David Meignan
Sigrid Knust
Gilles Pesant
Nicolas Gaud
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
This article presents a review and a classification of interactive optimization methods. These interactive methods are used for solving optimization problems. The interaction with an end user or decision maker aims at improving the efficiency of the optimization procedure, enriching the optimization model, or informing the user regarding the solutions proposed by the optimization system. First, we present the challenges of using optimization methods as a tool for supporting decision making, and we justify the integration of the user in the optimization process. This integration is generally achieved via a dynamic interaction between the user and the system. Next, the different classes of interactive optimization approaches are presented. This detailed review includes trial and error, interactive reoptimization, interactive multiobjective optimization, interactive evolutionary algorithms, human-guided search, and other approaches that are less well covered in the research literature. On the basis of this review, we propose a classification that aims to better describe and compare interaction mechanisms. This classification offers two complementary views on interactive optimization methods. The first perspective focuses on the user’s contribution to the optimization process, and the second concerns the components of interactive optimization systems. Finally, on the basis of this review and classification, we identify some open issues and potential perspectives for interactive optimization methods.
- Belarmino Adenso-Díaz and Manuel Laguna. 2006. Fine-tuning of algorithms using fractional experimental designs and local search. Operations Research 54, 1, 99--114. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- James F. Allen. 1999. Mixed-initiative interaction. Intelligent Systems and their Applications, IEEE 14, 5, 14--23. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/5254.796083Google Scholar
- Saleema Amershi, Maya Cakmak, William Bradley Knox, and Todd Kulesza. 2014. Power to the people: The role of humans in interactive machine learning. AI Magazine 35, 4, 105--120.Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Anderson, Emily Anderson, Neal Lesh, Joe Marks, Brian Mirtich, David Ratajczak, and Kathy Ryall. 2000. Human-guided simple search. In Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 209--216. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Arnott. 2006. Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: A design science approach. Information Systems Journal 16, 1, 55--78. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2006.00208.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Giorgio Ausiello, Vicenzo Bonifaci, and Bruno Escoffier. 2007. Chapter complexity and approximation in reoptimization. In Computability in Context: Computation and Logic in the Real World, S. B. Cooper and Andrea Sorbi (Eds.). Imperial College Press, London, UK, 101--129.Google Scholar
- Meghna Babbar-Sebens and Barbara Minsker. 2010. A case-based micro interactive genetic algorithm (CBMIGA) for interactive learning and search: Methodology and application to groundwater monitoring design. Environmental Modelling and Software 25, 1176--1187. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.027 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Meghna Babbar-Sebens and Barbara Minsker. 2012. Interactive genetic algorithm with mixed initiative interaction for multi-criteria ground water monitoring design. Applied Soft Computing 12, 182--195. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2011.08.054 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Richard P. Bagozzi. 2008. The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8, 4, 244--254.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wolfgang Banzhaf. 1997. Interactive evolution. In Thomas Back, David B. Fogel, Zbigniew Michalewicz (Eds). Handbook of Evolutionary Computation. IOP Publishing Ltd and Oxford University Press, New York, 1--6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jean-Pierre Barthélemy, Raymond Bisdorff, and Gilles Coppin. 2002. Human centered processes and decision support systems. European Journal of Operational Research 136, 2, 233--252. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00112-6Google ScholarCross Ref
- Valerie Belton, Jürgen Branke, Petri Eskelinen, Salvatore Greco, Julián Molina, Francisco Ruiz, and Roman Słowiński. 2008. Interactive multiobjective optimization from a learning perspective. In Jürgen Branke, Kalyanmoy Deb, Kaisa Miettinen, and Roman Słowiński (Eds.). Multiobjective Optimization, Interactive and Evolutionary Approaches. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5252. Springer, Berlin, 405--433. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Aharon Ben-Tal, Laurent El Ghaoui, and Arkadi Nemirovski. 2009. Robust Optimization. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
- R. Benayoun, J. de Montgolfier, J. Tergny, and O. Laritchev. 1971. Linear programming with multiple objective functions: Step method (stem). Mathematical Programming 1, 1, 366--375. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01584098Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kristin P. Bennett and Emilio Parrado-Hernández. 2006. The interplay of optimization and machine learning research. Journal of Machine Learning Research 7, 1265--1281. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hans-Georg Beyer and Bernhard Sendhoff. 2007. Robust optimization—A comprehensive survey. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 196, 33--34, 3190--3218. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2007.03.003Google ScholarCross Ref
