4.7 Article

Evaluation of nondominated solution sets for k-objective optimization problems:: An exact method and approximations

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
Volume 173, Issue 2, Pages 565-582

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.01.029

Keywords

multiple objective programming; combinatorial optimization; metaheuristics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Integrated Preference Functional (IPF) is a set functional that, given a discrete set of points for a multiple objective optimization problem, assigns a numerical value to that point set. This value provides a quantitative measure for comparing different sets of points generated by solution procedures for difficult multiple objective optimization problems. We introduced the IPF for bi-criteria optimization problems in [Carlyle, W.M., Fowler, J.W., Gel, E., Kim, B., 2003. Quantitative comparison of approximate solution sets for bi-criteria optimization problems. Decision Sciences 34 (1), 63-82]. As indicated in that paper, the computational effort to obtain IPF is negligible for bi-criteria problems. For three or more objective function cases, however, the exact calculation of IPF is computationally demanding, since this requires k (>= 3) dimensional integration. In this paper, we suggest a theoretical framework for obtaining IPF for k (>= 3) objectives. The exact method includes solving two main sub-problems: (1) finding the optimality region of weights for all potentially optimal points, and (2) computing volumes of k dimensional convex polytopes. Several different algorithms for both sub-problems can be found in the literature. We use existing methods from computational geometry (i.e., triangulation and convex hull algorithms) to develop a reasonable exact method for obtaining IPF. We have also experimented with a Monte Carlo approximation method and compared the results to those with the exact IPF method. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available