Performance Analysis in Multi-KPI Optimizations

Objective & Hypothesis:Importance of resource planning at airports, ports, logistic centers and similar operation points is increasing significantly each day due to competitions, intensities and irregularities in operations.

📊

Key Findings & Data:Multi-objective optimization algorithms try to reach the user defined objectives of the related operations as much as possible but the performance of these algorithms starts to differ while the number of defined Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) are increasing.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:Specific business rules were ignored in this study to analysis test results clearly.

🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:Multi Objective · Multi KPI · Optimization

Abstract

Importance of resource planning at airports, ports, logistic centers and similar operation points is increasing significantly each day due to competitions, intensities and irregularities in operations. Multi-objective optimization algorithms try to reach the user defined objectives of the related operations as much as possible but the performance of these algorithms starts to differ while the number of defined Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) are increasing. In multi-KPI optimization algorithms, there are many issues and parameters to consider which affect the optimizer performances such as; relationship between KPI’s, the number of KPI’s, number of resources, tasks. In addition, due to some specific business rules in the operation, not every resource can be assigned to every task and the optimization algorithm needs to consider these rules when generating allocation plan. Within the scope of this study, an optimization algorithm which is developed by TAV Technologies is used to analysis optimizer performance changes according to the number of defined KPI’s. For the same resource and task group, the optimization algorithm configured with different KPI combinations and run repeatedly. Except for the KPI definitions, all other optimizer inputs were kept constant in all tests and the results were compared with each other. Specific business rules were ignored in this study to analysis test results clearly.

Keywords

Multi Objective Multi KPI Optimization Resource Allocation Resource Planning

🔖

Cite This Article

KOÇ, G., VARİŞ, F., ÖÇALDI, F., KURAN, M. (2020). Performance Analysis in Multi-KPI Optimizations. International Journal of Applied Mathematics Electronics and Computers, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 4, 221–225. https://ajindex.com/articles/258021

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

Inefficiency In European Airspace (Rep.). Iata Economic Briefing., 2013
PingSong Dong, Dong Li, PaulDrake, Multi-Objective Optimization for a Liner Shipping Service from Different Perspectives, Transportation Research Procedia, Volume 25, 2017. M. Hauskrecht and T. Singliar, “Monte-Carlo optimizations for resource allocation problems in stochastic network systems,” in Proceedings of Nineteenth International Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 2003, pp. 305– 312 Goulielmos, A.M. (2018) The Unresolved Issues in Maritime Economics. Modern Economy, 9, 1687-1715.
Bayrak, A. E., (2010), “Optimization Algorithms For Resource Allocation Problem Of Air Tasking Order Preparation”, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master of science in computer engineering, Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi Mansouri, S. A., Lee, H., & Aluko, O. (2015). Multi-objective decision support to enhance environmental sustainability in maritime shipping: A review and future directions. Transportation Research Part E, 78, 3–18.
D.P. Song, Li D. and P. Drake, "Multi-objective optimization for planning liner shipping service with uncertain port times", Transportation Research Part E, vol. 84, pp. 1-22, 2015
C. C. Coello, G. Lamont, and D. van Veldhuizen, Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems, 2nd ed., ser. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2007.
S. Razavi, B. A. Tolson, and D. H. Burn, “Review of surrogate modeling in water resources,” Water Resources Research, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. n/a– n/a, 2012.
W. Gong, Q. Duan, J. Li, C. Wang, Z. Di, A. Ye, C. Miao, and Y. Dai, “Multiobjective adaptive surrogate modelingbased optimization for parameter estimation of large, complex geophysical models,” Water Resources Research, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 1984–2008, 2016.
S. Koziel, A. Bekasiewicz, I. Couckuyt, and T. Dhaene, “Efficient multiobjective simulation-driven antenna design using co-kriging,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 5900– 5905, Nov 2014.
A. Rosales-Prez, S. Garca, J. A. Gonzalez, C. A. C. Coello, and F. Herrera, “An evolutionary multiobjective model and instance selection for support vector machines with pareto-based ensembles,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 863–877, Dec 2017. T. Akhtar and C. A. Shoemaker. Efficient multi-objective optimization through population-based parallel surrogate search. CoRR, abs/1903.02167, 2019 K. Amouzg