- John A. Biles, Peter G. Anderson, and Laura W. Loggi. 1996. Neural network fitness functions for a musical IGA. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Intelligent Industrial Automation.Google Scholar
- Mauro Birattari. 2005. The Problem of Tuning Metaheuristics. Ph.D. Dissertation. Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
- Christian Blum and Andrea Roli. 2003. Metaheuristics in combinatorial optimization: Overview and conceptual comparison. Computing Surveys 35, 3, 268--308. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Denis Bouyssou. 1990. Building criteria: A prerequisite for MCDA. In Carlos A. Bana e Costa (Ed.). Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision-Aid. Springer, Berlin. 58--80. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-75935-2_4Google Scholar
- John W. Braklow, William W. Graham, Stephen M. Hassler, Ken E. Peck, and Warren B. Powell. 1992. Interactive optimization improves service and performance for yellow freight system. Interfaces 22, 1, 147--172. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.22.1.147 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jürgen Branke. 2008. Consideration of Partial User Preferences in evolutionary multiobjective Optimization. In Jürgen Branke, Kalyanmoy Deb, Kaisa Miettinen, and Roman Słowiński (Eds.). Multiobjective Optimization, Interactive and Evolutionary Approaches. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5252. Springer, Berlin. 157--178. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88908-3_6 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jürgen Branke, Kalyanmoy Deb, Kaisa Miettinen, and Roman Słowiński (Eds.). 2008. Multiobjective Optimization, Interactive and Evolutionary Approaches. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5252. Springer, Berlin. 470 pages. ISBN: 978-3-540-88907-6. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jürgen Branke, Thomas Kaußler, and Hartmut Schmeck. 2001. Guidance in evolutionary multi-objective optimization. Advances in Engineering Software 32, 6, 499--507. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0965-9978(00)00110-1Google ScholarCross Ref
- Edmund K. Burke, Patrick De Causmaecker, Greet Vanden Berghe, and Hendrik Van Landeghem. 2004. The state of the art of nurse rostering. Journal of Scheduling 7, 6, 441--499. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JOSH.0000046076.75950.0b Google ScholarDigital Library
- Edmund K. Burke, Michel Gendreau, Matthew Hyde, Graham Kendall, Gabriela Ochoa, Ender Özcan, and Rong Qu. 2013. Hyper-heuristics: A survey of the state of the art. Journal of the Operational Research Society 64, 1695--1724. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.71Google ScholarCross Ref
- Benjamin James Bush and Hiroki Sayama. 2011. Hyperinteractive evolutionary computation. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 15, 3, 424--433. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2010.2096539 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Amedeo Cesta, Gabriella Cortellessa, Simone Fratini, Angelo Oddi, Michel Denis, Alessandro Donati, Nicola Policella, Erhard Rabenau, and Jonathan Schulster. 2007. Mexar2: AI solves mission planner problems. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22, 4, 12--19. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2007.75 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Amedeo Cesta, Gabriella Cortellessa, Angelo Oddi, and Nicola Policella. 2003. A CSP-based interactive decision aid for space mission planning. In Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 8th Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2829. Springer, Berlin. 511--522. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39853-0_42Google Scholar
- François Chéné, Jonathan Gaudreault, and Claude-Guy Quimper. 2014. A mixed-initiative system for interactive tactical supply chain optimization. In International Conference of Modeling and Simulation.Google Scholar
- Markus Chimani, Neal Lesh, Michael Mitzenmacher, Candy Sidner, and Hidetoshi Tanaka. 2005. A case study in large-scale interactive optimization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Applications.Google Scholar
- Fred D. Davis, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw. 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35, 8, 982--1003. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fred D. Davis and Jeffrey E. Kottemann. 1994. User perceptions of decision support effectiveness: Two production planning experiments. Decision Sciences 25, 1, 57--76. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1994.tb00516.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Kalyanmoy Deb and J. Sundar. 2006. Reference point based multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. 635--642. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1143997.1144112 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthias Ehrgott and Xavier Gandibleux. 2000. A survey and annotated bibliography of multiobjective combinatorial optimization. OR-Spektrum 22, 4, 425--460. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002910000046Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christopher B. Eiben, Justin B. Siegel, Jacob B. Bale, Seth Cooper, Firas Khatib, Betty W. Shen, Foldit Players, Barry L. Stoddard, Zoran Popovic, and David Baker. 2012. Increased diels-alderase activity through backbone remodeling guided by Foldit players. Nature Biotechnology 30, 190--192. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2109Google ScholarCross Ref
