A Novel Immune Algorithm for Multiparty Multiobjective Optimization

Multi-party multi-objective optimization problems (MPMOPs) require consensus among autonomous decision makers and therefore differ from flattened many-objective formulations. Existing runtime theory for multi-objective evolutionary algorithms is largely tailored to single-party Pareto-front approximation and does not directly explain common-solution search in MPMOPs. We investigate cross-party recombination in two representative settings. On MP-JCG, a pseudo-Boolean benchmark with an explicit gap region, we prove that a payoff-guided mutation baseline faces a gap-crossing bottleneck requiring $Θ(n^2)$ expected fitness evaluations. In contrast, an analytical CPR-NSGA-II variant discovers both common Pareto-optimal solutions in $O(n\log n)$ expected evaluations by directly assembling complementary prefix and suffix templates distributed across party populations. Comparing this with the flattened four-objective formulation F-JCG, our full-front coverage analysis illustrates the additional coverage burden introduced by flattening. For BPBOMST, the bi-party, two-objective-per-party specialization of the multi-party multi-objective minimum spanning tree problem, we develop a layered support-cover analysis. For each common Pareto objective vector, the symmetric average projection induces an auxiliary bi-objective MST instance, and suitable support representatives yield a $2λ$-common approximation cover with $λ\in[1,2]$. We further derive an instance-parameterized expected runtime bound for a representative-pool CPR-NSGA-II variant using edge-union recombination and uniform repair. This bound separates the effects of local auxiliary-front filling, cross-party recombination shortcuts, and edge-union repair ambiguity.

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been widely used in urban missions, and proper planning of UAV paths can improve mission efficiency while reducing the risk of potential third-party impact. Existing work has considered all efficiency and safety objectives for a single decision-maker (DM) and regarded this as a multiobjective optimization problem (MOP). However, there is usually not a single DM but two DMs, i.e., an efficiency DM and a safety DM, and the DMs are only concerned with their respective objectives. The final decision is made based on the solutions of both DMs. In this paper, for the first time, biparty multiobjective UAV path planning (BPMO-UAVPP) problems involving both efficiency and safety departments are modeled. The existing multiobjective immune algorithm with nondominated neighbor-based selection (NNIA), the hybrid evolutionary framework for the multiobjective immune algorithm (HEIA), and the adaptive immune-inspired multiobjective algorithm (AIMA) are modified for solving the BPMO-UAVPP problem, and then biparty multiobjective optimization algorithms, including the BPNNIA, BPHEIA, and BPAIMA, are proposed and comprehensively compared with traditional multiobjective evolutionary algorithms and typical multiparty multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (i.e., OptMPNDS and OptMPNDS2). The experimental results show that BPAIMA performs better than ordinary multiobjective evolutionary algorithms such as NSGA-II and multiparty multiobjective evolutionary algorithms such as OptMPNDS, OptMPNDS2, BPNNIA and BPHEIA.

In multiparty multiobjective optimization problems, solution sets are usually evaluated using classical performance metrics, aggregated across DMs. However, such mean-based evaluations may be unfair by favoring certain parties, as they assume identical geometric approximation quality to each party's PF carries comparable evaluative significance. Moreover, prevailing notions of MPMOP optimal solutions are restricted to strictly common Pareto optimal solutions, representing a narrow form of cooperation in multiparty decision making scenarios. These limitations obscure whether a solution set reflects balanced relative gains or meaningful consensus among heterogeneous DMs. To address these issues, this paper develops a fairness-aware performance evaluation framework grounded in a generalized notion of consensus solutions. From a cooperative game-theoretic perspective, we formalize four axioms that a fairness-aware evaluation function for MPMOPs should satisfy. By introducing a concession rate vector to quantify acceptable compromises by individual DMs, we generalize the classical definition of MPMOP optimal solutions and embed classical performance metrics into a Nash-product-based evaluation framework, which is theoretically shown to satisfy all axioms. To support empirical validation, we further construct benchmark problems that extend existing MPMOP suites by incorporating consensus-deficient negotiation structures. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed evaluation framework is able to distinguish algorithmic performance in a manner consistent with consensus-aware fairness considerations. Specifically, algorithms converging toward strictly common solutions are assigned higher evaluation scores when such solutions exist, whereas in the absence of strictly common solutions, algorithms that effectively cover the commonly acceptable region are more favorably evaluated.