A Method for Reducing the Cardinality of the Pareto Front

Multi-objective problems are characterised by the presence of a set of optimal trade-off solutions –a Pareto front–, from which a solution has to be selected by a decision maker. However, selecting a solution from a Pareto front depends on large quantities of solutions to select from and dimensional complexity due to many involved objectives, among others. Commonly, the selection of a solution is based on preferences specified by a decision maker. Nevertheless a decision maker may have not preferences at all. Thus, an informed decision making process has to be done, which is difficult to achieve. In this paper, selecting a solution from a Pareto front is addressed as a multi-objective problem using two utility functions and operating in the objective space. A quantitative comparison of stereo correspondence algorithms performance is used as an application domain.

[1]  Richard Szeliski,et al.  A Taxonomy and Evaluation of Dense Two-Frame Stereo Correspondence Algorithms , 2001, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[2]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

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

[4]  María P. Trujillo,et al.  A Measure for Accuracy Disparity Maps Evaluation , 2011, CIARP.

[5]  Ian C. Parmee,et al.  Preferences and their application in evolutionary multiobjective optimization , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[6]  Edmund K. Burke,et al.  Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN IX: 9th International Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland, September 9-13, 2006, Proceedings , 2006, PPSN.

[7]  Lily Rachmawati,et al.  Preference Incorporation in Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithms: A Survey , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[8]  Luis Alvarez,et al.  Progress in Pattern Recognition, Image Analysis, Computer Vision, and Applications , 2012, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[9]  J. Vasconcelos,et al.  The a posteriori decision in multiobjective optimization problems with smarts, promethee II, and a fuzzy algorithm , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics.

[10]  Margaret Florian,et al.  An Evaluation Methodology for Stereo Correspondence Algorithms , 2012, VISAPP.

[11]  Dariu Gavrila,et al.  Real-time dense stereo for intelligent vehicles , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[12]  Carlos A. Coello Coello,et al.  Study of preference relations in many-objective optimization , 2009, GECCO.

[13]  Carlos A. Coello Coello,et al.  Human Preferences and their Applications in Evolutionary Multi—Objective Optimization , 2005 .

[14]  David W. Corne,et al.  Approximating the Nondominated Front Using the Pareto Archived Evolution Strategy , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[15]  Eckart Zitzler,et al.  Are All Objectives Necessary? On Dimensionality Reduction in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization , 2006, PPSN.

[16]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  SPEA2: Improving the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm For Multiobjective Optimization , 2002 .

[17]  Khaled Ghédira,et al.  The r-Dominance: A New Dominance Relation for Interactive Evolutionary Multicriteria Decision Making , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[18]  Lily Rachmawati,et al.  Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm With Controllable Focus on the Knees of the Pareto Front , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[19]  Yaochu Jin,et al.  Knowledge incorporation in evolutionary computation , 2005 .

[20]  Peter J. Bentley,et al.  Finding Acceptable Solutions in the Pareto-Optimal Range using Multiobjective Genetic Algorithms , 1998 .