- Petri Eskelinen. 2008. Objective Trade-off Rate Information in Interactive Multiobjective Optimization Methods: A Survey of Theory and Applications. Technical Report 445. Helsinki School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
- Jerry Alan Fails and Dan R. Olsen, Jr. 2003. Interactive machine learning. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 39--45. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/604045.604056Google Scholar
- M. L. Fisher. 1985. Interactive optimization. Annals of Operations Research 5, 3, 539--556. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02023610Google ScholarCross Ref
- Guisseppi A. Forgionne. 2002. An architecture for the integration of decision making support functionalities. In Guisseppi A. Forgionne, Jatinder N. D. Gupta, and Manuel Mora (Eds.). Decision Making Support Systems: Achievements and Challenges for the New Decade. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, 1--19. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-045-5.ch001 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael C. Fu. 2002. Optimization for simulation: Theory vs. Practice. INFORMS Journal on Computing 14, 3, 192--215. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.14.3.192.113 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Johannes Fürnkranz. 1999. Separate-and-Conquer rule learning. Artificial Intelligence Review 13, 1, 3--54. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006524209794 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michel Gendreau and Christos D. Tarantilis. 2010. Solving Large-Scale Vehicle Routing Problems with Time Windows: The State-of-the-Art. Technical Report CIRRELT-2010-04. Interuniversity Research Center on Enterprise Networks, Logistics and Transportation, Montreal, Quebec.Google Scholar
- Salvatore Greco, Benedetto Matarazzo, and Roman Słowiński. 2008. Dominance-Based rough set approach to interactive multiobjective optimization. In Jürgen Branke, Kalyanmoy Deb, Kaisa Miettinen, and Roman Słowiński (Eds.). Multiobjective Optimization, Interactive and Evolutionary Approaches. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5252. Springer, Berlin. 121--155. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88908-3_5 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jussi Hakanen, Kaisa Miettinen, and Kristian Sahlstedt. 2011. Wastewater treatment: New insight provided by interactive multiobjective optimization. Decision Support Systems 51, 2, 328--337. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.026 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Steven Halim and Hoong Chuin Lau. 2007. Tuning tabu search strategies via visual diagnosis. In Steven Halim, and Hoong Chuin Lau (Eds.). Metaheuristics, Progress in Complex Systems Optimization. Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces Series, Vol. 39. Springer, New York, NY, 365--388. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71921-4_19Google Scholar
- Simon Hamel, Jonathan Gaudreault, Claude-Guy Quimper, Mathieu Bouchard, and Philippe Marier. 2012. Human-Machine interaction for real-time linear optimization. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 673--680. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2012.6377804Google ScholarCross Ref
- Frederick S. Hillier and Gerald J. Lieberman. 2001. Introduction to Operations Research (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Frank Hutter, Thomas Bartz-Beielstein, Holger H. Hoos, Kevin Leyton-Brown, and Kevin P. Murphy. 2010a. Sequential model-based parameter optimization: An experimental investigation of automated and interactive approaches. In T. Bartz-Beielstein, M. Chiarandini, L. Paquete, and M. Preuss (Eds.). Empirical Methods for the Analysis of Optimization Algorithms, Springer, 361--411. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02538-9_15Google Scholar
- Frank Hutter, Holger H. Hoos, and Kevin Leyton-Brown. 2010b. Automated configuration of mixed integer programming solvers. In Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization Problems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6140. Springer, Berlin, 186--202. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13520-0_23 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andrzej Jaszkiewicz and Jürgen Branke. 2008. Interactive multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. In Jürgen Branke, Kalyanmoy Deb, Kaisa Miettinen, and Roman Słowiński (Eds.). Multiobjective Optimization, Interactive and Evolutionary Approaches. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5252. Springer, Berlin, 179--193. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andrzej Jaszkiewicz and Roman Słowiński. 1999. The ‘light beam search’ approach—An overview of methodology applications. European Journal of Operational Research 113, 2, 300--314. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00218-5Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christopher V. Jones. 1994. Visualization and optimization. INFORMS Journal on Computing 6, 3, 221--257. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.6.3.221Google ScholarCross Ref
