Research Papers: Design Automation

A Projection-Based Approach for Constructing Piecewise Linear Pareto Front Approximations

[+] Author and Article Information
Hemant Kumar Singh

School of Engineering and IT,
The University of New South Wales,
Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia
e-mail: h.singh@adfa.edu.au

Kalyan Shankar Bhattacharjee

School of Engineering and IT,
The University of New South Wales,
Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia
e-mail: k.bhattacharjee@student.adfa.edu.au

Tapabrata Ray

School of Engineering and IT,
The University of New South Wales,
Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia
e-mail: t.ray@adfa.edu.au

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received December 22, 2015; final manuscript received June 7, 2016; published online July 21, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Kazuhiro Saitou.

J. Mech. Des 138(9), 091404 (Jul 21, 2016) (12 pages) Paper No: MD-15-1843; doi: 10.1115/1.4033991 History: Received December 22, 2015; Revised June 07, 2016

Real-life design problems often require simultaneous optimization of multiple conflicting criteria resulting in a set of best trade-off solutions. This best trade-off set of solutions is referred to as Pareto optimal front (POF) in the outcome space. Obtaining the complete POF becomes impractical for problems where evaluation of each solution is computationally expensive. Such problems are commonly encountered in several fields, such as engineering, management, and scheduling. A practical approach in such cases is to construct suitable POF approximations, which can aid visualization, decision-making, and interactive optimization. In this paper, we propose a method to generate piecewise linear Pareto front approximation from a given set of N Pareto optimal outcomes. The approximations are represented using geometrical linear objects known as polytopes, which are formed by triangulating the given M-objective outcomes in a reduced (M1)-objective space. The proposed approach is hence referred to as projection-based Pareto interpolation (PROP). The performance of PROP is demonstrated on a number of benchmark problems and practical applications with linear and nonlinear fronts to illustrate its strengths and limitations. While being novel and theoretically interesting, PROP also improves on the computational complexity required in generating such approximations when compared with existing Pareto interpolation (PAINT) algorithm.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Deb, K. , 2001, Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms, Vol. 16, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Hartikainen, M. , Miettinen, K. , and Wiecek, M. M. , 2011, “ Constructing a Pareto Front Approximation for Decision Making,” Math. Methods Oper. Res., 73(2), pp. 209–234. [CrossRef]
Miettinen, K. , Ruiz, F. , and Wierzbicki, A. P. , 2008, “ Introduction to Multiobjective Optimization: Interactive Approaches,” Multiobjective Optimization (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 5252, Springer, Berlin, pp. 27–57.
Yang, J. B. , and Singh, M. G. , 1994, “ An Evidential Reasoning Approach for Multiple-Attribute Decision Making With Uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., 24(1), pp. 1–18. [CrossRef]
Shan, S. , and Wang, G. G. , 2005, “ An Efficient Pareto Set Identification Approach for Multiobjective Optimization on Black-Box Functions,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 127(5), pp. 866–874. [CrossRef]
Ruzika, S. , and Wiecek, M. M. , 2005, “ Approximation Methods in Multiobjective Programming,” J. Optim. Theory Appl., 126(3), pp. 473–501. [CrossRef]
Lotov, A. V. , and Miettinen, K. , 2008, “ Visualizing the Pareto Frontier,” Multiobjective Optimization, J. Branke, K. Deb, K. Miettinen, R. Slowinski, eds. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 213–243.
Jahn, J. , and Merkel, A. , 1992, “ Reference Point Approximation Method for the Solution of Bicriterial Nonlinear Optimization Problems,” J. Optim. Theory Appl., 74(1), pp. 87–103. [CrossRef]
Schandl, B. , Klamroth, K. , and Wiecek, M. M. , 2002, “ Norm-Based Approximation in Multicriteria Programming,” Comput. Math. Appl., 44(7), pp. 925–942. [CrossRef]
Wiecek, M. M. , Chen, W. , and Zhang, J. , 2001, “ Piecewise Quadratic Approximation of the Non-Dominated Set for Bi-Criteria Programs,” J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal., 10(1), pp. 35–47. [CrossRef]
Monz, M. , 2006, “ Pareto Navigation–Interactive Multiobjective Optimisation and Its Application in Radiotherapy Planning,” Ph.D. thesis, Department of Mathematics, Technical University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany.
Eskelinen, P. , Miettinen, K. , Klamroth, K. , and Hakanen, J. , 2010, “ Pareto Navigator for Interactive Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization,” OR Spectrum, 32(1), pp. 211–227. [CrossRef]
Rasmus, B. , and Anders, F. , 2013, “ An Algorithm for Approximating Convex Pareto Surfaces Based on Dual Techniques,” INFORMS J. Comput., 25(2), pp. 377–393. [CrossRef]
Berezkin, V. E. , Kamenev, G. K. , and Lotov, A. V. , 2006, “ Hybrid Adaptive Methods for Approximating a Nonconvex Multidimensional Pareto Frontier,” Comput. Math. Math. Phys., 46(11), pp. 1918–1931. [CrossRef]
Hartikainen, M. , and Miettinen, K. , 2010, “ A Computationally Inexpensive Approach in Multiobjective Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis,” 2nd International Conference on Applied Operational Research (ICAOR), Vol. 10, pp. 99–109.
Hartikainen, M. , Miettinen, K. , and Wiecek, M. M. , 2012, “ PAINT: Pareto Front Interpolation for Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization,” Comput. Optim. Appl., 52(3), pp. 845–867. [CrossRef]
Hartikainen, M. , and Ojalehto, V. , 2011, “ Demonstrating the Applicability of PAINT to Computationally Expensive Real-Life Multiobjective Optimization,” CoRR, p. 1109.3411.
Hartikainen, M. , and Lovison, A. , 2014, “ PAINT–SiCon: Constructing Consistent Parametric Representations of Pareto Sets in Nonconvex Multiobjective Optimization,” J. Global Optim., 62(2), pp. 243–261. [CrossRef]
Martín, J. , Bielza, C. , and Insua, D. R. , 2005, “ Approximating Nondominated Sets in Continuous Multiobjective Optimization Problems,” Nav. Res. Logist., 52(5), pp. 469–480. [CrossRef]
Wang, G. G. , and Shan, S. , 2007, “ Review of Metamodeling Techniques in Support of Engineering Design Optimization,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 129(4), pp. 370–380. [CrossRef]
Isaacs, A. , Ray, T. , and Smith, W. , 2009, “ Multi-Objective Design Optimisation Using Multiple Adaptive Spatially Distributed Surrogates,” Int. J. Prod. Dev., 9(1–3), pp. 188–217. [CrossRef]
Simpson, T. W. , Mauery, T. M. , Korte, J. J. , and Mistree, F. , 2001, “ Kriging Models for Global Approximation in Simulation-Based Multidisciplinary Design Optimization,” AIAA J., 39(12), pp. 2233–2241. [CrossRef]
Cochocki, A. , and Unbehauen, R. , 1993, Neural Networks for Optimization and Signal Processing, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Deb, K. , Thiele, L. , Laumanns, M. , and Zitzler, E. , 2002, “ Scalable Multi-Objective Optimization Test Problems,” IEEE Congress Evol. Comput., 1, pp. 825–830.
Huband, S. , Hingston, P. , Barone, L. , and While, L. , 2006, “ A Review of Multiobjective Test Problems and a Scalable Test Problem Toolkit,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 10(5), pp. 477–506. [CrossRef]
Vlennet, R. , Fonteix, C. , and Marc, I. , 1996, “ Multicriteria Optimization Using a Genetic Algorithm for Determining a Pareto Set,” Int. J. Syst. Sci., 27(2), pp. 255–260. [CrossRef]
Eyvindson, K. , Hartikainen, M. , and Kurttila, M. , 2013, “ Towards Constructing a Pareto Front Approximation for Use in Interactive Forest Management Planning,” Implementation of DSS Tools into the Forestry Practice: Reviewed Conference Proceedings, Technical University in Zvolen, Zvolen, Slovakia, pp. 83–91.
Vaidyanathan, R. , Tucker, P. K. , Papila, N. , and Shyy, W. , 2004, “ Computational-Fluid-Dynamics-Based Design Optimization for Single-Element Rocket Injector,” J. Propul. Power, 20(4), pp. 705–717. [CrossRef]
Goel, T. , Vaidyanathan, R. , Haftka, R. T. , Shyy, W. , Queipo, N. V. , and Tucker, K. , 2007, “ Response Surface Approximation of Pareto Optimal Front in Multi-Objective Optimization,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 196(4), pp. 879–893. [CrossRef]
Hakanen, J. , Miettinen, K. , and Sahlstedt, K. , 2011, “ Wastewater Treatment: New Insight Provided by Interactive Multiobjective Optimization,” Decis. Support Syst., 51(2), pp. 328–337. [CrossRef]
Laukkanen, T. , Tveit, T.-M. , Ojalehto, V. , Miettinen, K. , and Fogelholm, C.-J. , 2010, “ An Interactive Multi-Objective Approach to Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis,” Comput. Chem. Eng., 34(6), pp. 943–952. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Self-dominance and point-polytope dominance

