Boosting Efficiency for Computing the Pareto Frontier on Tree Structured Networks
Multi-objective optimization plays a key role in the study of real-world problems, as they often involve multiple criteria. In multi-objective optimization it is important to identify the so-called Pareto frontier, which characterizes the trade-offs between the objectives of different solutions. We show how a divide-and-conquer approach, combined with batched processing and pruning, significantly boosts the performance of an exact and approximation dynamic programming (DP) algorithm for computing the Pareto frontier on tree-structured networks, proposed in . We also show how exploiting restarts and a new instance selection strategy boosts the performance and accuracy of a mixed integer programming (MIP) approach for approximating the Pareto frontier. We provide empirical results demonstrating that our DP and MIP approaches have complementary strengths and outperform previous algorithms in efficiency and accuracy. Our work is motivated by a problem in computational sustainability concerning the evaluation of trade-offs in ecosystem services due to the proliferation of hydropower dams throughout the Amazon basin. Our approaches are general and can be applied to computing the Pareto frontier of a variety of multi-objective problems on tree-structured networks.
KeywordsMulti-objective optimization Pareto frontier Approximation algorithms Dynamic programming Mixed-integer programming
This work was supported by NSF Expedition awards for Computational Sustainability (CCF-1522054 and CNS-0832782), NSF CRI (CNS-1059284) and Cornell University’s Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future.
- 5.Gavanelli, M.: An algorithm for multi-criteria optimization in CSPs. In: Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI, pp. 136–140 (2002)Google Scholar
- 6.Gomes, C.P.: Computational sustainability: computational methods for a sustainable environment, economy, and society. Bridge 39(4), 5–13 (2009)Google Scholar
- 9.Papadimitriou, C.H., Yannakakis, M.: On the approximability of trade-offs and optimal access of web sources. In: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2000 (2000)Google Scholar
- 10.Qian, C., Tang, K., Zhou, Z.-H.: Selection hyper-heuristics can provably be helpful in evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In: Handl, J., Hart, E., Lewis, P.R., López-Ibáñez, M., Ochoa, G., Paechter, B. (eds.) PPSN 2016. LNCS, vol. 9921, pp. 835–846. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45823-6_78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Qian, C., Yu, Y., Zhou, Z.-H.: Pareto ensemble pruning. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2015, pp. 2935–2941 (2015)Google Scholar
- 15.Walsh, T.: Search in a small world. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 1999, San Francisco, CA, USA, vol. 2, pp. 1172–1177. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. (1999)Google Scholar
- 18.Wu, X., Gomes-Selman, J.M., Shi, Q., Xue, Y., Garcia-Villacorta, R., Sethi, S., Steinschneider, S., Flecker, A., Gomes, C.P.: Efficiently approximating the pareto frontier: hydropower dam placement in the Amazon basin. In: AAAI (2018)Google Scholar
- 19.Yukish, M.: Algorithms to identify Pareto points in multi-dimensional data sets. Ph.D. thesis (2004)Google Scholar
- 20.Yukish, M., Simpson, T.W.: Analysis of an algorithm for identifying pareto points in multi-dimensional data sets. In: 10th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, p. 4324 (2004)Google Scholar