- Deborah L. Kellogg and Steven Walczak. 2007. Nurse scheduling: From academia to implementation or not? Interfaces 37, 4, 355--369. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.1070.0291 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Firas Khatib, Seth Cooper, Michael D. Tyka, Kefan Xu, Ilya Makedon, Zoran Popović, David Baker, and Foldit Players. 2011. Algorithm discovery by protein folding game players. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108, 47, 18949--18953. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115898108Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hee-Su Kim and Sung-Bae Cho. 2000. Application of interactive genetic algorithm to fashion design. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 13, 6, 635--644. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0952-1976(00)00045-2Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gunnar W. Klau, Neal Lesh, Joe Marks, and Michael Mitzenmacher. 2002. Human-guided tabu search. In 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. The AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 41--47. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gunnar W. Klau, Neal Lesh, Joe Marks, and Michael Mitzenmacher. 2010. Human-guided search. Journal of Heuristics 16, 3, 289--310. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10732-009-9107-5 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anton J. Kleywegt and Alexander Shapiro. 2001. Stochastic optimization. In gavriel salvendy (Ed.). Handbook of Industrial Engineering (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2625--2649. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470172339.ch102Google Scholar
- Patrick Krolak, Wayne Felts, and George Marble. 1971. A man-machine approach toward solving the traveling salesman problem. Communications of the ACM 14, 5, 327--334. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/362588.362593 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Todd Kulesza, Weng-Keen Wong, Simone Stumpf, Stephen Perona, Rachel White, Margaret M. Burnett, Ian Oberst, and Andrew J. Ko. 2009. Fixing the program my computer learned: Barriers for end users, challenges for the machine. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 187--196. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1502650.1502678 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Daniel Kwak, Alfred Kam, David Becerra, Qikuan Zhou, Adam Hops, Eleyine Zarour, Arthur Kam, Luis Sarmenta, Mathieu Blanchette, and Jérôme Waldispühl. 2013. Open-Phylo: A customizable crowd-computing platform for multiple sequence alignment. Genome Biology 14, 10. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/gb-2013-14-10-r116Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gilbert Laporte. 2009. Fifty years of vehicle routing. Transportation Science 43, 4, 408--416. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1090.0301 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Timo Laukkanen, Tor-Martin Tveit, Vesa Ojalehto, Kaisa Miettinen, and Carl-Johan Fogelholm. 2012. Bilevel heat exchanger network synthesis with an interactive multi-objective optimization method. Applied Thermal Engineering 48, 301--316. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.04.058Google ScholarCross Ref
- John D. Lee and Katrina A. See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors 46, 1, 50--80. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joo-Young Lee and Sung-Bae Cho. 1999. Sparse fitness evaluation for reducing user burden in interactive genetic algorithm. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Fuzzy Systems Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2. 998--1003. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FUZZY.1999.793088Google Scholar
- Paul Legris, John Ingham, and Pierre Collerette. 2003. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management 40, 3, 191--204. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christian Liebchen, Marco Lübbecke, Rolf Möhring, and Sebastian Stiller. 2009. The concept of recoverable robustness, linear programming recovery, and railway applications. In Robust and Online Large-Scale Optimization. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5868. Springer, Berlin, 1--27. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05465-5_1 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xavier Llorà, Kumara Sastry, David E. Goldberg, Abhimanyu Gupta, and Lalitha Lakshmi. 2005. Combating user fatigue in iGAs: Partial ordering, support vector machines, and synthetic fitness. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. 1363--1370. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1068009.1068228 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bart L. Maccarthy and Jiyin Liu. 1993. Addressing the gap in scheduling research: A review of optimization and heuristic methods in production scheduling. International Journal of Production Research 31, 1, 59--79. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207549308956713Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barry McCollum. 2006. A perspective on bridging the gap between theory and practice in university timetabling. In E. K. Burke and H. Rudová (Eds.). Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling VI. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3867. Springer, Berlin, 3--23. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77345-0_1 Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Meignan. 2014. A heuristic approach to schedule reoptimization in the context of interactive optimization. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. ACM, New York, NY, 461--468. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2576768.2598213 Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Meignan. 2015. An experimental investigation of reoptimization for shift scheduling. In Proceedings of the 11th Metaheuristics International Conference.Google Scholar
