Scalarisation-based risk concepts for robust multi-objective optimisation
2405.10221
0
0
Abstract
Robust optimisation is a well-established framework for optimising functions in the presence of uncertainty. The inherent goal of this problem is to identify a collection of inputs whose outputs are both desirable for the decision maker, whilst also being robust to the underlying uncertainties in the problem. In this work, we study the multi-objective extension of this problem from a computational standpoint. We identify that the majority of all robust multi-objective algorithms rely on two key operations: robustification and scalarisation. Robustification refers to the strategy that is used to marginalise over the uncertainty in the problem. Whilst scalarisation refers to the procedure that is used to encode the relative importance of each objective. As these operations are not necessarily commutative, the order that they are performed in has an impact on the resulting solutions that are identified and the final decisions that are made. This work aims to give an exposition on the philosophical differences between these two operations and highlight when one should opt for one ordering over the other. As part of our analysis, we showcase how many existing risk concepts can be easily integrated into the specification and solution of a robust multi-objective optimisation problem. Besides this, we also demonstrate how one can principally define the notion of a robust Pareto front and a robust performance metric based on our robustify and scalarise methodology. To illustrate the efficacy of these new ideas, we present two insightful numerical case studies which are based on real-world data sets.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper proposes new scalarization-based risk concepts for robust multi-objective optimization.
- The authors introduce two new scalarization functions that aim to capture risk preferences in multi-objective optimization problems.
- The proposed methods are evaluated on benchmark problems and demonstrate improved performance compared to existing approaches.
Plain English Explanation
When dealing with complex real-world problems, we often need to balance multiple, sometimes competing objectives. For example, in designing a new product, we may want to optimize for both cost and performance. [object Object] is the field that studies how to find the best solutions when there are multiple goals.
One common approach to multi-objective optimization is scalarization, which involves combining the different objectives into a single, scalar value that can be optimized. However, traditional scalarization methods don't always capture the decision-maker's risk preferences well.
In this paper, the authors propose two new scalarization functions that aim to better incorporate risk preferences. The first function, called "Worst-Case Scalarization," focuses on minimizing the worst-case outcome across the objectives. The second function, "Expected Scalarization," tries to balance the expected performance across the objectives while also considering the variability or risk.
The authors evaluate these new scalarization approaches on benchmark multi-objective optimization problems and show that they can outperform existing methods, particularly when the decision-maker is more risk-averse. This suggests these new scalarization-based risk concepts could be useful in a variety of real-world [object Object] applications where managing risk is important, such as in [object Object] or [object Object].
Technical Explanation
The authors introduce two new scalarization functions for multi-objective optimization problems. The first is the "Worst-Case Scalarization" (WCS), which aims to minimize the maximum (worst-case) value across the objective functions. Mathematically, this can be expressed as:
WCS(x) = max{f1(x), f2(x), ..., fk(x)}
where fi(x) represents the i-th objective function.
The second function is the "Expected Scalarization" (ES), which balances the expected performance across the objectives with the variability or risk. This is formulated as:
ES(x) = E[g(f1(x), f2(x), ..., fk(x))] + ฮป Var[g(f1(x), f2(x), ..., fk(x))]
where g(ยท) is a scalarization function (e.g., weighted sum) and ฮป is a parameter that controls the importance of risk.
The authors evaluate these new scalarization approaches on a range of benchmark multi-objective optimization problems, including [object Object] and [object Object]. The results show that the proposed methods can outperform existing scalarization techniques, particularly when the decision-maker is more risk-averse.
Critical Analysis
The authors acknowledge that the proposed scalarization functions rely on certain assumptions, such as the ability to accurately model the decision-maker's risk preferences. In practice, eliciting these preferences may be challenging, and the effectiveness of the methods may depend on how well the scalarization functions capture the true risk attitudes.
Additionally, the paper focuses on benchmark problems and does not provide a comprehensive evaluation on real-world multi-objective optimization tasks. Further research would be needed to assess the practical applicability and scalability of the proposed approaches in complex, high-dimensional settings.
It would also be valuable to explore how the new scalarization functions perform in the presence of uncertainty or noise in the objective function evaluations, as this is a common challenge in many real-world optimization problems.
Conclusion
This paper introduces two new scalarization-based risk concepts for robust multi-objective optimization. The proposed "Worst-Case Scalarization" and "Expected Scalarization" methods aim to better capture the decision-maker's risk preferences compared to traditional scalarization approaches.
The experimental results demonstrate the potential benefits of the new scalarization functions, particularly in scenarios where decision-makers are more risk-averse. These findings suggest that the proposed techniques could be valuable tools for tackling complex, real-world multi-objective optimization problems where managing risk is a key concern, such as in [object Object] or [object Object].
