Performance Analysis of an a Priori Strategy to Elicitate and Incorporate Preferences in Multi-objective Optimization Evolutionary Algorithms

  • Laura Cruz-ReyesEmail author
  • Mercedes Perez-Villafuerte
  • Nelson Rangel
  • Eduardo Fernandez
  • Claudia Gomez
  • Patricia Sanchez-Solis
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 749)


The project portfolio selection is one of the most important strategic problems, both in the private sector and in the public sector. This can become a complex activity due to several factors, as occurs in many real-world optimization problems in which many criteria must be considered simultaneously. The preferences of a Decision Maker (DM) are a relevant element for decision-making activities, in general, and in portfolio selection, in particular; they vary between decision-makers and evolve over time. A strategy is required that assists the DM in the identification of the best compromise solution that satisfies their preferences. In order to incorporate DM’s preferences, given in examples, the methodology Preferences Disaggregation Analysis (PDA) is introduced to obtain the parameters of a preference model from examples. This model is the basis of a classifier that allows to a multi-objective optimization evolutionary algorithm lead the search towards the DM’s region of interest. In this paper is analyzed the performance of two multi-objective optimization algorithms of the state of the art when preferences are elicited indirectly through a PDA method. The experimental results showed the potential of the proposed method applied to small and medium scale instances.


Evolutionary algorithms Multi-objective optimization Preference disaggregation analysis Preference incorporation 


  1. 1.
    C.A.C. Coello, Handling preferences in evolutionary multiobjective optimization: a survey, in IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 1, pp. 30–37 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Kadzinski, S. Greco, R. Słowinski, Selection of a representative value function in robust multiple criteria ranking and choice. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 217(3), pp. 541–553 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Rachmawati, D. Srinivasan, Preference incorporation in multi-objective evolutionary algorithms: a survey, in IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 3385–3391 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Doumpos, C. Zopounidis, The robustness concern in preference disaggregation approaches for decision aiding: an overview, in Optimization in Science and Engineering (Springer, New York 2014), pp. 157–177Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Jacquet-Lagrèze, Y. Siskos, Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 130(2), pp. 233–245 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Doumpos, Y. Marinakis, M. Marinaki, C. Zopounidis, An evolutionary approach to construction of outranking models for multicriteria classification: the case of the ELECTRE TRI method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 199(2), pp. 496–505 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Rangel-Valdez, E. Fernandez, L. Cruz-Reyes, C.G. Santillan, R.I. Hernandez-Lopez, Multiobjective optimization approach for preference-disaggregation analysis under effects of intensity, in Advances in Artificial Intelligence and Its Applications (Springer International Publishing, 2015), pp. 451–462Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Fernandez, E. Lopez, F. Lopez, C.A. Coello Coello, Increasing selective pressure towards the best compromise in evolutionary multiobjective optimization: the extended NOSGA method. Inf. Sci. 181(1), pp. 44–56 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Roy, Nonconvex optimization and its applications, in Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding (Springer, 1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Brans, B. Mareschal, Promethee methods, in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, volume 78 of International Series on Operations Research & Management Science (Springer, Berlin 2005), pp. 163–190Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Fernandez, J. Navarro, A new approach to multi-criteria sorting based on fuzzy outranking relations: the THESEUS method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 213(2), pp. 405–413 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Doumpos, C. Zopounidis, Multicriteria Decision Aid Classification Methods, vol. 73 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    L. Cruz-Reyes, E. Fernandez, P. Sanchez, C.A.C. Coello, C. Gomez, Incorporation of implicit decision-maker preferences in multi-objective evolutionary optimization using a multi-criteria classification method. Appl. Soft Comput. 50, pp. 48–57 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Jain, K. Deb, An improved adaptive approach for elitist nondominated sorting genetic algorithm for many-objective optimization, in International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013), pp. 307–321Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. Cruz-Reyes, E. Fernandez, C. Gomez, G. Rivera, F. Perez, Many-objective portfoliooptimization of interdependent projects with ‘a priori’ incorporation of decision-maker preferences. Appl. Math. Inf. 8, pp. 1517–1531 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. Cruz-Reyes, E. Fernandez, C. Gomez, P. Sanchez, Preference incorporation into evolutionary multiobjective optimization using a multi-criteria evaluation method, in Recent Advances on Hybrid Approaches for Designing Intelligent Systems (Springer International Publishing, 2014), pp. 533–542Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G.G. Yen, Z. He, Performance metric ensemble for multiobjective evolutionary algorithms in IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 131–144 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. Cruz-Reyes, E. Fernandez, C. Gomez, P. Sanchez, G. Castilla, D. Martinez, Verifying the effectiveness of an evolutionary approach in solving many-objective optimization problems, in Design of Intelligent Systems Based on Fuzzy Logic, Neural Networks and Nature-Inspired Optimization (Springer International Publishing, 2015), pp. 455–464Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Cruz-Reyes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mercedes Perez-Villafuerte
    • 2
  • Nelson Rangel
    • 1
  • Eduardo Fernandez
    • 3
  • Claudia Gomez
    • 1
  • Patricia Sanchez-Solis
    • 2
  1. 1.National Mexican Institute of Technology/Madero Institute of TechnologyMaderoMexico
  2. 2.National Mexican Institute of Technology/Tijuana Institute of TechnologyTijuanaMexico
  3. 3.Faculty of Civil EngineeringAutonomous University of SinaloaCuliacanMexico

Personalised recommendations