Machine Decision Makers as a Laboratory for Interactive EMO
A key challenge, perhaps the central challenge, of multi-objective optimization is how to deal with candidate solutions that are ultimately evaluated by the hidden or unknown preferences of a human decision maker (DM) who understands and cares about the optimization problem. Alternative ways of addressing this challenge exist but perhaps the favoured one currently is the interactive approach (proposed in various forms). Here, an evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithm (EMOA) is controlled by a series of interactions with the DM so that preferences can be elicited and the direction of search controlled. MCDM has a key role to play in designing and evaluating these approaches, particularly in testing them with real DMs, but so far quantitative assessment of interactive EMOAs has been limited. In this paper, we propose a conceptual framework for this problem of quantitative assessment, based on the definition of machine decision makers (machine DMs), made somewhat realistic by the incorporation of various non-idealities. The machine DM proposed here draws from earlier models of DM biases and inconsistencies in the MCDM literature. As a practical illustration of our approach, we use the proposed machine DM to study the performance of an interactive EMOA, and discuss how this framework could help in the evaluation and development of better interactive EMOAs.
KeywordsMachine decision makers Artificial decision makers MCDM Interactive EMO Performance assessment
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Auger, A., Brockhoff, D., López-Ibáñez, M., Miettinen, K., Naujoks, B., Rudolph, G.: Which questions should be asked to find the most appropriate method for decision making and problem solving? (Working Group "Algorithm Design Methods"). In: Greco et al. , pp. 50–99Google Scholar
- 5.Brockhoff, D., López-Ibáñez, M., Naujoks, B., Rudolph, G.: Runtime analysis of simple interactive evolutionary biobjective optimization algorithms. In: Coello, C.A.C., Cutello, V., Deb, K., Forrest, S., Nicosia, G., Pavone, M. (eds.) PPSN 2012, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7491, pp. 123–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Coello Coello, C.A.: Handling preferences in evolutionary multiobjective optimization: a survey. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2000), pp. 30–37. IEEE Press, Piscataway (July 2000)Google Scholar
- 11.Deb, K., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Zitzler, E.: Scalable test problems for evolutionary multiobjective optimization. In: Abraham, A., Jain, L., Goldberg, R. (eds.) Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization. Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing, pp. 105–145. Springer, London (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Greco, S., Knowles, J.D., Miettinen, K., Zitzler, E. (eds.): Learning in Multiobjective Optimization (Dagstuhl Seminar 12041), Dagstuhl Reports, 2(1). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Germany (2012)Google Scholar
- 13.Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R.: Interactive evolutionary multiobjective optimization using dominance-based rough set approach. In: Ishibuchi, H., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2010 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2010), pp. 1–8. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ (2010)Google Scholar
- 14.Greenwood, G.W., Hu, X., D‘Ambrosio, J.G.: Fitness functions for multiple objective optimization problems: combining preferences with pareto rankings. In: Foundations of Genetic Algorithms (FOGA), pp. 437–455. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1996)Google Scholar
- 21.Purshouse, R.C., Deb, K., Mansor, M.M., Mostaghim, S., Wang, R.: A review of hybrid evolutionary multiple criteria decision making methods. COIN Report 2014005, Computational Optimization and Innovation (COIN) Laboratory, University of Michigan, USA (January 2014)Google Scholar