A review of Pareto pruning methods for multi-objective optimization

被引:78
作者
Petchrompo, Sanyapong [1 ,2 ]
Coit, David W. [3 ,4 ]
Brintrup, Alexandra [5 ]
Wannakrairot, Anupong [1 ,2 ]
Parlikad, Ajith Kumar [5 ]
机构
[1] Mahidol Univ, Dept Math, Fac Sci, Rama 6 Rd, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
[2] CHE, Ctr Excellence Math, 328 Si Ayutthaya Rd, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
[3] Rutgers State Univ, Dept Ind & Syst Engn, 96 Frelinghuysen Rd, Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA
[4] Tsinghua Univ, Dept Ind Engn, Beijing, Peoples R China
[5] Univ Cambridge, Inst Mfg, Dept Engn, 17 Charles Babbage Rd, Cambridge CB3 0FS, England
基金
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会; 中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Multi-objective optimization; Multi-criteria decision analysis; Pareto pruning; Pareto set reduction; Post Pareto analysis; MULTICRITERIA DECISION-MAKING; REDUNDANCY ALLOCATION PROBLEM; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM; SCHEDULING PROBLEMS; GENETIC ALGORITHMS; SYSTEM; SELECTION; KNEE; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1016/j.cie.2022.108022
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Previous researchers have made impressive strides in developing algorithms and solution methodologies to address multi-objective optimization (MOO) problems in industrial engineering and associated fields. One traditional approach is to determine a Pareto optimal set that represents the trade-off between objectives. However, this approach could result in an extremely large set of solutions, making it difficult for the decision maker to identify the most promising solutions from the Pareto front. To deal with this issue, later contributors proposed alternative approaches that can autonomously draw up a shortlist of Pareto optimal solutions so that the results are more comprehensible to the decision maker. These alternative approaches are referred to as the pruning method in this review. The selection of the representative solutions in the pruning method is based on a predefined instruction, and its resolution process is mostly independent of the decision maker. To systematize studies on this aspect, we first provide the definitions of the pruning method and related terms; then, we establish a new classification of MOO methods to distinguish the pruning method from the a priori, a posteriori, and interactive methods. To facilitate readers in identifying a method that suits their interests, we further classify the pruning method by the instruction on how the representative solutions are selected, namely into the preference-based, diversity-based, efficiency-based, and problem specific methods. Ultimately, the comparative analysis of the pruning method and other MOO approaches allows us to provide insights into the current trends in the field and offer recommendations on potential research directions.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 166 条
  • [51] A review of multi-objective optimization: Methods and its applications
    Gunantara, Nyoman
    [J]. COGENT ENGINEERING, 2018, 5 (01): : 1 - 16
  • [52] Modeling and Pareto optimization of multi-objective order scheduling problems in production planning
    Guo, Z. X.
    Wong, W. K.
    Li, Zhi
    Ren, Peiyu
    [J]. COMPUTERS & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING, 2013, 64 (04) : 972 - 986
  • [53] Maximum split clustering under connectivity constraints
    Hansen, P
    Jaumard, B
    Meyer, C
    Simeone, B
    Doring, V
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLASSIFICATION, 2003, 20 (02) : 143 - 180
  • [54] Sum of ranking differences for method discrimination and its validation: comparison of ranks with random numbers
    Heberger, Karoly
    Kollar-Hunek, Klara
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CHEMOMETRICS, 2011, 25 (04) : 151 - 158
  • [55] Sum of ranking differences compares methods or models fairly
    Heberger, Karoly
    [J]. TRAC-TRENDS IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, 2010, 29 (01) : 101 - 109
  • [56] Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review
    Ho, William
    Xu, Xiaowei
    Dey, Prasanta K.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2010, 202 (01) : 16 - 24
  • [57] A multi-objective integrated model for selecting, scheduling, and budgeting road construction projects
    Hosseininasab, Seyyed-Mohammadreza
    Shetab-Boushehri, Seyyed-Nader
    Hejazi, Seyed Reza
    Karimi, Hadi
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2018, 271 (01) : 262 - 277
  • [58] How to Specify a Reference Point in Hypervolume Calculation for Fair Performance Comparison
    Ishibuchi, Hisao
    Imada, Ryo
    Setoguchi, Yu
    Nojima, Yusuke
    [J]. EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, 2018, 26 (03) : 411 - 440
  • [59] Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process
    Ishizaka, Alessio
    Labib, Ashraf
    [J]. EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2011, 38 (11) : 14336 - 14345
  • [60] Data clustering: A review
    Jain, AK
    Murty, MN
    Flynn, PJ
    [J]. ACM COMPUTING SURVEYS, 1999, 31 (03) : 264 - 323