Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Searching for knee regions of the Pareto front using mobile reference points

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) have been recognized to be well suited to approximate the Pareto front of Multi-objective Optimization Problems (MOPs). In reality, the Decision Maker (DM) is not interested in discovering the whole Pareto front rather than finding only the portion(s) of the front that matches at most his/her preferences. Recently, several studies have addressed the decision-making task to assist the DM in choosing the final alternative. Knee regions are potential parts of the Pareto front presenting the maximal trade-offs between objectives. Solutions residing in knee regions are characterized by the fact that a small improvement in either objective will cause a large deterioration in at least another one which makes moving in either direction not attractive. Thus, in the absence of explicit DM’s preferences, we suppose that knee regions represent the DM’s preferences themselves. Recently, few works were proposed to find knee regions. This paper represents a further study in this direction. Hence, we propose a new evolutionary method, denoted TKR-NSGA-II, to discover knee regions of the Pareto front. In this method, the population is guided gradually by means of a set of mobile reference points. Since the reference points are updated based on trade-off information, the population converges towards knee region centers which allows the construction of a neighborhood of solutions in each knee. The performance assessment of the proposed algorithm is done on two- and three-objective knee-based test problems. The obtained results show the ability of the algorithm to: (1) find the Pareto optimal knee regions, (2) control the extent (We mean by extent the breadth/spread of the obtained knee region.) of the obtained regions independently of the geometry of the front and (3) provide competitive and better results when compared to other recently proposed methods. Moreover, we propose an interactive version of TKR-NSGA-II which is useful when the DM has no a priori information about the number of existing knees in the Pareto optimal front.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The used version is MATLAB 7.4 (http://www.mathworks.com).

References

  • Adra SF, Griffin I, Fleming PJ (2007) A comparative study of progressive preference articulation techniques for multiobjective optimisation. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO’07), Springer, LNCS, 4403 (1), pp 908–921

  • Bechikh S, Ben Said L, Ghédira K (2010) Searching for knee regions in multi-objective optimization using mobile reference points. In: Proceeding of the 25th ACM symposium on applied computing (Best Paper Award), pp 1118–1125

  • Belgasmi N, Ben Said L, Ghédira K (2008) Evolutionary multiobjective optimization of the multi-location transhipment problem. ORIJ: Oper Res Int J 8(2):167–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben Said L, Bechikh S, Ghédira K (2010) The r-dominance: a new dominance relation for interactive evolutionary multi-criteria decision making. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 14(5):801–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branke J (2008) Consideration of partial user preferences in evolutionary multiobjective optimization. In: Branke J, Deb K, Miettinen K, and Slowinski R (eds) Multiobjective optimization—interactive and evolutionary approaches, pp 157–178

  • Branke J, Deb K, Dierolf H, Osswald M (2004) Finding knees in multiobjective optimization. In: Proceedings of 8th international conference parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN VIII), pp 722–731

  • Coello Coello CA, Lamont GB, Van Veldhuizen DA (2007) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cvetkovic D, Parmee C (2002) Preferences and their application in evolutionary multiobjective optimisation. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(1):42–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das I (1999) On characterizing the knee of the Pareto curve based on normal-boundary intersection. Struct Optim 18(2–3):107–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Das I, Dennis JE (1998) Normal-boundary intersection: a new method for generating the Pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimization problems. SIAM J Optim 8(3):631–657

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Deb K (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Introducing bias among Pareto optimal solutions. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India (KanGAL Report No. 99002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley and Sons, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Deb K, Agrawal S (1995) Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space. Complex Syst 9(1):115–148

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002a) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deb K, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Zitzler E (2002b) Scalable multiobjective optimization test problems. In: Proceedings of IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC’02), pp 825–830

  • Deb K, Sundar J, Bhaskara U, Chaudhuri S (2006) Reference point based multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Int J Comput Intel Res 2(3):273–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Deb K, Miettinen K, Sharma D (2009) A hybrid integrated multi-objective optimization procedure for estimating nadir point. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO’09), pp 569–583

  • Deb K, Sinha A, Korhonen PJ, Wallenius J (2010) An interactive evolutionary multiobjective optimization method based on progressively approximated value functions. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 14(5):723–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farina M (2000) Cost-effective evolutionary strategies for Pareto optimal front approximation in multiobjective shape design optimization of electromagnetic devices. PhD thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Pavia, Italy

