Comparing Graphic and Symbolic Classification in Interactive Multiobjective Optimization

In interactive multiobjective optimization systems, the classification of objective functions is a convenient way to direct the solution process in order to search for new, more satisfactory, solutions in the set of Pareto optimal solutions. Classification means that the decision maker assigns the objective functions into classes depending on what kind of changes in their values (in relation to the current values) are desirable. Here we study the role of user interfaces in implementing classification in multiobjective optimization software and how classification should be realized. In this way, we want to pay attention to the usability of multiobjective optimization software. Typically, this topic has not been of interest in the multiobjective optimization literature. However, usability aspect is important because in interactive classification-based multiobjective optimization methods, the classification is the core of the solution process. We can say that the more convenient the classification is, the more efficient the system or the method is and the better it supports the work of the decision maker. We report experiments with two classification options, graphic and symbolic ones, which are used in connection with an interactive multiobjective optimization system WWW-NIMBUS. The ideas and conclusions given are applicable for other interactive classification-based method, as well.

[1]  O. Larichev Cognitive validity in design of decision‐aiding techniques , 1992 .

[2]  S. Lewandowsky,et al.  Displaying proportions and percentages , 1991 .

[3]  Yacov Y. Haimes,et al.  Multiobjective Decision Making: Theory and Methodology , 1983 .

[4]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  COMPUTER GRAPHICS AS DECISION AIDS: DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH* , 1984 .

[5]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  Interactive multiobjective optimization system WWW-NIMBUS on the Internet , 2000, Comput. Oper. Res..

[6]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  A Cognitive Model for Understanding Graphical Perception , 1993, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[7]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  The role of working memory on graphical information processing , 1997, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[8]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  Nonlinear multiobjective optimization , 1998, International series in operations research and management science.

[9]  Pekka Korhonen,et al.  A Visual Interactive Method for Solving the Multiple-Criteria Problem , 1986 .

[10]  K. Miettinen,et al.  Interactive bundle-based method for nondifferentiable multiobjeective optimization: nimbus § , 1995 .

[11]  Don N. Kleinmuntz,et al.  Information Displays and Decision Processes , 1993 .

[12]  R. Benayoun,et al.  Linear programming with multiple objective functions: Step method (stem) , 1971, Math. Program..

[13]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  An Experimental Evaluation of Graphical and Color-Enhanced Information Presentation , 1985 .

[14]  A. Wierzbicki A Mathematical Basis for Satisficing Decision Making , 1982 .

[15]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature* , 1991 .

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

[17]  Ralph E. Steuer The Tchebycheff Procedure of Interactive Multiple Objective Programming , 1989 .

[18]  Arthur M. Geoffrion,et al.  An Interactive Approach for Multi-Criterion Optimization, with an Application to the Operation of an Academic Department , 1972 .

[19]  Abhijit Chaudhury,et al.  An empirical investigation of decision-making satisfaction in web-based decision support systems , 2004, Decis. Support Syst..

[20]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  Comparative evaluation of some interactive reference point-based methods for multi-objective optimisation , 1999, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[21]  Priti Shah,et al.  A Model of the Perceptual and Conceptual Processes in Graph Comprehension , 1998 .