IP Library Granted Patent US 9,305,266
Granted Patent B2
US 9,305,266 · App. 14/178,331 · Granted Apr 5, 2016

Objective weighing and ranking

Inventors: David Amid (Kiryat Ata, IL); Ateret Anaby-Tavor (Givat Ada, IL); David Boaz (Bahan, IL); Dmitry A Moor (Moscow, RU); Ofer Michael Shir (Jerusalem, IL)
Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
G06N7/005G06Q10/04G06N7/08
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 9,305,266
App. No.
14/178,331
Filed
Feb 12, 2014
Granted
Apr 5, 2016
Kind
B2
Art Unit
2122
USPC
706/13
Abstract

A method comprising using at least one hardware processor for: receiving a multi-objective optimization problem; projecting a Pareto frontier of candidate solutions for said multi-objective optimization problem to a hyperplane; decomposing said hyperplane into multiple Voronoi regions each associated with a candidate solution of said candidate solutions; determining a robustness degree for each candidate solution of said candidate solutions, by computing a hypervolume for each region of said multiple Voronoi regions; and ranking said candidate solutions based on the robustness degree.

Claims (32)

1. A method comprising using at least one hardware processor for:

receiving a multi-objective optimization problem;

projecting a Pareto frontier of candidate solutions for said multi-objective optimization problem to a hyperplane;

decomposing said hyperplane into multiple Voronoi regions each associated with a candidate solution of said candidate solutions;

determining a robustness degree for each candidate solution of said candidate solutions, by computing a hypervolume for each region of said multiple Voronoi regions;

computing a range of weight vectors for each candidate solution of said candidate solutions; and

ranking said candidate solutions based on the robustness degree.

2. The method according to claim 1 , further comprising using said at least one hardware processor for computing said Pareto frontier.

3. The method according to claim 1 , further comprising using said at least one hardware processor for constructing a visualization of said ranking.

4. The method according to claim 1 , wherein said receiving of said multi-objective optimization problem comprises receiving a description of multiple objectives and a weight associated with each objective of said multiple objectives.

5. The method according to claim 4 , further comprising using said at least one hardware processor for: (a) computing other Voronoi regions based on the received weight associated with each of said objective, and (b) computing one or more intersections between said multiple Voronoi regions and said other Voronoi regions.

6. The method according to claim 4 , wherein said weight is a weight range.

7. The method according to claim 1 , further comprising using said at least one hardware processor for receiving a desired degree of robustness for the weight associated with each objective of the multiple objectives.

8. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the Pareto frontier is concave.

9. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the Pareto frontier is convex.

10. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the Pareto frontier is continuous.

11. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the Pareto frontier is discrete.

12. A computer program product for ranking candidate solutions of a multi-objective optimization problem, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having program code embodied therewith, the program code executable by at least one hardware processor for:

receiving a multi-objective optimization problem;

projecting a Pareto frontier of candidate solutions for said multi-objective optimization problem to a hyperplane;

decomposing said hyperplane into multiple Voronoi regions each associated with a candidate solution of said candidate solutions;

determining a robustness degree for each candidate solution of said candidate solutions, by computing a hypervolume for each region of said multiple Voronoi regions;

computing a range of weight vectors for each candidate solution of said candidate solutions; and

ranking said candidate solutions based on the robustness degree.

13. The computer program product according to claim 12 , wherein the program code is further executable by said at least one hardware processor for computing said Pareto frontier.

14. The computer program product according to claim 12 , wherein said program code is further executable by said at least one hardware processor for constructing a visualization of said ranking.

15. The computer program product according to claim 12 , wherein said receiving of said multi-objective optimization problem comprises receiving a description of multiple objectives and a weight associated with each objective of said multiple objectives.

16. The computer program product according to claim 15 , wherein said weight is a weight range.

17. The computer program product according to claim 12 , wherein said program code is further executable by said at least one hardware processor for receiving a desired degree of robustness for the weight associated with each objective of the multiple objectives.

18. The computer program product according to claim 11 , wherein the Pareto frontier is concave.

19. The computer program product according to claim 11 , wherein the Pareto frontier is convex.

20. The computer program product according to claim 11 , wherein the Pareto frontier is discrete.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Feb 12, 2014
From: AMID, DAVID; ANABY-TAVOR, ATERET; BOAZ, DAVID; MOOR, DMITRY A; SHIR, OFER MICHAEL
To: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 032199/0734 →
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20150227848A1 · Aug 13, 2015