Automated Innovization for Simultaneous Discovery of Multiple Rules in Bi-objective Problems

  • Sunith Bandaru
  • Kalyanmoy Deb
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6576)


The trade-off solutions of a multi-objective optimization problem, as a whole, often hold crucial information in the form of rules. These rules, if predominantly present in most trade-off solutions, can be considered as the characteristic features of the Pareto-optimal front. Knowledge of such features, in addition to providing better insights to the problem, enables the designer to handcraft solutions for other optimization tasks which are structurally similar to it; thus eliminating the need to actually optimize. Innovization is the process of extracting these so called design rules. This paper proposes to move a step closer towards the complete automation of the innovization process through a niched clustering based optimization technique. The focus is on obtaining multiple design rules in a single knowledge discovery step using the niching strategy.


automated innovization multiple-rule discovery niching row-echelon forms 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Papalambros, P.Y., Wilde, D.J.: Principles of optimal design: Modeling and computation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deb, K., Srinivasan, A.: Monotonicity analysis, discovery of design principles, and theoretically accurate evolutionary multi-objective optimization. Journal of Universal Computer Science 13(7), 955–970 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Obayashi, S., Sasaki, D.: Visualization and data mining of pareto solutions using self-organizing map. In: Fonseca, C.M., Fleming, P.J., Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele, L. (eds.) EMO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2632, pp. 796–809. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Obayashi, S., Jeong, S., Chiba, K.: Multi-objective design exploration for aerodynamic configurations. In: Proceedings of 35th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, AIAA 2005-4666 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ulrich, T., Brockhoff, D., Zitzler, E.: Pattern identification in Pareto-set approximations. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO 2008, pp. 737–744. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oyama, A., Nonomura, T., Fujii, K.: Data mining of Pareto-optimal transonic airfoil shapes using proper orthogonal decomposition. In: AIAA2009-4000. AIAA, Reston (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deb, K.: Unveiling innovative design principles by means of multiple conflicting objectives. Engineering Optimization 35(5), 445–470 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deb, K., Srinivasan, A.: Innovization: Innovating design principles through optimization. In: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO 2006, pp. 1629–1636. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deb, K.: Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, New York (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Datta, D., Deb, K., Fonseca, C.: Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for resource allocation problems. In: Obayashi, S., Deb, K., Poloni, C., Hiroyasu, T., Murata, T. (eds.) EMO 2007. LNCS, vol. 4403, pp. 401–416. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bittermann, M.: Personal communication (July 2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Madetoja, E., Ruotsalainen, H., Mönkkönen, V.: New visualization aspects related to intelligent solution procedure in papermaking optimization. In: EngOpt 2008 - International Conference on Engineering Optimization (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Doncieux, S., Mouret, J., Bredeche, N.: Exploring new horizons in evolutionary design of robots. In: Workshop on Exploring new horizons in Evolutionary Design of Robots at IROS, pp. 5–12 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deb, K., Agarwal, S., Pratap, A., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6(2), 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bandaru, S., Deb, K.: Automated discovery of vital knowledge from Pareto-optimal solutions: First results from engineering design. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC-2010), pp. 1224–1231. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bandaru, S., Deb, K.: Towards automating the discovery of certain innovative design principles through a clustering based optimization technique. Engineering Optimization (in press),
  17. 17.
    Oei, C.K., Goldberg, D.E., Chang, S.J.: Tournament selection, niching, and the preservation of diversity. IlliGAL Report No. 91011, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deb, K.: An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 186(2-4), 311–338 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sunith Bandaru
    • 1
  • Kalyanmoy Deb
    • 1
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology KanpurKanpurIndia

Personalised recommendations