Multi-objective Optimization and its Engineering Applications

Many practical optimization problems usually have several conflicting objectives. In those multi-objective optimization, no solution optimizing all objective functions simultaneously exists in general. Instead, Pareto optimal solutions, which are ``efficient" in terms of all objective functions, are introduced. In general we have many Pareto optimal solutions. Therefore, we need to decide a final solution among Pareto optimal solutions taking into account the balance among objective functions, which is called ``trade-off analysis". It is no exaggeration to say that the most important task in multi-objective optimization is trade-off analysis. Consequently, the methodology should be discussed in view of how it is easy and understandable for trade-off analysis. In cases with two or three objective functions, the set of Pareto optimal solutions in the objective function space (i.e., Pareto frontier) can be depicted relatively easily. Seeing Pareto frontiers, we can grasp the trade-off relation among objectives totally. Therefore, it would be the best way to depict Pareto frontiers in cases with two or three objectives. (It might be difficult to read the trade-off relation among objectives with three dimension, though). In cases with more than three objectives, however, it is impossible to depict Pareto forntier. Under this circumstance, interactive methods can help us to make local trade-off analysis showing a ``certain" Pareto optimal solution. A number of methods differing in which Pareto optimal solution is to be shown, have been developed. This paper discusses critical issues among those methods for multi-objective optimization, in particular applied to engineering design problems.

[1]  Yaboon Yun,et al.  Multi-Objective Optimization Technique Using Computational Intelligence , 2004 .

[2]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of decision making units , 1978 .

[3]  H. Nakayama,et al.  Multi-objective optimization technique using computational intelligence , 2004, 2004 International Conference on Intelligent Mechatronics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings..

[4]  Hirotaka Nakayama,et al.  Aspiration Level Approach to Interactive Multi-Objective Programming and Its Applications , 1995 .

[5]  Hirotaka Nakayama,et al.  Theory of Multiobjective Optimization , 1985 .

[6]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems , 2002, Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation.

[7]  Manfred Grauer,et al.  DIDASS — Theory, Implementation and Experiences , 1984 .

[8]  Hirotaka Nakayama.  Trade-off analysis using parametric optimization techniques , 1992 .

[9]  Hirotaka Nakayama,et al.  Multiple criteria decision making with generalized DEA and an aspiration level method , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  A. Charnes,et al.  Management Models and Industrial Applications of Linear Programming , 1961 .

[11]  Hirotaka Nakayama,et al.  A Generalization of DEA Model , 1999 .

[12]  Hirotaka Nakayama.  Proposal of Satisficing Trade-Off Method for Multiobjective Programming , 1984 .

[13]  Hirotaka Nakayama,et al.  An application of a multi-objective programming technique to construction accuracy control of cable-stayed bridges , 1995 .

[14]  Hirotaka Nakayama,et al.  A Multiobjective Diet Planning Support System Using the Satisficing Trade-off Method , 1997 .

[15]  H. Nakayama,et al.  An Application of Satisficing Trade-off Method to a Blending Problem of Industrial Materials , 1986 .

[16]  Juhani Koski,et al.  Multicriteria Design Optimization , 1990 .

[17]  Hirotaka Nakayama.  An Interactive Support System for Bond Trading , 1989 .

[18]  Alexander J. Smola,et al.  Learning with kernels , 1998 .

[19]  Andrzej P. Wierzbicki,et al.  Large-Scale Modelling and Interactive Decision Analysis , 1986 .

[20]  Vladimir N. Vapnik,et al.  The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory , 2000, Statistics for Engineering and Information Science.

[21]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[22]  Marios K. Karakasis,et al.  ON THE USE OF SURROGATE EVALUATION MODELS IN MULTI-OBJECTIVE EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS , 2004 .

[23]  Hirotaka Nakayama,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization Using Adaptive Range Genetic Algorithms with Data Envelopment Analysis , 1998 .

[24]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  An Overview of Evolutionary Algorithms in Multiobjective Optimization , 1995, Evolutionary Computation.

[25]  Hirotaka Nakayama,et al.  Satisficing Trade-off Method for Multiobjective Programming , 1984 .

[26]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[27]  Hirotaka Nakayama,et al.  Generation of efficient frontiers in multi-objective optimization problems by generalized data envelopment analysis , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..