Effective generation of the Pareto frontier using the Normal Constraint method

In engineering optimization, Pareto solutions are those where improvement in one design objective can take place if at least one other design objective worsens. Accordingly Pareto solutions play an important role in engineering design. Some engineering design optimization methods automatically generate a Pareto solution as a possible final solution, while other methods generate a set of Pareto solutions from which one is chosen as final. For the latter approach to be successful, the generated Pareto set must be truly representative of the Pareto solutions in the design space. In other words, the set must not overly represent one region of the design space, while neglecting other regions. Many commonly used methods fail to comply with this requirement, while others do. This paper offers a new and simple method to generate an evenly spaced set of Pareto solutions in the design space. This method bears some similarities to the Normal Boundary Intersection and to the e-Constraint methods, and it works for an arbitrary number of objectives. The even spread of the generated Pareto solutions makes it possible to effectively develop an analytical expression for the Pareto frontier (complete set of Pareto solutions) in ^-dimension. This even spread also facilitates decision making in choosing the most desirable (final) Pareto solution.

[1]  F. Cheng,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization Design with Pareto Genetic Algorithm , 1997 .

[2]  Ramana V. Grandhi,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization of Large-Scale Structures , 1993 .

[3]  Indraneel Das,et al.  Nonlinear Multicriteria Optimization and Robust Optimality , 1997 .

[4]  Achille Messac,et al.  Physical programming - Effective optimization for computational design , 1996 .

[5]  Y. Lim,et al.  Efficient Implementation of the Normal Boundary Intersection (NBI) Method on Multiobjective Optimization Problems , 2001 .

[6]  A. Messac,et al.  Required Relationship Between Objective Function and Pareto Frontier Orders: Practical Implications , 2001 .

[7]  A. Belegundu,et al.  Optimization Concepts and Applications in Engineering , 2011 .

[8]  John E. Dennis,et al.  Normal-Boundary Intersection: A New Method for Generating the Pareto Surface in Nonlinear Multicriteria Optimization Problems , 1998, SIAM J. Optim..

[9]  R. S. Laundy,et al.  Multiple Criteria Optimisation: Theory, Computation and Application , 1989 .

[10]  John E. Renaud,et al.  Interactive physical programming : Tradeoff analysis and decision making in multicriteria optimization , 2000 .

[11]  J. Dennis,et al.  A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted sums of objectives for Pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems , 1997 .

[12]  Wei Chen,et al.  Quality utility : a Compromise Programming approach to robust design , 1999 .

[13]  Margareta Soismaa A note on efficient solutions for the linear bilevel programming problem , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[14]  Indraneel Das On characterizing the “knee” of the Pareto curve based on Normal-Boundary Intersection , 1999 .

[15]  Georges M. Fadel,et al.  Approximating the Pareto curve to help solve biobjective design problems , 2002 .