Higher and lower-level knowledge discovery from Pareto-optimal sets

Innovization (innovation through optimization) is a relatively new concept in the field of multi-objective engineering design optimization. It involves the use of Pareto-optimal solutions of a problem to unveil hidden mathematical relationships between variables, objectives and constraint functions. The obtained relationships can be thought of as essential properties that make a feasible solution Pareto-optimal. This paper proposes two major extensions to innovization, namely higher-level innovization and lower-level innovization. While the former deals with the discovery of common features among solutions from different Pareto-optimal fronts, the latter concerns features commonly occurring among solutions that belong to a specified (or preferred) part of the Pareto-optimal front. The knowledge of such lower-level information is extremely beneficial to a decision maker, since it focuses on a preferred set of designs. On the other hand, higher-level innovization reveals interesting knowledge about the general problem structure. Neither of these crucial aspects concerning multi-objective designs has been addressed before, to the authors’ knowledge. We develop methodologies for handling both levels of innovization by extending the authors’ earlier automated innovization algorithm and apply them to two well-known engineering design problems. Results demonstrate that the proposed methodologies are generic and are ready to be applied to other engineering design problems.

[1]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Higher-level innovization: A case study from Friction Stir Welding process optimization , 2011, 2011 IEEE Congress of Evolutionary Computation (CEC).

[2]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Finding Knees in Multi-objective Optimization , 2004, PPSN.

[3]  Michael Dellnitz,et al.  A variational approach to define robustness for parametric multiobjective optimization problems , 2012, Journal of Global Optimization.

[4]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Reliability-Based Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[5]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Hybrid evolutionary multi-objective optimization and analysis of machining operations , 2012 .

[6]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Towards automating the discovery of certain innovative design principles through a clustering-based optimization technique , 2011 .

[7]  Aravind Srinivasan,et al.  Innovization: innovating design principles through optimization , 2006, GECCO.

[8]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Unveiling innovative design principles by means of multiple conflicting objectives , 2003 .

[9]  K. Deb,et al.  Understanding knee points in bicriteria problems and their implications as preferred solution principles , 2011 .

[10]  Deniz Nadirler,et al.  An interactive solution approach for a bi-objective semi-desirable location problem , 2008, J. Glob. Optim..

[11]  M. E. J. Newman,et al.  Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law , 2005 .

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

[13]  Ramón Quiza Sardiñas,et al.  Genetic algorithm-based multi-objective optimization of cutting parameters in turning processes , 2006, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..

[14]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Automated Innovization for Simultaneous Discovery of Multiple Rules in Bi-objective Problems , 2011, EMO.

[15]  Zelda B. Zabinsky,et al.  A Numerical Evaluation of Several Stochastic Algorithms on Selected Continuous Global Optimization Test Problems , 2005, J. Glob. Optim..

[16]  Maria Dolores Gil Montoya,et al.  A hybrid method for solving multi-objective global optimization problems , 2007, J. Glob. Optim..

[17]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Reference point based multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms , 2006, GECCO.

[18]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  Accessibility of Cities in the Digital Economy , 2004, cond-mat/0412004.