Home / Expertise / 01 · Multi-Objective Optimisation

Multi-objective
optimisation.

Real engineering decisions are never single-objective. Performance fights weight, reliability fights cost, accuracy fights latency. I build frameworks — like the Multi-Objective Sensor Optimisation Framework (MOSOF) — that map the full trade-off surface and let stakeholders pick from the Pareto front instead of arguing about it.

The front is the answer.

A 3-objective minimisation problem: cost, weight, risk. The orange surface is the Pareto front — every point on it is non-dominated. Drop-lines from the knee selection trace the trade-off across all three axes.

PARETO SURFACE / 3-OBJ MIN · COST × WEIGHT × RISK
RES 56×56 · SOL 260
drag · scroll · double-click reset
Pareto-optimal surface
Knee selection
Dominated
METHODMOSOF SCORENDCI SOLVERNSGA-II CASEB737-ECS STATECONVERGED
KNEE SELECTION
RECOMMENDED
Cost (norm.)0.42
Weight (norm.)0.38
Risk (norm.)0.31
NDCI coverage0.94
Sensor count Δ−42%
VS BASELINE−42% sensors DIAG.+2pp NDCI
FRONT TOPOLOGY
HV · 0.812
HYPERVOLUME0.812 SPACING0.063 |PF|128

One method, every airframe.

The same multi-objective frame transfers between platforms. Each radar shows the mission-fit profile across five operator-relevant axes: range, payload, fuel efficiency, operating cost, and maintainability. Illustrative profiles

A320NEO
NARROW
FIT0.79 ROLESHORT-MED
B737-800
NARROW
FIT0.72 ROLESHORT-MED
A350
WIDE
FIT0.83 ROLELONG HAUL
ATR-72
REGIONAL
FIT0.74 ROLESHORT REGIONAL

MOSOF + NDCI: diagnostic value, quantified.

The Multi-Objective Sensor Optimisation Framework treats sensor selection as a constrained search over a network's information surface. The Normalised Diagnostic Contribution Index (NDCI) — introduced in our 2025 Sensors paper — gives every sensor a comparable score for its share of system-level diagnostic coverage, fixing the long-standing ambiguity of "more sensors = better".

Validated on the Boeing 737-800 Environmental Control System through Cranfield's SESAC platform, the framework consistently identifies smaller, lighter, cheaper sensor suites that match or exceed the diagnostic capability of larger reference configurations.

  • 01Define objectives. Cost, weight, reliability, information, latency — whatever the stakeholders fight about.
  • 02Encode constraints. Physical, regulatory, supply, schedule.
  • 03Search. Genetic algorithms over the candidate space; NSGA-II family by default.
  • 04Front + knee. Deliver the Pareto front and a knee-point recommendation with explicit trade-off context.

Performance

Information gain · diagnostic coverage

Weight

Mass · footprint · payload

Reliability

MTBF · failure rate · availability

Cost

Acquisition · install · lifecycle

12
Sensor knee solution across 4 aircraft subsystems
3
Objectives optimised simultaneously
NDCI
Diagnostic contribution index

Three papers, one lattice.

The lattice traces the doctoral programme as it was actually published. 2023 formalised sensor optimisation on complex assets; 2025 introduced NDCI and validated MOSOF + NDCI on the B737-800 Environmental Control System through Cranfield's SESAC platform; 2026 applied the combined approach across Engine, Fuel, EPS, and ECS for an airline case — publishing a Pareto-knee solution of 12 sensors at 0.69 normalised diagnostic performance. Each edge below is a citable consumer relationship from those papers.

METHOD × SUBSYSTEM × STAKEHOLDER LATTICE / SUSLU · ALI · JENNIONS · 2023 → 2026
NODES 14 · EDGES 22
2023FOUNDATION · SENSORS 23(18) 7819 2025NDCI · ECS · SENSORS 25(9) 2661 2026CROSS-SUBSYS · SENSORS 26(1) 160

Bring me a hard trade-off.

If you're stuck choosing between options that each look optimal on one axis and broken on another, that's exactly the problem this method is built for.

[email protected]