Abstract
This paper addresses the problem of capturing Pareto optimal points on non-convex Pareto frontiers, which are encountered in nonlinear multiobjective optimization problems in computational engineering design optimization. The emphasis is on the choice of the aggregate objective function (AOF) of the objectives that is employed to capture Pareto optimal points. A fundamental property of the aggregate objective function, the admissibility property, is developed and its equivalence to the coordinatewise increasing property is established. Necessary and sufficient conditions for such an admissible aggregate objective function to capture Pareto optimal points are derived. Numerical examples illustrate these conditions in the biobjective case. This paper demonstrates in general terms the limitation of the popular weighted-sum AOF approach, which captures only convex Pareto frontiers, and helps us understand why some commonly used AOFs cannot capture desirable Pareto optimal points, and how to avoid this situation in practice. Since nearly all applications of optimization in engineering design involve the formation of AOFs, this paper is of direct theoretical and practical usefulness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
T. W. Athan and P. Y. Papalambros, “A note on weighted criteria methods for compromise solutions on multi-objective optimization,” Engineering Optimization vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 155-176, 1996.
W. Chen, M. M. Wiecek, and J. Zhang, “Quality utility-A compromise programming approach to robust design,” in Proceedings of the DETC' 98, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, Sept. 13-16, 1998. Paper # DAC5601.
J. L. Cohon, Multiobjective Programming and Planning, Mathematics in Science and Engineering vol. 140, Academic Press: San Diego, 1978.
I. Das and J. E. Dennis, “A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted-sums of objectives for Pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems,” Structural Optimization vol. 14, pp. 63-69, 1997.
I. Das and J. E. Dennis, “Normal-boundary intersection: a new method for generating the Pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimization problems,” SIAM Journal on Optimization vol. 8, pp. 631-657, 1998.
M. D. Greenberg, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 2nd edition., Prentice Hall: New Jersey, 1998.
J. Koski, “Defectiveness of weighted method in multicriterion optimization of structures,” Communications in Applied Numerical Methods vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 333-337, 1985.
W. H. Marlow, Mathematics for Operations Research, John Wiley & Sons: New York, N.Y., 1978. Matlab, The Mathworks, Inc. Natick, MA, 1984.
A. Messac, “Physical programming: effective optimization for computational design,” AIAA Journal vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 149-158, 1996.
A. Messac, “Control-structure integrated design with closed-form design metrics using physical programming,” AIAA Journal vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 855-864, 1998.
A. Messac, “From the dubious construction of objective functions to the application of physical programming,” AIAA Journal vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 155-163, 2000.
A. Messac and X. Chen, “Visualizing the optimization process in real-time using physical programming,” Engineering Optimization Journal vol. 32, no. 5, 2000.
A. Messac, G. J. Sundararaj, R. V. Tappeta, and J. E. Renaud, “Interactive physical programming: tradeoff analysis and decision making in multicriteria optimization,” AIAA Journal, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 917-926, 2000.
A. Messac, G. J. Sundararaj, R. V. Tappeta, and J. E. Renaud, “The ability of objective functions to generate points on non-convex Pareto frontiers,” AIAA Journal vol. 38, no. 3, 2000.
A. Messac and B. Wilson, “Physical programming for computational control,” AIAA Journal vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 219-226, 1998.
A. Osyczka, Multicriterion Optimization in Engineering with Fortran Programs, Ellis Horwood Series in Engineering, Halsted Press: New York, 1984.
V. Pareto, Manuel d'Economie Politique, Paris, Giard, 1909.
J. Rakowska, R. T. Haftka, and L. T. Watson, “Tracing the efficient curve for multi-objective control-structure optimization,” Computer Systems Engineering vol. 2, pp. 461-471, 1991.
R. M. Soland, “Multicriteria optimization: A general characterization of efficient solutions,” Decisions Sciences vol. 10, pp. 26-38, 1979.
E. R. Steuer, Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation, and Application, Krieger: Melbourne, Florida, 1989.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Messac, A., Puemi-Sukam, C. & Melachrinoudis, E. Aggregate Objective Functions and Pareto Frontiers: Required Relationships and Practical Implications. Optimization and Engineering 1, 171–188 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010035730904
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010035730904