- David Meignan, Jean-Marc Frayret, and Gilles Pesant. 2011. An interactive heuristic approach for the P-forest problem. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Systems Man and Cybernetics. 1009--1013. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2011.6083801Google ScholarCross Ref
- David Meignan, Jean-Marc Frayret, Gilles Pesant, and Mathieu Blouin. 2012. A heuristic approach to automated forest road location. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42, 12, 2130--2141. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x2012-140Google ScholarCross Ref
- David Meignan and Sigrid Knust. 2013. Interactive optimization with long-term preferences inference on a shift scheduling problem. In Proceedings of the 14th European Metaheuristics Workshop. 1--6.Google Scholar
- Kaisa Miettinen. 2007. Using interactive multiobjective optimization in continuous casting of steel. Materials and Manufacturing Processes 22, 5, 585--593. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10426910701322468Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kaisa Miettinen. 2014. Survey of methods to visualize alternatives in multiple criteria decision making problems. OR Spectrum 36, 1, 3--37. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00291-012-0297-0 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kaisa Miettinen, Petri Eskelinen, Francisco Ruiz, and Mariano Luque. 2010. NAUTILUS method: An interactive technique in multiobjective optimization based on the nadir point. European Journal of Operational Research 206, 2, 426--434. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.02.041Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kaisa Miettinen and Marko M. Mäkelä. 2000. Interactive multiobjective optimization system WWW-NIMBUS on the Internet. Computers and Operations Research 27, 7--8, 709--723. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00115-X Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kaisa Miettinen, Francisco Ruiz, and Andrzej P. Wierzbicki. 2008. Introduction to Multiobjective Optimization: Interactive Approaches. In Jürgen Branke, Kalyanmoy Deb, Kaisa Miettinen, and Roman Słowiński (Eds.) Multiobjective Optimization, Interactive and Evolutionary Approaches. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5252. Springer, Berlin, 27--58. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88908-3_2 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bonnie M. Muir. 1987. Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 27, 5--6, 527--539. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(87)80013-5 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Trung Thanh Nguyen, Shengxiang Yang, and Juergen Branke. 2012. Evolutionary dynamic optimization: A survey of the state of the art. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 6, 1--24. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2012.05.001Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gloria Phillips-Wren. 2008. Assisting human decision making with intelligent technologies. In Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5177. Springer, Berlin, 1--10. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85563-7_1 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael L. Pinedo. 2012. Design and implementation of scheduling systems: Basic concepts. In Michael L. Pinedo. Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems (4th ed.). Springer, 459--483.Google Scholar
- John Rachlin, Richard Goodwin, Sesh Murthy, Rama Akkiraju, Fred Wu, Santhosh Kumaran, and Raja Das. 1999. A-Teams: An agent architecture for optimization and decision-support. In Intelligent Agents V: Agents Theories, Architectures, and Languages. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1555. Springer, Berlin, 261--276. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49057-4_17 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Franz Rothlauf. 2011. Optimization Problems. In Franz Rothlauf. Design of Modern Heuristics. Springer, 7--44. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72962-4_2Google Scholar
- Bernard Roy. 1989. Main sources of inaccurate determination, uncertainty and imprecision in decision models. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 12, 10--11, 1245--1254. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(89)90366-X Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bernard Roy. 2005. Paradigms and challenges. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Vol. 78. Springer, New York, 3--24. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_1Google Scholar
- Henri Ruotsalainen, Kaisa Miettinen, and Jan-Erik Palmgren. 2010. Interactive multiobjective optimization for 3D HDR brachytherapy applying IND-NIMBUS. In New Developments in Multiple Objective and Goal Programming. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Vol. 638. Springer, Berlin, 117--131. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10354-4_8Google Scholar
