Designing empirical experiments to compare interactive multiobjective optimization methods

References

• Afsar, B., Miettinen, K., & Ruiz, A. B. (2021a). An artificial decision maker for comparing reference point based interactive evolutionary multiobjective optimization methods. In H. Ishibuchi (Eds.), Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization, 11th International Conference, EMO 2021, Proceedings (pp. 619–631). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Afsar, B., Miettinen, K., & Ruiz, F. (2021b). Assessing the performance of interactive multiobjective optimization methods: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(4):85, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3448301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afsar, B., Ruiz, A. B., & Miettinen, K. (2021). Comparing interactive evolutionary multiobjective optimization methods with an artificial decision maker. Complex & Intelligent Systems. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-021-00586-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battiti, R., & Passerini, A. (2010). Brain-computer evolutionary multiobjective optimization: A genetic algorithm adapting to the decision maker. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 14(5), 671–687. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2010.2058118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brockhoff, K. (1985). Experimental test of MCDM algorithms in a modular approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 22(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(85)90224-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchanan, J. T. (1994). An experimental evaluation of interactive MCDM methods and the decision making process. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45(9), 1050–1059. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1994.170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchanan, J. T., & Corner, J. (1997). The effects of anchoring in interactive MCDM solution methods. Computers & Operations Research, 24(10), 907–918. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(97)00014-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchanan, J. T., & Daellenbach, H. G. (1987). A comparative evaluation of interactive solution methods for multiple objective decision models. European Journal of Operational Research, 29(3), 353–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(87)90248-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, L., Xin, B., & Chen, J. (2017). A tradeoff-based interactive multi-objective optimization method driven by evolutionary algorithms. Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, 21(2), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.20965/jaciii.2017.p0284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin Company.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, S. G. (2006). NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(9), 904–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000909
   Google Scholar
• Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 139–183). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Huber, S., Geiger, M. J., & Sevaux, M. (2015). Simulation of preference information in an interactive reference point-based method for the bi-objective inventory routing problem. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 22(1–2), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1534
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, C.-L., & Masud, A. (1979). Multiple objective decision making – Methods and applications: A state-of-the-art survey. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975
   Google Scholar
• Kok, M. (1986). The interface with decision makers and some experimental results in interactive multiple objective programming methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 26(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90162-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korhonen, P., & Wallenius, J. (1989). Observations regarding choice behaviour in interactive multiple criteria decision-making environments: An experimental investigation. In A. Lewandowski & I. Stanchev (Eds.), Methodology and software for interactive decision support (pp. 163–170). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 5–55.
   Google Scholar
• López-Ibáñez, M., & Knowles, J. (2015). Machine decision makers as a laboratory for interactive EMO. In A. Gaspar-Cunha, C. Henggeler Antunes, & C. C. Coello (Eds.), Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization, 8th International Conference, Proceedings, Part II (pp. 295–309). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• López-Jaimes, A., & Coello, C. A. (2014). Including preferences into a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm to deal with many-objective engineering optimization problems. Information Sciences, 277, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.04.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luque, M., Ruiz, F., & Miettinen, K. (2011). Global formulation for interactive multiobjective optimization. Or Spectrum, 33(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-008-0154-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miettinen, K. (1999). Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Miettinen, K., Hakanen, J., & Podkopaev, D. (2016). Interactive nonlinear multiobjective optimization methods. In S. Greco, M. Ehrgott, & J. Figueira (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (Vol. 2, pp. 931–980). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Miettinen, K., & Mäkelä, M. (2006). Synchronous approach in interactive multiobjective optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, 170(3), 909–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.07.052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miettinen, K., Ruiz, F., & Wierzbicki, A. P. (2008). Introduction to multiobjective optimization: Interactive approaches. In J. Branke, K. Deb, K. Miettinen, & R. Słowiński (Eds.), Multiobjective optimization: Interactive and evolutionary approaches (pp. 27–57). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Misitano, G., Saini, B. S., Afsar, B., Shavazipour, B., & Miettinen, K. (2021). DESDEO: The modular and open source framework for interactive multiobjective optimization. IEEE Access, 9, 148277–148295. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3123825
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narasimhan, R., & Vickery, S. K. (1988). An experimental evaluation of articulation of preferences in multiple criterion decision-making (MCDM) methods. Decision Sciences, 19(4), 880–888. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1988.tb00309.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narukawa, K., Setoguchi, Y., Tanigaki, Y., Olhofer, M., Sendhoff, B., & Ishibuchi, H. (2016). Preference representation using Gaussian functions on a hyperplane in evolutionary multi-objective optimization. Soft Computing, 20(7), 2733–2757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-015-1674-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podkopaev, D., Miettinen, K., & Ojalehto, V. (2021). An approach to the automatic comparison of reference point-based interactive methods for multiobjective optimization. IEEE Access, 9, 150037–150048. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3123432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricciolini, E., Rocchi, L., Cardinali, M., Paolotti, L., Ruiz, F., Cabello, J. M., & Boggia, A. (2022). Assessing progress towards SDGs implementation using multiple reference point based multicriteria methods: The case study of the European countries. Social Indicators Research, 162(3), 1233–1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-022-02886-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz, F., Luque, M., & Miettinen, K. (2012). Improving the computational efficiency in a global formulation (GLIDE) for interactive multiobjective optimization. Annals of Operations Research, 197(1), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-010-0831-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saisana, M., & Philippas, D. (2012). Sustainable society index (SII): Taking societies’ pulse along social, environmental and economic issues. The Joint Research Centre audit on the SSI (Vol. JRC76108; Tech. Rep.) Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Sinha, A., Korhonen, P., Wallenius, J., & Deb, K. (2010). An interactive evolutionary multi-objective optimization method based on polyhedral cones. In C. Blum & R. Battiti (Eds.), Learning and intelligent optimization (pp. 318–332). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, T. J. (2005). Goal programming and cognitive biases in decision-making. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56(10), 1166–1175. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601948
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science (New York, N.Y.), 185(4157), 1124–1131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
   Google Scholar
• Wallenius, J. (1975). Comparative evaluation of some interactive approaches to multicriterion optimization. Management Science, 21(12), 1387–1396. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.21.12.1387
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Wierzbicki, A. P. (1980). The use of reference objectives in multiobjective optimization. In G. Fandel & T. Gal (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision making, theory and applications (pp. 468–486). Springer.
   Google Scholar