  • Figueira JR, Liefooghe A, Talbi E-G, Wierzbicki AP (2010) A parallel multiple reference point approach for multi-objective optimization. Eur J Oper Res 205(2):390–400

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes EJ (2005) Evolutionary many-objective optimization: many once or one many? In: Proceedings of IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC’05), pp 222–227

  • Ishibuchi H, Tsukamoto N, Nojima Y (2008) Evolutionary many-objective optimization: a short review. In: Proceedings of IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC’08), pp 2419–2426

  • Jaimes AL, Coello Coello CA (2009) Study of preference relations in many-objective optimization. In: Proceedings of Genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO’2009), pp 611–618

  • Jaimes AL, Santana-Quintero LV, Coello Coello CA (2009) Ranking methods in many-objective evolutionary algorithms. In: Chiong R (ed) Nature-inspired algorithms for optimisation, pp 413–434

  • Koski J (1984) Multicriterion optimization in structural design. In: Atrek E, Gallagher R H, Ragsdell KM, Zienkiewicz OC (eds) New directions in optimum structural design, pp 483–503

  • Markowitz HM (1952) Portfolio selection. J Finance 7(1):77–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marler RT, Arora JS (2004) Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Struct Multidiscip Optim 26(6):369–395

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mattson CA, Mullur AA, Messac A (2004) Smart Pareto filter: obtaining a minimal representation of multiobjective design space. Eng Optim 36(6):721–740

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen K (1999) Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Kluwer, Boston

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pareto V (1896) Course of political economy. Rouge, Lausanne

    Google Scholar 

  • Preuss M, Naujoks B, Rudolph G (2006) Pareto set and EMOA behavior for simple multimodal multiobjective functions. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN IX), pp 513–522

  • Qu BY, Suganthan PN (2010) Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms based on the summation of normalized objectives and diversified selection. Inf Sci 180(17):3170–3181

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rachmawati L, Srinivasan D (2006a) A multi-objective evolutionary algorithm with weighted-sum niching for convergence on knee regions. In: Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation (GECCO’06), pp 749–750

  • Rachmawati L, Srinivasan D (2006b) A multi-objective genetic algorithm with controllable convergence on knee regions. In: Proceedings of IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 1916–1923

  • Rachmawati L, Srinivasan D (2009) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithm with controllable focus on the knees of the Pareto front. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 13(4):810–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph G, Naujoks B, Preuss M (2007) Capabilities of EMOA to detect and preserve equivalent Pareto subsets. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO’07), pp 36–50

  • Schütze O, Laumanns M, Coello Coello C A (2008) Approximating the knee of an MOP with stochastic search algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN X), pp 795–804

  • Shir OM, Preuss M, Naujoks B, Emmerich M (2009) Enhancing decision space diversity in evolutionary multiobjective algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO’09), pp 95–109

  • Steuer RE (1986) Multiple criteria optimization: theory, computation and application. Wiley and Sons, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Tan KC, Khor EF, Lee TH (2003) An evolutionary algorithm with advanced goal and priority specification for multi-objective optimization. J Artif Intel Res 18(1):183–215

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Thiele L, Miettinen K, Korhonen PJ, Molina J (2009) A preference-based evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization. Evol Comput 17(3):411–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Veldhuizen DA (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: classifications, analyzes, and new innovations. PhD dissertation, Graduate School of Engineering of the Air Force Institute of Technology, Air University

  • Zitzler E, Thiele L (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(4):257–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitzler E, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Fonseca CM, da Fonseca VG (2003) Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(2):117–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitzler E, Brockhoff D, Thiele L (2007) The hypervolume indicator revisited: On the design of Pareto-compliant indicators via weighted integration. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO’07), pp 862–876

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SOIE Laboratory, High Institute of Management of Tunis (ISGT), University of Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia

    Slim Bechikh, Lamjed Ben Said & Khaled Ghédira

Authors
  1. Slim Bechikh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lamjed Ben Said
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Khaled Ghédira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Slim Bechikh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bechikh, S., Ben Said, L. & Ghédira, K. Searching for knee regions of the Pareto front using mobile reference points. Soft Comput 15, 1807–1823 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-011-0694-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-011-0694-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation