In this paper, several new set quality metrics are introduced that can be used to evaluate the “goodness” of an observed Pareto solution set. These metrics, which are formulated in closed-form and geometrically illustrated, include hyperarea difference, Pareto spread, accuracy of an observed Pareto frontier, number of distinct choices and cluster. The metrics should enable a designer to either monitor the quality of an observed Pareto solution set as obtained by a multiobjective optimization method, or compare the quality of observed Pareto solution sets as reported by different multiobjective optimization methods. A vibrating platform example is used to demonstrate the calculation of these metrics for an observed Pareto solution set.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
flexible structures, noise abatement, load distribution, transmission, errors
Topics:
Design, Optimization, Pareto optimization
1.
Eschenauer, C. M., Koski, J., and Osyczka, A., eds., 1990, Multicriteria Design Optimization, Springer-Verlag, New York.
2.
Miettinen, K. M., 1999, Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization, Kluwer Academic, Boston.
3.
Ba¨ck, T., 1996, Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, New York.
4.
Zitzler, E., and Thiele, L., 1998, “
Multiobjective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms—A Comparative Case Study,” In Eiben, A. E.
, et al., Proc. 5th International Conference: Parallel Problem Solving from Nature—PPSNV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Springer, pp. 292–301.
5.
Van Veldhuizen, D. A., 1999, “
Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm: Classifications, Analyses, and New Innovations,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
6.
Schott, J. R., 1995, “
Fault Tolerant Design Using Single and Multicriteria Genetic Algorithm Optimization,” MS Thesis, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
7.
Srinivas
,
N.
, and
Deb
,
K.
,
1994
, “
Multiobjective Optimization Using Nondominated Sorting in Genetic Algorithm
,”
Evolu. Comput.
,
2
, No.
3
, pp.
221
–
248
.
8.
Sayin, S., 1997, “
Measuring the Quality of Discrete Representations of Efficient Sets in Multiple Objective Mathematical Programming,” Working Paper No. 1997/25, Koc¸ University, Turkey.
9.
Messac
,
A.
,
1996
, “
Physical Programming: Effective Optimization for Computational Design
,”
AIAA J.
,
34
, No.
1
, pp.
149
–
158
.
10.
Azarm, S., Reynolds, B., and Narayanan, S., 1999, “
Comparison of Two Multiobjective Optimization Techniques with and within Genetic Algorithm,” CD-ROM Proceedings of the ASME DETC, Design Automation Conference, Paper No. DETC99/DAC-8584, DETC’99 September 12–16, 1999, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Copyright © 2001
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.