Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.11627/jksie.2022.45.4.109

Development of Fitness and Interactive Decision Making in Multi-Objective Optimization  

Yeboon Yun (Department of Civil, Environmental and Applied Systems Engineering)
Dong Joon Park (Department of Statistics and Data Science, Pukyong National University)
Min Yoon (Department of Applied Mathematics, Pukyong National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Society of Industrial and Systems Engineering / v.45, no.4, 2022 , pp. 109-117 More about this Journal
Abstract
Most of real-world decision-making processes are used to optimize problems with many objectives of conflicting. Since the betterment of some objectives requires the sacrifice of other objectives, different objectives may not be optimized simultaneously. Consequently, Pareto solution can be considered as candidates of a solution with respect to a multi-objective optimization (MOP). Such problem involves two main procedures: finding Pareto solutions and choosing one solution among them. So-called multi-objective genetic algorithms have been proved to be effective for finding many Pareto solutions. In this study, we suggest a fitness evaluation method based on the achievement level up to the target value to improve the solution search performance by the multi-objective genetic algorithm. Using numerical examples and benchmark problems, we compare the proposed method, which considers the achievement level, with conventional Pareto ranking methods. Based on the comparison, it is verified that the proposed method can generate a highly convergent and diverse solution set. Most of the existing multi-objective genetic algorithms mainly focus on finding solutions, however the ultimate aim of MOP is not to find the entire set of Pareto solutions, but to choose one solution among many obtained solutions. We further propose an interactive decision-making process based on a visualized trade-off analysis that incorporates the satisfaction of the decision maker. The findings of the study will serve as a reference to build a multi-objective decision-making support system.
Keywords
Multi-Objective Optimization; Pareto Solution; Achievement; Satisfaction; Genetic Algorithms;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Lee, D.H., Kim, B.R., Yang, J.K., and Oh, S.H., Dual Response Surface Optimization using Multiple Objective Genetic Algorithms, Journal of the Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers, 2017, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 164-175.    DOI
2 Nakayama, H., Yun, Y.B. and Yoon, M., Sequential Approximate Multiobjective Optimization using Computational Intelligence, Springer, 2009. 
3 Palakonda, V. and Mallipeddi, R., Pareto Dominance-Based Algorithms With Ranking Methods for Many-Objective Optimization, IEEE Access, 2017, Vol. 5, pp. 11043-11053.    DOI
4 Pareto, V., Manuale di Economia Politica, Societa Editrice Libraria, Milano, Translated into English by A. S. Schwier, Manual of Political Economy, Macmilan, 1906. 
5 Rao, R.V. and Lakshmi, R.J., Ranking of Pareto-optimal solutions and selecting the best solution in multi- and many-objective optimization problems using R-method, Soft Computing Letters, 2021, Vol. 3, pp. 1-18. 
6 Rao, S.S., Engineering Optimization 4th, John Wiley & Sons, INC., 2009. 
7 Shimizu, Y., How to Apply the Multi-Objective Optimizer MOON2/MOON2R for Many-Objective Optimization Problems, Transactions of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers Series C, 2013, Vol. 79, No. 805, pp. 268-281. 
8 Zitzler, E. and Thiele, L., Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: A Comparative Case Study and the Strength Pareto Approach, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1999, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 257-271.    DOI
9 Zolpakar, N.A., Lodhi, S.S., Pathak, S., and Mohita Anand Sharma, M.A., Optimization of Manufacturing Processes, Springer Nature, 2020.
10 Deb, K., Multi-Objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms, John Wiley & Sons, LTD, 2001. 
11 Fausett, L., Fundamentals of Neural Networks - Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications, Prentice-Hall, INC., 1994. 
12 Fine, T.L., Feedforward Neural Network Methodology, Springer, 1999. 
13 Fonseca, C.M. and Fleming, P.J., Genetic Algorithm for Multiobjective Optimization, Formulation, Discussion and Generalization, Genetic Algorithms, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference, 1993, pp. 416-423. 
14 Goldberg, D.E., Genetic Algorithm in search, Optimization and machine Learning, Addison Wesley, 1989. 
15 Imran, M. and Kang, C.W., A Synchronized Job Assignment Model for Manual Assembly Lines using Multi-Objective Simulation Integrated Hybird Genetic Algorithm (MO-SHGA), Journal of Society of Korea Industrial and Systems Engineering, 2017, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 211-220.    DOI
16 Gunantara, N., A review of multi-objective optimization: Methods and its applications, Cogent Engineering, 2018, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-16.    DOI
17 Haykin, S., Neural Network - A Comprehensive Foundation 2nd, Prentice-Hall, INC., 1999. 
18 Hurtado, S.E., Structural Reliability - Statistical Learning Perspectives, Springer-Verlag, 2004. 
19 Jeong, W.J., Park, S.C., and Yim, D.S., Generation of Pareto Sets based on Resource Reduction for Multi-Objective Problems Involving Project Scheduling and Resource Leveling, Journal of Society of Korea Industrial and Systems Engineering, 2020, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 79-86.    DOI
20 Lee, D.H., Hwang, K.C., Lee, S.I., and Yun, W.Y., An Application of Surrogate and Resampling for the Optimization of Success Probability from Binary-Response Type Simulation, Journal of the Korean Military Science and Technology Society, 2022, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 412-424.