List of Figures. List of Tables. Preface. Foreword. 1. Basic Concepts. 2. Evolutionary Algorithm MOP Approaches. 3. MOEA Test Suites. 4. MOEA Testing and Analysis. 5. MOEA Theory and Issues. 3. MOEA Theoretical Issues. 6. Applications. 7. MOEA Parallelization. 8. Multi-Criteria Decision Making. 9. Special Topics. 10. Epilog. Appendix A: MOEA Classification and Technique Analysis. Appendix B: MOPs in the Literature. Appendix C: Ptrue & PFtrue for Selected Numeric MOPs. Appendix D: Ptrue & PFtrue for Side-Constrained MOPs. Appendix E: MOEA Software Availability. Appendix F: MOEA-Related Information. Index. References.

/pdf/evolutionary-algorithms-for-solving-multi-objective-problems-2txxk4mqci.pdf

Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems

https://ir.nctu.edu.tw:443/bitstream/11536/26562/1/000220346300012.pdf

Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS

The Theory of Matrices. By F R. Gantmacher. Two volumes, pp. 374 and 276. 1959. (Translated from the Russian by K. A. Hirsch; Chelsea Publishing Company, New York)

In this paper, a new method, called best-worst method (BWM) is proposed to solve multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems. In an MCDM problem, a number of alternatives are evaluated with respect to a number of criteria in order to select the best alternative(s). According to BWM, the best (e.g. most desirable, most important) and the worst (e.g. least desirable, least important) criteria are identified first by the decision-maker. Pairwise comparisons are then conducted between each of these two criteria (best and worst) and the other criteria. A maximin problem is then formulated and solved to determine the weights of different criteria. The weights of the alternatives with respect to different criteria are obtained using the same process. The final scores of the alternatives are derived by aggregating the weights from different sets of criteria and alternatives, based on which the best alternative is selected. A consistency ratio is proposed for the BWM to check the reliability of the comparisons. To illustrate the proposed method and evaluate its performance, we used some numerical examples and a real-word decision-making problem (mobile phone selection). For the purpose of comparison, we chose AHP (analytic hierarchy process), which is also a pairwise comparison-based method. Statistical results show that BWM performs significantly better than AHP with respect to the consistency ratio, and the other evaluation criteria: minimum violation, total deviation, and conformity. The salient features of the proposed method, compared to the existing MCDM methods, are: (1) it requires less comparison data; (2) it leads to more consistent comparisons, which means that it produces more reliable results.

Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods have become increasingly popular in decision-making for sustainable energy because of the multi-dimensionality of the sustainability goal and the complexity of socio-economic and biophysical systems. This article reviewed the corresponding methods in different stages of multi-criteria decision-making for sustainable energy, i.e., criteria selection, criteria weighting, evaluation, and final aggregation. The criteria of energy supply systems are summarized from technical, economic, environmental and social aspects. The weighting methods of criteria are classified into three categories: subjective weighting, objective weighting and combination weighting methods. Several methods based on weighted sum, priority setting, outranking, fuzzy set methodology and their combinations are employed for energy decision-making. It is observed that the investment cost locates the first place in all evaluation criteria and CO2 emission follows closely because of more focuses on environment protection, equal criteria weights are still the most popular weighting method, analytical hierarchy process is the most popular comprehensive MCDA method, and the aggregation methods are helpful to get the rational result in sustainable energy decision-making.

Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making

How to select and how to rank projects: the promethee method

Abstract In this paper, we present the Promethee methods, a new class of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis. Their main features are simplicity, clearness and stability. The notion of generalized criterion is used to construct a valued outranking relation. All the parameters to be defined have an economic signification, so that the decision maker can easily fix them. Two ways of treatment are proposed: It is possible to obtain either a partial preorder ( Promethee I) or a complete one ( Promethee II), both on a finite set of feasible actions. A comparison is made with the Electre III method. The stability of the results given by the two methods is analysed. Numerical applications are given in order to illustrate the properties of the new methods and some further problems are discussed.

How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method

Prométhée: a new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis

PROMCALC & GAIA is the last development of the interactive decision support system based on the PROMETHEE and GAIA methodology. In the first section, the fundamental characteristics of multicriteria problems are recalled and requisites are formulated for an appropriate multicriteria decision aid methodology. Based on these requisites, the PROMETHEE methods are then introduced, including newer developments such as PROMETHEE V (multicriteria optimization under constraints) and the GAIA visual modelling method. The actual implementation of the proposed methodology in the PROMCALC & GAIA software is then detailed and a numerical example is developed to illustrate the possibilities of the system.

The PROMCALC & GAIA decision support system for multicriteria decision aid

In this paper geometrical representations for multicriteria decision problems are proposed. This new approach provides assistance to understand the conflictual aspects of the criteria and to tackle the problem of the weights associated to them. A generalized criterion, including a preference function, is first generated for each criterion. This allows to define unicriterion preference flows for which a geometrical representation can be obtained by using the Principal Components Analysis. The actions are represented by points and criteria by axes in the PCA plane. A decision axis taking into account the weights associated to the criteria can be defined. This technique provides the decision-maker with a considerable enrichment for the understanding of his problem: clusters of actions can be considered, the importance of the criteria can be evaluated, conflictual criteria are immediately detected, incomparability between actions is emphasized and explained, best compromise actions are easily selected, new decision-axes representing possible clusters of criteria can be considered, undesirable actions can be eliminated, … The technique consists in a powerful new qualitative decision tool. It is illustrated in the paper on some examples treated by the Promethee I and II methods. A didactic and user-friendly microcomputer code is available.

Bertrand Mareschal

Papers

How to select and how to rank projects: the promethee method

How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method

Prométhée: a new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis

The PROMCALC & GAIA decision support system for multicriteria decision aid

Geometrical representations for MCDA