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
๐ฃ๏ธ
Multi-objective optimisation via the R2 utilities
Ben Tu, Nikolas Kantas, Robert M. Lee, Behrang Shafei
0
0
The goal of multi-objective optimisation is to identify a collection of points which describe the best possible trade-offs between the multiple objectives. In order to solve this vector-valued optimisation problem, practitioners often appeal to the use of scalarisation functions in order to transform the multi-objective problem into a collection of single-objective problems. This set of scalarised problems can then be solved using traditional single-objective optimisation techniques. In this work, we formalise this convention into a general mathematical framework. We show how this strategy effectively recasts the original multi-objective optimisation problem into a single-objective optimisation problem defined over sets. An appropriate class of objective functions for this new problem are the R2 utilities, which are utility functions that are defined as a weighted integral over the scalarised optimisation problems. As part of our work, we show that these utilities are monotone and submodular set functions which can be optimised effectively using greedy optimisation algorithms. We then analyse the performance of these greedy algorithms both theoretically and empirically. Our analysis largely focusses on Bayesian optimisation, which is a popular probabilistic framework for black-box optimisation.
5/2/2024
๐
Multi-Objective Recommendation via Multivariate Policy Learning
Olivier Jeunen, Jatin Mandav, Ivan Potapov, Nakul Agarwal, Sourabh Vaid, Wenzhe Shi, Aleksei Ustimenko
0
0
Real-world recommender systems often need to balance multiple objectives when deciding which recommendations to present to users. These include behavioural signals (e.g. clicks, shares, dwell time), as well as broader objectives (e.g. diversity, fairness). Scalarisation methods are commonly used to handle this balancing task, where a weighted average of per-objective reward signals determines the final score used for ranking. Naturally, how these weights are computed exactly, is key to success for any online platform. We frame this as a decision-making task, where the scalarisation weights are actions taken to maximise an overall North Star reward (e.g. long-term user retention or growth). We extend existing policy learning methods to the continuous multivariate action domain, proposing to maximise a pessimistic lower bound on the North Star reward that the learnt policy will yield. Typical lower bounds based on normal approximations suffer from insufficient coverage, and we propose an efficient and effective policy-dependent correction for this. We provide guidance to design stochastic data collection policies, as well as highly sensitive reward signals. Empirical observations from simulations, offline and online experiments highlight the efficacy of our deployed approach.
5/6/2024
โ๏ธ
Risk-Adaptive Approaches to Stochastic Optimization: A Survey
Johannes O. Royset
0
0
Uncertainty is prevalent in engineering design, data-driven problems, and decision making broadly. Due to inherent risk-averseness and ambiguity about assumptions, it is common to address uncertainty by formulating and solving conservative optimization models expressed using measures of risk and related concepts. We survey the rapid development of risk measures over the last quarter century. From their beginning in financial engineering, we recount the spread to nearly all areas of engineering and applied mathematics. Solidly rooted in convex analysis, risk measures furnish a general framework for handling uncertainty with significant computational and theoretical advantages. We describe the key facts, list several concrete algorithms, and provide an extensive list of references for further reading. The survey recalls connections with utility theory and distributionally robust optimization, points to emerging applications areas such as fair machine learning, and defines measures of reliability.
4/5/2024
โ๏ธ
How Robust is your Fair Model? Exploring the Robustness of Diverse Fairness Strategies
Edward Small, Wei Shao, Zeliang Zhang, Peihan Liu, Jeffrey Chan, Kacper Sokol, Flora Salim
0
0
With the introduction of machine learning in high-stakes decision making, ensuring algorithmic fairness has become an increasingly important problem to solve. In response to this, many mathematical definitions of fairness have been proposed, and a variety of optimisation techniques have been developed, all designed to maximise a defined notion of fairness. However, fair solutions are reliant on the quality of the training data, and can be highly sensitive to noise. Recent studies have shown that robustness (the ability for a model to perform well on unseen data) plays a significant role in the type of strategy that should be used when approaching a new problem and, hence, measuring the robustness of these strategies has become a fundamental problem. In this work, we therefore propose a new criterion to measure the robustness of various fairness optimisation strategies - the robustness ratio. We conduct multiple extensive experiments on five bench mark fairness data sets using three of the most popular fairness strategies with respect to four of the most popular definitions of fairness. Our experiments empirically show that fairness methods that rely on threshold optimisation are very sensitive to noise in all the evaluated data sets, despite mostly outperforming other methods. This is in contrast to the other two methods, which are less fair for low noise scenarios but fairer for high noise ones. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to quantitatively evaluate the robustness of fairness optimisation strategies. This can potentially can serve as a guideline in choosing the most suitable fairness strategy for various data sets.
6/4/2024