel, M. Koksalan, P. Korhonen, J. L. Marquis, and J. Wallenius, “<strong>Interactive</strong> evolutionary multi-objective optimization for quasi-concave preference functions,” 2009, submitted to European Journal of Operational Research. [21] A. Jaszkiewicz, “<strong>Interactive</strong> multiobjective optimization with the pareto memetic algorithm,” Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 15–32, 2007. [22] J. Figueira, S. Greco, and R. Slowinski, “Building a set of additive value functions reprsenting a reference preorder and intensities of preference: GRIP method,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 195, no. 2, pp. 460–486, 2009. [23] E. Zitzler, M. Laumanns, and L. Thiele, “SPEA2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization,” in <strong>Evolutionary</strong> Methods for Design <strong>Optimization</strong> and Control with Applications to Industrial Problems, K. C. Giannakoglou, D. T. Tsahalis, J. Périaux, K. D. Papailiou, and T. Fogarty, Eds. Athens, Greece: International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE), 2001, pp. 95–100. [24] A. M. Geoffrion, “Proper efficiency and theory of vector maximization,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 618–630, 1968. [25] P. Korhonen and J. Karaivanova, “An algorithm for projecting a reference direction onto the nondominated set of given points,” IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics–Part A: Systems and Humans, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 429–435, 1999. [26] S. Zionts and J. Wallenius, “An interactive programming method for solving the multiple criteria problem,” Management Science, vol. 22, pp. 656–663, 1976. [27] A. Mas-Colell, M. D. Whinston, and J. R. Green, Microeconomic Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. [28] A. P. Wierzbicki, “The use of reference objectives in multiobjective optimization,” in <strong>Multi</strong>ple Criteria Decision Making Theory and Applications, G. Fandel and T. Gal, Eds. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1980, pp. 468–486. [29] K. Deb and R. B. Agrawal, “Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space,” Complex Systems, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 115–148, 1995. [30] K. V. Price, R. Storn, and J. Lampinen, Differential Evolution: A Practical Approach to Global <strong>Optimization</strong>. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2005. [31] R. H. Byrd, J. Nocedal, and R. A. Waltz, KNITRO: An integrated package for nonlinear optimization. Springer-Verlag, 2006, pp. 35– 59. [32] E. Zitzler, K. Deb, and L. Thiele, “Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical results,” <strong>Evolutionary</strong> Computation Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 125–148, 2000. [33] K. Deb, L. Thiele, M. Laumanns, and E. Zitzler, “Scalable test problems for evolutionary multi-objective optimization,” in <strong>Evolutionary</strong> <strong>Multi</strong>objective <strong>Optimization</strong>, A. Abraham, L. Jain, and R. Goldberg, Eds. London: Springer-Verlag, 2005, pp. 105–145. [34] D. Saxena and K. Deb, “Trading on infeasibility by exploiting constraint’s criticality through multi-objectivization: A system design perspective,” in Proceedings of the Congress on <strong>Evolutionary</strong> Computation (CEC-2007), in press. [35] D. W. Corne, J. D. Knowles, and M. Oates, “The Pareto envelope-based selection algorithm for multiobjective optimization,” in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature VI (PPSN-VI), 2000, pp. 839–848. 46
2 <strong>Progressively</strong> interactive evolutionary multi-objective optimization method using generalized polynomial value functions A. Sinha, K. Deb, P. Korhonen, and J. Wallenius In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Congress on <strong>Evolutionary</strong> Computa- tion (CEC-2010), pages 1-8. IEEE Press, 2010. 47
- Page 1 and 2:
Department of Business Technology P
- Page 3 and 4: Aalto University publication series
- Page 5 and 6: Progressively Interactive Evolution
- 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: on developed value function. For ex
- 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:
LL Function Evals. UL Function Eval
- Page 112 and 113:
LL Function Evals. UL Function Eval
- 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