Set-based concept selection in multi-objective problems involving delayed decisions

This paper introduces a computational approach to support concept selection in multi-objective design. It is motivated by: (1) a common need to delay some decisions during conceptual design due to the presence of uncertainties; and (2) intentional delay of decisions for the purpose of maintaining several optional concepts, as suggested by the concurrent engineering procedure of Toyota. Here, for the first time, a multi-objective set-based concept (SBC) selection problem with delayed decisions is formulated and solved. SBCs are conceptual solutions, which are represented by sets of particular solutions, with each concept having a one-to-many relation with the objective space. Several novel notions, such as higher-level concepts, multi-model concepts and robust concepts to delayed decisions, are defined and used. These lead to an auxiliary multi-objective decision problem. The auxiliary objectives are concept optimality and variability, both paramount to concept selection, with concept variability strongly supporting the idea of intentionally keeping several useful alternatives as long as possible. Academic and engineering examples are provided to demonstrate the proposed approach and its applicability to real-life problems. The results demonstrate that the suggested technique may well support the process of delayed decision either when needed or when deliberately done.

[1]  A. Messac,et al.  Concept Selection Using s-Pareto Frontiers , 2003 .

[2]  Gideon Avigad,et al.  Concept-based IEC for Multi-objective Search with Robustness to Human Preference Uncertainty , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  Elmer P. Dadios.  Editorial: Special Issue on Selected Papers from Humanoid, Nanotechnology, Information Technology, Communication and Control, Environment, and Management (HNICEM'03) , 2004, J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Informatics.

[4]  Johan Andersson,et al.  Multiobjective optimization in engineering design : applications to fluid power systems , 2001 .

[5]  Gideon Avigad,et al.  Concept-Based Interactive Brainstorming in Engineering Design , 2004, J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Informatics.

[6]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Introducing Robustness in Multi-Objective Optimization , 2006, Evolutionary Computation.

[7]  Dragan Cvetkovic,et al.  Evolutionary Multi-Objective Decision Support Systems for Conceptual Design , 2000 .

[8]  Christopher A. Mattson,et al.  A Non-Deterministic Approach to Concept Selection Using S-Pareto Frontiers , 2002, DAC 2002.

[9]  Christopher A. Mattson,et al.  Pareto Frontier Based Concept Selection Under Uncertainty, with Visualization , 2005 .

[10]  Johan Ölvander,et al.  Robustness considerations in multi-objective optimal design , 2005 .

[11]  L. Jain,et al.  Evolutionary multiobjective optimization : theoretical advances and applications , 2005 .

[12]  R. K. Ursem.  Multi-objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms , 2009 .

[13]  Jürgen Branke,et al.  Worst-case robustness and a related decision support , 2008, Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation.

[14]  Gideon Avigad,et al.  Set-based concept selection in multi-objective problems: optimality versus variability approach , 2009 .

[15]  David Kelley.  A theory of abstraction. , 1984 .

[16]  Gideon Avigad,et al.  MOEA-Based Approach to Delayed Decisions for Robust Conceptual Design , 2005, EvoWorkshops.

[17]  T. Soininen,et al.  MODELING CONFIGURABLE PRODUCT FAMILIES , 1998 .

[18]  Madhan Shridhar Phadke,et al.  Quality Engineering Using Robust Design , 1989 .

[19]  Amiram Moshaiov,et al.  Multi-competence Cybernetics: The Study of Multiobjective Artificial Systems and Multi-fitness Natural Systems , 2008, Multiobjective Problem Solving from Nature.

[20]  P. K. Kannan,et al.  Design of Robust New Products Under Variability: Marketing Meets Design , 2005 .

[21]  Margarida F. Jacome.  Design process planning and management for CAD frameworks , 1993 .

[22]  Carlos A. Coello Coello,et al.  Recent Trends in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization , 2005, Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization.

[23]  Earl D. Sacerdoti,et al.  Planning in a Hierarchy of Abstraction Spaces , 1974, IJCAI.

[24]  Josh D. Tenenberg,et al.  Chapter 4 – Abstraction in Planning , 1991 .

[25]  Ralph Bergmann,et al.  Building and Refining Abstract Planning Cases by Change of Representation Language , 1995, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[26]  Durward K. Sobek.  96-detc / Dtm-1510 Principles from Toyota ’ S Set-based Concurrent Engineering Process , 1996 .

[27]  Gideon Avigad,et al.  Interactive Concept-based Search using MOEA: The Hierarchical Preferences Case , 2005, IEC.

[28]  Gideon Avigad,et al.  Concept-based multi-objective problems and their solution by EC , 2007, GECCO '07.

[29]  Durward K. Sobek,et al.  The Second Toyota Paradox: How Delaying Decisions Can Make Better Cars Faster , 1995 .

[30]  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..

[31]  Johan Andersson,et al.  SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS IN PARETO OPTIMAL DESIGN , 2022 .

[32]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  A Semantics for Abstraction , 2004, ECAI.

[33]  J. Dennis,et al.  NORMAL-BOUNDARY INTERSECTION: AN ALTERNATE METHOD FOR GENERATING PARETO OPTIMAL POINTS IN MULTICRITERIA OPTIMIZATION PROBLEMS , 1996 .

[34]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A Fast Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-objective Optimisation: NSGA-II , 2000, PPSN.

[35]  Michael Emmerich,et al.  Mixed-Integer Evolution Strategy for Chemical Plant Optimization with Simulators , 2000 .

[36]  A. Messac,et al.  The normalized normal constraint method for generating the Pareto frontier , 2003 .

[37]  Patrick N. Koch,et al.  PROBABILISTIC DESIGN: OPTIMIZING FOR SIX SIGMA QUALITY , 2002 .

[38]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Searching for Robust Pareto-Optimal Solutions in Multi-objective Optimization , 2005, EMO.