Quantitative Comparison of Approximate Solution Sets for Bi-criteria Optimization Problems

We present the Integrated Preference Functional (IPF) for comparing the quality of proposed sets of near-pareto-optimal solutions to bi-criteria optimization problems. Evaluating the quality of such solution sets is one of the key issues in developing and comparing heuristics for multiple objective combinatorial optimization problems. The IPF is a set functional that, given a weight density function provided by a decision maker and a discrete set of solutions for a particular problem, assigns a numerical value to that solution set. This value can be used to compare the quality of different sets of solutions, and therefore provides a robust, quantitative approach for comparing different heuristic, a posteriori solution procedures for difficult multiple objective optimization problems. We provide specific examples of decision maker preference functions and illustrate the calculation of the resulting IPF for specific solution sets and a simple family of combined objectives.

[1]  A. Jaszkiewicz.  On the Computational Effectiveness of Multiple Objective Metaheuristics , 2002 .

[2]  E. Ertugrul Karsak,et al.  Personnel Selection Using a Fuzzy MCDM Approach Based on Ideal and Anti-ideal Solutions , 2001 .

[3]  H. Schwefel,et al.  Approximating the Pareto Set: Concepts, Diversity Issues, and Performance Assessment , 1999 .

[4]  Filip Roodhooft,et al.  VENDOR SELECTION AND EVALUATION AN ACTIVITY BASED COSTING APPROACH , 1997 .

[5]  R. Rosenthal.  Concepts, Theory, and Techniques PRINCIPLES OF MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION* , 1985 .

[6]  H. Ishibuchi,et al.  Multi-objective genetic algorithm and its applications to flowshop scheduling , 1996 .

[7]  Xavier Gandibleux,et al.  An Annotated Bibliography of Multiobjective Combinatorial Optimization , 2000 .

[8]  Richard L. Daniels,et al.  Analytical Evaluation of Multi-Criteria Heuristics , 1992 .

[9]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  On the Performance Assessment and Comparison of Stochastic Multiobjective Optimizers , 1996, PPSN.

[10]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms - A Comparative Case Study , 1998, PPSN.

[11]  G. W. Evans,et al.  An Overview of Techniques for Solving Multiobjective Mathematical Programs , 1984 .

[12]  D.A. Van Veldhuizen,et al.  On measuring multiobjective evolutionary algorithm performance , 2000, Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC00 (Cat. No.00TH8512).

[13]  Ernest S. Kuh,et al.  Design space exploration using the genetic algorithm , 1996, 1996 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems. Circuits and Systems Connecting the World. ISCAS 96.

[14]  Michael Pinedo,et al.  Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems , 1994 .

[15]  E. Ertugrul Karsak,et al.  A fuzzy multiple objective programming approach for the selection of a flexible manufacturing system , 2002 .

[16]  Jorge Pinho de Sousa,et al.  Using metaheuristics in multiobjective resource constrained project scheduling , 2000, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[17]  Carlos A. Coello Coello,et al.  An updated survey of evolutionary multiobjective optimization techniques: state of the art and future trends , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406).

[18]  Stan Schenkerman.  Relative Objective Functions in Multiobjective Decision Support Models , 1990 .

[19]  Piotr Czyzżak,et al.  Pareto simulated annealing—a metaheuristic technique for multiple‐objective combinatorial optimization , 1998 .

[20]  Eckart Zitzler,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: methods and applications , 1999 .

[21]  M. Hansen,et al.  Evaluating the quality of approximations to the non-dominated set , 1998 .

[22]  John W. Fowler,et al.  Comparison of Multiple Objective Genetic Algorithms for Parallel Machine Scheduling Problems , 2001, EMO.

[23]  Stanley Zionts,et al.  Aspiration-based search algorithm (ABSALG) for multiple objective linear programming problems: theory and comparative tests , 1997 .

[24]  Mark Gershon,et al.  The role of weights and scales in the application of multiobjective decision making , 1984 .

[25]  Jason R. Schott.  Fault Tolerant Design Using Single and Multicriteria Genetic Algorithm Optimization. , 1995 .

[26]  Prabuddha De,et al.  Heuristic Estimation of the Efficient Frontier for a Bi‐Criteria Scheduling Problem , 1992 .

[27]  Yasemin Aksoy,et al.  Comparative studies in interactive multiple objective mathematical programming , 1996 .

[28]  W. Carlyle,et al.  A new technique to compare algorithms for bi-criteria combinatorial optimization problems , 2001 .