Interactive Multiobjective Optimization Using a Set of Additive Value Functions

In this chapter, we present a new interactive procedure for multiobjective optimization, which is based on the use of a set of value functions as a preference model built by an ordinal regression method. The procedure is composed of two alternating stages. In the first stage, a representative sample of solutions from the Pareto optimal set (or from its approximation) is generated. In the second stage, the Decision Maker (DM) is asked to make pairwise comparisons of some solutions from the generated sample. Besides pairwise comparisons, the DM may compare selected pairs from the viewpoint of the intensity of preference, both comprehensively and with respect to a single criterion. This preference information is used to build a preference model composed of all general additive value functions compatible with the obtained information. The set of compatible value functions is then applied on the whole Pareto optimal set, which results in possible and necessary rankings of Pareto optimal solutions. These rankings are used to select a new sample of solutions, which is presented to the DM, and the procedure cycles until a satisfactory solution is selected from the sample or the DM comes to conclusion that there is no satisfactory solution for the current problem setting. Construction of the set of compatible value functions is done using ordinal regression methods called UTA$^{\mbox{\scriptsize GMS}}$ and GRIP. These two methods generalize UTA-like methods and they are competitive to AHP and MACBETH methods. The interactive procedure will be illustrated through an example.

[1]  Vincent Mousseau,et al.  Inferring an ELECTRE TRI Model from Assignment Examples , 1998, J. Glob. Optim..

[2]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions , 2008, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  R. Słowiński,et al.  Molp with an interactive assessment of a piecewise linear utility function , 1987 .

[4]  Jean-Luc Marichal,et al.  Determination of weights of interacting criteria from a reference set , 2000, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[5]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[6]  Roman Słowiński,et al.  The Use of Rough Sets and Fuzzy Sets in MCDM , 1999 .

[7]  Jean-Marc Martel,et al.  ELECCALC - an interactive software for modelling the decision maker's preferences , 1994, Decis. Support Syst..

[8]  C. B. E. Costa,et al.  MACBETH — An Interactive Path Towards the Construction of Cardinal Value Functions , 1994 .

[9]  Bernard Roy,et al.  Aide multicritère à la décision : méthodes et cas , 1993 .

[10]  J. March Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice , 1978 .

[11]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Rough Set Based Decision Support , 2005 .

[12]  Carlos A. Bana e Costa,et al.  On the Mathematical Foundation of MACBETH , 2005 .

[13]  S. Greco,et al.  Decision Rule Approach , 2005 .

[14]  J. Siskos Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making , 1982 .

[15]  Dov Pekelman,et al.  Mathematical Programming Models for the Determination of Attribute Weights , 1974 .

[16]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[17]  Jennifer L. Dodd,et al.  Is This Mathematical , 2010 .

[18]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys , 2005 .

[19]  José Rui Figueira,et al.  Building a set of additive value functions representing a reference preorder and intensities of preference: GRIP method , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  Allan D. Shocker,et al.  Estimating the weights for multiple attributes in a composite criterion using pairwise judgments , 1973 .