zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Optimal designed experiments using a Pareto front search for focused preference of multiple objectives. (English) Zbl 06975456
Summary: Finding a best designed experiment based on balancing several competing goodness measures of the design is becoming more important in many applications. The Pareto front approach allows the practitioner to understand trade-offs between alternatives and make more informed decisions. Efficient search for the front is a key to successful use and broad adoption of the method. A substantial computational improvement that conducts a more focused search when the experimenter has a focused a priori preference for the prioritizations of the multiple criteria is described. By utilizing a user-specified desirability function weight distribution for quantifying the preferences on different criteria, an algorithm to efficiently populate the desired portion of the front for two-criterion optimization is developed. Improvements over the full Pareto front search for completeness of the front in the region of interest, computational efficiency, and variation of the search are demonstrated with a screening design example where the objectives are precise model estimation and capability to protect against model mis-specification. Much of the existing literature focuses exclusively on finding the Pareto front, but does not offer strategies for making a choice of a best solution from the rich set of options identified on the front. A streamlined decision-making process with a set of tailored graphical tools to facilitate an informed and justifiable decision is described. The graphics incorporate a priori focused prioritization of the criteria, and hence are helpful to match decisions to design goals.

62 Statistics
Full Text: DOI
[1] Coello Coello, C.; Van Veldhuizen, D.; Lamont, G., Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems, (2007), Kluwer Academic Publishers New York · Zbl 1142.90029
[2] Deb, K., Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms, (2001), John Wiley & Sons Chichester, UK · Zbl 0970.90091
[3] Derringer, G.; Suich, R., Simultaneous optimization of several response variable, Journal of Quality Technology, 12, 214-219, (1980)
[4] Gronwald, W.; Hohm, T.; Hoffmann, D., Evolutionary Pareto-optimization of stably folding peptides, BMC-Bioinformatics, 9, 109, (2008)
[5] Harrington, J., The desirability function, Industrial Quality Control, 21, 10, 494-498, (1965)
[6] Kasprzak, E. M.; Lewis, K. E., Pareto analysis in multiobjective optimization using the collinearity theorem and scaling method, Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization, 22, 208-218, (2001)
[7] Lu, L.; Anderson-Cook, C. M., Rethinking the optimal response surface design for a first-order model with two-factor interactions, when protecting against curvature, Quality Engineering, 24, 404-422, (2012)
[8] Lu, L.; Anderson-Cook, C. M., Adapting the hypervolume quality indicator to quantify trade-offs and search efficiency for multiple criteria decision-making using Pareto fronts, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, (2012)
[9] Lu, L.; Anderson-Cook, C. M.; Robinson, T. J., Optimization of designed experiments based on multiple criteria utilizing a Pareto frontier, Technometrics, 53, 353-365, (2011)
[10] Lu, L.; Anderson-Cook, C. M.; Robinson, T. J., A case study to demonstrate Pareto frontiers for selecting a best response surface design with simultaneously optimizing multiple criteria, Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 28, 206-221, (2012)
[11] Lu, L.; Chapman, J.; Anderson-Cook, C. M., Selecting a best allocation of new data for improving the estimation precision of system and subsystem reliability using Pareto fronts, Techometrics, (2013), (in press)
[12] Myers, R. H.; Montgomery, D. C.; Anderson-Cook, C. M., Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments, (2009), Wiley New York · Zbl 1269.62066
[13] Trautmann, H.; Mehnen, J., Preference-based Pareto optimization in certain and noisy environments, Engineering Optimization, 41, 23-38, (2009)
[14] Wagner, T.; Trautmann, H., Integration of preferences in hypervolume-based multiobjective evolutionary algorithms by means of desirability functions, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 14, 5, 688-701, (2010)
[15] Zahran, A.; Anderson-Cook, C. M.; Myers, R. H., Fraction of design space to assess the prediction capability of response surface designs, Journal of Quality Technology, 35, 377-386, (2003)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.