IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jglopt/v85y2023i3d10.1007_s10898-022-01230-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing reference point based interactive multiobjective optimization methods without a human decision maker

Author

Listed:
  • Lu Chen

    (Beijing Institute of Technology
    State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Control and Decision of Complex Systems
    Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Intelligent Robots and Systems)

  • Kaisa Miettinen

    (Faculty of Information Technology)

  • Bin Xin

    (Beijing Institute of Technology
    State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Control and Decision of Complex Systems
    Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Intelligent Robots and Systems)

  • Vesa Ojalehto

    (Faculty of Information Technology)

Abstract

Interactive multiobjective optimization methods have proven promising in solving optimization problems with conflicting objectives since they iteratively incorporate preference information of a decision maker in the search for the most preferred solution. To find the appropriate interactive method for various needs involves analysis of the strengths and weaknesses. However, extensive analysis with human decision makers may be too costly and for that reason, we propose an artificial decision maker to compare a class of popular interactive multiobjective optimization methods, i.e., reference point based methods. Without involving any human decision makers, the artificial decision maker works automatically to interact with different methods to be compared and evaluate the final results. It makes a difference between a learning phase and a decision phase, that is, learns about the problem based on information acquired to identify a region of interest and refines solutions in that region to find a final solution, respectively. We adopt different types of utility functions to evaluation solutions, present corresponding performance indicators and propose two examples of artificial decision makers. A series of experiments on benchmark test problems and a water resources planning problem is conducted to demonstrate how the proposed artificial decision makers can be used to compare reference point based methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Lu Chen & Kaisa Miettinen & Bin Xin & Vesa Ojalehto, 2023. "Comparing reference point based interactive multiobjective optimization methods without a human decision maker," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 757-788, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jglopt:v:85:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10898-022-01230-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10898-022-01230-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10898-022-01230-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10898-022-01230-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ioannis Giagkiozis & Robin C. Purshouse & Peter J. Fleming, 2015. "An overview of population-based algorithms for multi-objective optimisation," International Journal of Systems Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(9), pages 1572-1599, July.
    2. Kaisa Miettinen & Jussi Hakanen & Dmitry Podkopaev, 2016. "Interactive Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization Methods," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 927-976, Springer.
    3. Miettinen, Kaisa & Makela, Marko M. & Kaario, Katja, 2006. "Experiments with classification-based scalarizing functions in interactive multiobjective optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(2), pages 931-947, December.
    4. Shin, Wan S. & Ravindran, A., 1992. "A comparative study of interactive tradeoff cutting plane methods for MOMP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 380-393, February.
    5. Korhonen, Pekka J. & Laakso, Jukka, 1986. "A visual interactive method for solving the multiple criteria problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 277-287, February.
    6. Corner, J. L. & Buchanan, J. T., 1997. "Capturing decision maker preference: Experimental comparison of decision analysis and MCDM techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 85-97, April.
    7. Reeves, Gary R. & Gonzalez, Juan J., 1989. "A comparison of two interactive procedures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 203-209, July.
    8. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    9. Ana Ruiz & Rubén Saborido & Mariano Luque, 2015. "A preference-based evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization: the weighting achievement scalarizing function genetic algorithm," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 101-129, May.
    10. Ruiz, Francisco & Luque, Mariano & Miguel, Francisca & del Mar Munoz, Maria, 2008. "An additive achievement scalarizing function for multiobjective programming problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 188(3), pages 683-694, August.
    11. Aksoy, Yasemin & Butler, Timothy W. & Minor, Elliott D., 1996. "Comparative studies in interactive multiple objective mathematical programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 408-422, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sun, Minghe, 2005. "Some issues in measuring and reporting solution quality of interactive multiple objective programming procedures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(2), pages 468-483, April.
    2. Aksoy, Yasemin & Butler, Timothy W. & Minor, Elliott D., 1996. "Comparative studies in interactive multiple objective mathematical programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 408-422, March.
    3. Ruiz, Francisco & Luque, Mariano & Miguel, Francisca & del Mar Munoz, Maria, 2008. "An additive achievement scalarizing function for multiobjective programming problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 188(3), pages 683-694, August.
    4. Jaroslav Myšiak, 2006. "Consistency of the Results of Different MCA Methods: A Critical Review," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(2), pages 257-277, April.
    5. Luque, Mariano & Miettinen, Kaisa & Eskelinen, Petri & Ruiz, Francisco, 2009. "Incorporating preference information in interactive reference point methods for multiobjective optimization," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 450-462, April.
    6. Ana Ruiz & Rubén Saborido & Mariano Luque, 2015. "A preference-based evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization: the weighting achievement scalarizing function genetic algorithm," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 101-129, May.
    7. Pinto, F.S. & Figueira, J.R. & Marques, R.C., 2015. "A multi-objective approach with soft constraints for water supply and wastewater coverage improvements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(2), pages 609-618.
    8. Francisco Ruiz & Mariano Luque & Kaisa Miettinen, 2012. "Improving the computational efficiency in a global formulation (GLIDE) for interactive multiobjective optimization," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 47-70, August.
    9. A.P. Wierzbicki, 1998. "Reference Point Methods in Vector Optimization and Decision Support," Working Papers ir98017, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    10. Ridgley, Mark A, 1996. "Fair sharing of greenhouse gas burdens," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 517-529, June.
    11. Kaliszewski, Ignacy & Michalowski, Wojtek, 1999. "Searching for psychologically stable solutions of multiple criteria decision problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(3), pages 549-562, November.
    12. Thomas L. Saaty, 2013. "The Modern Science of Multicriteria Decision Making and Its Practical Applications: The AHP/ANP Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1101-1118, October.
    13. Krejci, Igor & Voriskova, Andrea, 2010. "Analysis of the Method for the Selection of Regions with Concentrated State Aid," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 2(3), pages 1-8, September.
    14. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    15. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    16. Manel Baucells & Rakesh K. Sarin, 2003. "Group Decisions with Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(8), pages 1105-1118, August.
    17. Büsing, Christina & Goetzmann, Kai-Simon & Matuschke, Jannik & Stiller, Sebastian, 2017. "Reference points and approximation algorithms in multicriteria discrete optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(3), pages 829-840.
    18. Murat Köksalan & Ceren Tuncer Şakar, 2016. "An interactive approach to stochastic programming-based portfolio optimization," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 47-66, October.
    19. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    20. Arbel, Ami & Korhonen, Pekka, 2001. "Using objective values to start multiple objective linear programming algorithms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 587-596, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jglopt:v:85:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10898-022-01230-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.