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Final polytopes for HE problem [15]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

PAINT using projected points: (a) DTLZ2 data projected on f1f2 plane, (b) initial polytopes using Delaunay triangulation of (a), and (c) final polytopes starting from (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Results using PROP on (a) WFG2, (b) DTLZ7, and (c) hourglass

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Results using PROP on degenerate problems: (a) Viennet and (b) DTLZ5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

PAINT using transformed projection: (a) DTLZ2 data projected and transformed on f1f2 plane, (b) initial polytopes using Delaunay triangulation of (a), and (c) final polytopes starting from (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Results using PROP on DTLZ1 problem: (a) data, (b) projection, (c) initial polytopes, and (d) final polytopes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Results using PROP on DTLZ2 problem: (a) data, (b) projection, (c) initial polytopes, and (d) final polytopes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Transformation of projected points

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Results using PROP on practical application problems: (a) forest management planning, (b) liquid-rocket injector design, and (c) wastewater treatment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Results using PROP on HE network synthesis problem: (a) and (b) using f1 as projection axis, (c) and (d) using f2 as projection axis, and (e) and (f) using f3 as projection axis. (a), (c), and (e) Initial polytopes and (b), (d), and (f) final polytopes.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Delaunay triangulation for the dataset of HE problem using f2 as projection axis. (a) Projections on f1f3 plane. (b) Triangulation resulting from transformed space as viewed in (scaled) original space. The point P2 lies below (has lower f2 value) the polytope formed by P1–P3–P4. (c) Initial polytopes in (scaled) original space. P2 dominates three polytopes.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Results using PROP on DTLZ2 problem: (a) projection axis f1 and (b) projection axis f2



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In