Ontheother hand, the reference set could also be a (good) approximated Pareto front for assessment. In this paper,we use the exact Pareto front for MOKP(3-100) tocompute IGD since theyare easy tobe solvedoptimally.

We then compute the average NHV across the instances used for testing.

In the application of machine learning to real-life decision-making systems, e.g., credit scoring and criminal justice, the prediction outcomes might discriminate against people with sensitive attributes, leading to unfairness. The commonly used strategy in fair machine learning is to include fairness as a constraint or a penalization term in the minimization of the prediction loss, which ultimately limits the information given to decision-makers. In this paper, we introduce a new approach to handle fairness by formulating a stochastic multi-objective optimization problem for which the corresponding Pareto fronts uniquely and comprehensively define the accuracy-fairness trade-offs. We have then applied a stochastic approximation-type method to efficiently obtain well-spread and accurate Pareto fronts, and by doing so we can handle training data arriving in a streaming way.

In this paper, we investigate the possibility of improving the performance of multi-objective optimization solution approaches using machine learning techniques. Specifically, we focus on multi-objective binary linear programs and employ one of the most effective and recently developed criterion space search algorithms, the so-called KSA, during our study. This algorithm computes all nondominated points of a problem with p objectives by searching on a projected criterion space, i.e., a (p-1)-dimensional criterion apace. We present an effective and fast learning approach to identify on which projected space the KSA should work. We also present several generic features/variables that can be used in machine learning techniques for identifying the best projected space. Finally, we present an effective bi-objective optimization based heuristic for selecting the best subset of the features to overcome the issue of overfitting in learning. Through an extensive computational study over 2000 instances of tri-objective Knapsack and Assignment problems, we demonstrate that an improvement of up to 12% in time can be achieved by the proposed learning method compared to a random selection of the projected space.

Using some real-world examples I illustrate the important role of multiobjective optimization in decision making and its interface with preference handling. I explain what optimization in the presence of multiple objectives means and discuss some of the most common methods of solving multiobjective optimization problems using transformations to single-objective optimization problems. Finally, I address linear and combinatorial optimization problems with multiple objectives and summarize techniques for solving them. Throughout the article I refer to the real-world examples introduced at the beginning. There are infinitely many ways to invest money and infinitely many possible radiotherapy treatments, but the number of feasible crew schedules is finite, albeit astronomical in practice.

Moreover, the investor, the oncologist, and the airline manager are all in a situation where the number of available options or alternatives is very large or even infinite. There are infinitely many ways to invest money and infinitely many possible radiotherapy treatments, but the number of feasible crew schedules is finite, albeit astronomical in practice. The alternatives are therefore described by constraints, rather than explicitly known: the sums invested in every stock must equal the total invested; the radiotherapy treatment must meet physical and clinical constraints; crew schedules must ensure that each flight has exactly one crew assigned to operate it. Mathematically, the alternatives are described by vectors in variable or decision space; the set of all vectors satisfying the constraints is called the feasible set in decision space. The consequences or attributes of the alternatives are described as vectors in objective or outcome space, where outcome (objective) vectors are a function of the decision (variable) vectors.