www.iji-cs.org
International Journal of Information and Computer Science (IJICS) Volume 3 Issue 1, January 2014 doi: 10.14355/ijics.2014.0301.03
Decision-making Software Architecture; the Visualization and Data Mining Assisted Approach A. Mosavi University of Debrecen Egyetem ter 1, Debrecen 4031, Hungary a.mosavi@math.unideb.hu Abstract
convenient way [9].
Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is considered as a combined task of optimization and decision-making. Yet in solving real-life MCDM problems often most attention is paid to finding the complete Pareto-optimal set of the associated multiobjective optimization (MOO) problem and less to decision-making. In this paper, along with the presentation of two case studies, an interactive procedure has been suggested which involves the decision-maker (DM) in the optimization process helping to choose a single solution at the end. Our proposed method on the basis of reactive search optimization (RSO) algorithm and its novel software architecture packages of LION solver and Grapheur are capable of handling the big data often associated with MCDM problems. The two considered case studies are; firstly, a series of MCDM problems in construction workers’ management and secondly, the well-known MOO and decision-making problem of welded beam design.
The efficient MOO algorithms facilitate the DMs to consider multiple and conflicting goals of a MCDM problem simultaneously. Some examples of such algorithms and potential applications could be found in [3, 4, 5, 6, 13]. Within the known approaches to solving complicated MCDM problems there are different ideologies and considerations in which any decision-making task would find a fine balance among them e.g. [85, 86, 87, 88, 98].
Keywords Interactive Multiple Criteria Decision Making; Reactive Search Optimization; Multiobjective Optimization
Introduction The task of MCDM is divided into two parts: (1) an optimization procedure to discover conflicting design trad-offs and (2) a decision-making process to choose a single preferred solution among them. Although both processes of optimization and decision-making are considered as two joint tasks, yet they are often treated as a couple of independent activities [1, 2]. For instance evolutionary multiobjective optimization (EMO) algorithms [14, 15] have mostly concentrated on the optimization aspects, developing efficient methodologies of finding a set of Pareto-optimal solutions. However finding a set of trade-off optimal solutions is just half the process of optimal design. This has been the reason why EMO researchers have been trying to find ways to efficiently integrate both optimization and decision making tasks in a 12
In MCDM algorithms e.g. [10, 11, 12, 18, 66, 68, 69, 71, 73, 75, 78, 82] often the single optimal solution is chosen by collecting the DM’s preferences where MOO and decision making tasks are combined to obtain a point by point search approach. In addition, in MOO and decision-making, the final obtained solutions must be as close to the true optimal solution as possible and the solution must satisfy the preference information. Towards such a task, an interactive tool to consider decision preferences is essential. This fact has motivated novel researches to properly figure out the important task of integration between MOO and MCDM [9, 22, 23, 14]. Naturally in MOO, interactions with the DM can come either during the optimization process, such as in the interactive evolutionary algorithms(EA)s optimization [15], or during the decision-making process [16, 37]. As a MOO task is not complete without the final decision-making activity and in this sense there exists a number of interactive MOO methods in the MCDM literature [23, 33, 39, 40]. MCDM and EMO; Integration There are two different ways by which EMO and MCDM methodologies can be combined together [14]. Either EMO followed by MCDM or MCDM integrated in an EMO. In the first way, an EMO algorithm is applied to find the Pareto front solutions. Afterward, a