- Martin W. P. Savelsbergh and Marc Sol. 1995. The general pickup and delivery problem. Transportation Science 29, 1, 17--29. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/trsc.29.1.17 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark Schrope. 2013. Solving tough problems with games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, 18, 7104--7106. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306643110Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stacey D. Scott, Neal Lesh, and Gunnar W. Klau. 2002. Investigating human-computer optimization. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 155--162. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/503376.503405 Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. P. Shim, Merrill Warkentin, James F. Courtney, Daniel J. Power, Ramesh Sharda, and Christer Carlsson. 2002. Past, present, and future of decision support technology. Decision Support Systems 33, 2, 111--126. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(01)00139-7 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wan S. Shin and A. Ravindran. 1991. Interactive multiple objective optimization: Survey I—continuous case. Computers and Operations Research 18, 1, 97--114. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(91)90046-T Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eric D. Smith, Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, and Terry Bahill. 2008. Cognitive Biases affect the acceptance of tradeoff studies. In Decision Modeling and Behavior in Complex and Uncertain Environments. Springer Optimization and Its Applications, Vol. 21. Springer, New York, 227--249. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77131-1_10Google Scholar
- Suvrit Sra, Sebastien Nowozin, and Stephen J. Wright. 2012. Introduction: optimization and machine learning. In Suvrit Sra, Sebastien Nowozin, and Stephen J. Wright (Eds.). Optimization for Machine Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1--17.Google Scholar
- Hideyuki Takagi. 2001. Interactive evolutionary computation: Fusion of the capabilities of EC optimization and human evaluation. Proceedings of the IEEE 89, 9, 1275--1296. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/5.949485Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sarosh Talukdar, Lars Baerentzen, Andrew Gove, and Pedro De Souza. 1998. Asynchronous teams: Cooperation schemes for autonomous agents. Journal of Heuristics 4, 4, 295--321. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009669824615 Google ScholarDigital Library
- T.-M. Tveit, T. Laukkanen, V. Ojalehto, K. Miettinen, C.-J. Fogelholm Tor-Martin Tveit, Timo Laukkanen, Vesa Ojalehto, Kaisa Miettinen, and Carl-Johan Fogelholm. 2012. Interactive multi-objective optimisation of configurations for an oxyfuel power plant process for CO2 capture. Chemical Engineering Transactions 29, 433--438. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3303/CET1229073Google Scholar
- André van Vliet, C. Guus E. Boender, and Alexander H. G. Rinnooy Kan. 1992. Interactive optimization of bulk sugar deliveries. Interfaces 22, 3, 4--14. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.22.3.4 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carlo Vercellis. 2009. Business Intelligence: Data Mining and Optimization for Decision Making. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christos Voudouris and Edward P. K. Tsang. 2003. Guided local search. In Handbook of Metaheuristics. Springer, New York, NY, 185--218.Google Scholar
- Jyrki Wallenius. 1975. Comparative evaluation of some interactive approaches to multicriterion optimization. Management Science 21, 12, 1387--1396. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.21.12.1387Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jaap Wessels and Andrzej P. Wierzbicki. 2000. Model-Based decision support. In Andrzej P. Wierzbicki, Marek Makowski, and Jaap Wessels, (Eds.). Model-Based Decision Support Methodology with Environmental Applications. Mathematical Modelling: Theory and Applications, Vol. 9. Springer, 9--28.Google Scholar
- Anna Zych. 2012. Reoptimization of NP-hard problems. Ph.D. Dissertation. Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, ETH Zürich, Switzerland. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-007161496 Nr. 20257.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- A Review and Taxonomy of Interactive Optimization Methods in Operations Research
Recommendations
Set-based discrete particle swarm optimization and its applications: a survey
Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is one of the most popular population-based stochastic algorithms for solving complex optimization problems. While PSO is simple and effective, it is originally defined in continuous space. In order to take advantage of ...
On the Invariance of Ant Colony Optimization
Ant colony optimization (ACO) is a promising metaheuristic and a great amount of research has been devoted to its empirical and theoretical analysis. Recently, with the introduction of the hypercube framework, Blum and Dorigo have explicitly raised the ...
Extended trail reinforcement strategies for ant colony optimization
SEMCCO'11: Proceedings of the Second international conference on Swarm, Evolutionary, and Memetic Computing - Volume Part IAnt colony optimization (ACO) is a metaheuristic inspired by the foraging behavior of biological ants that was successfully applied for solving computationally hard problems. The fundamental idea that drives the ACO is the usage of pheromone trails for ...
Comments