Biobjective Optimization over the Efficient Set Methodology for Pareto Set Reduction in Multiobjective Decision Making: Theory and Application

A large number of available solutions to choose from poses a significant challenge for multiple criteria decision making. This research develops a methodology that reduces the set of efficient solutions under consideration. This dissertation is composed of three major parts: (i) the formalization of a theoretical framework; (ii) the development of a solution approach; and (iii) a case study application of the methodology. In the first part, the problem is posed as a multiobjective optimization over the efficient set and considers secondary robustness criteria when the exact values of decision variables are subjected to uncertainties during implementation. The contributions are centered at the modeling of uncertainty directly affecting decision variables, the use of robustness to provide additional trade-off analysis, the study of theoretical bounds on the measures of robustness, and properties to ensure that fewer solutions are identified. In the second part, the problem is reformulated as a biobjective mixed binary program and the secondary criteria are generalized to any convenient linear functions. A solution approach is devised in which an auxiliary mixed binary program searches for unsupported Pareto outcomes and a novel linear programming filtering excludes any dominated solutions in the space of the secondary criteria. Experiments show that the algorithm tends to run faster than existing approaches for mixed binary programs. The algorithm enables dealing with continuous Pareto sets, avoiding discretization procedures common to the related literature. In the last part, the methodology is applied in a case study regarding the electricity generation capacity expansion problem in Texas. While water and energy are interconnected issues, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to consider both water and cost objectives. Experiments illustrate how the methodology can facilitate decision making and be used to answer strategic questions pertaining to the trade-off among different generation technologies, power plant locations, and the effect of uncertainty. A simulation shows that robust solutions tend to maintain feasibility and stability of objective values when power plant design capacity values are perturbed

Branch-and-bound for biobjective mixed-integer linear programming

We present a generic branch-and-bound method for finding all the Pareto solutions of a biobjective mixed integer program. Our main contribution is new algorithms for obtaining dual bounds at a node, for checking node fathoming, presolve and duality gap measurement. Our various procedures are implemented and empirically validated on instances from literature and a new set of hard instances. We also perform comparisons against the triangle splitting method of Boland et al. [\emph{INFORMS Journal on Computing}, \textbf{27} (4), 2015], which is a objective space search algorithm as opposed to our variable space search algorithm. On each of the literature instances, our branch-and-bound is able to compute the entire Pareto set in significantly lesser time. Most of the instances of the harder problem set were not solved by either algorithm in a reasonable time limit, but our algorithm performs better on average on the instances that were solved.Comment: 35 pages, 12 figures. Original preprint at Optimization Online, October 201

Domination and Decomposition in Multiobjective Programming

During the last few decades, multiobjective programming has received much attention for both its numerous theoretical advances as well as its continued success in modeling and solving real-life decision problems in business and engineering. In extension of the traditionally adopted concept of Pareto optimality, this research investigates the more general notion of domination and establishes various theoretical results that lead to new optimization methods and support decision making. After a preparatory discussion of some preliminaries and a review of the relevant literature, several new findings are presented that characterize the nondominated set of a general vector optimization problem for which the underlying domination structure is defined in terms of different cones. Using concepts from linear algebra and convex analysis, a well known result relating nondominated points for polyhedral cones with Pareto solutions is generalized to nonpolyhedral cones that are induced by positively homogeneous functions, and to translated polyhedral cones that are used to describe a notion of approximate nondominance. Pareto-oriented scalarization methods are modified and several new solution approaches are proposed for these two classes of cones. In addition, necessary and sufficient conditions for nondominance with respect to a variable domination cone are developed, and some more specific results for the case of Bishop-Phelps cones are derived. Based on the above findings, a decomposition framework is proposed for the solution of multi-scenario and large-scale multiobjective programs and analyzed in terms of the efficiency relationships between the original and the decomposed subproblems. Using the concept of approximate nondominance, an interactive decision making procedure is formulated to coordinate tradeoffs between these subproblems and applied to selected problems from portfolio optimization and engineering design. Some introductory remarks and concluding comments together with ideas and research directions for possible future work complete this dissertation

Solving a type of biobjective bilevel programming problem using NSGA-II

AbstractThis paper considers a type of biobjective bilevel programming problem, which is derived from a single objective bilevel programming problem via lifting the objective function at the lower level up to the upper level. The efficient solutions to such a model can be considered as candidates for the after optimization bargaining between the decision-makers at both levels who retain the original bilevel decision-making structure. We use a popular multiobjective evolutionary algorithm, NSGA-II, to solve this type of problem. The algorithm is tested on some small-dimensional benchmark problems from the literature. Computational results show that the NSGA-II algorithm is capable of solving the problems efficiently and effectively. Hence, it provides a promising visualization tool to help the decision-makers find the best trade-off in bargaining

The Kalai-Smorodinski solution for many-objective Bayesian optimization

An ongoing aim of research in multiobjective Bayesian optimization is to extend its applicability to a large number of objectives. While coping with a limited budget of evaluations, recovering the set of optimal compromise solutions generally requires numerous observations and is less interpretable since this set tends to grow larger with the number of objectives. We thus propose to focus on a specific solution originating from game theory, the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution, which possesses attractive properties. In particular, it ensures equal marginal gains over all objectives. We further make it insensitive to a monotonic transformation of the objectives by considering the objectives in the copula space. A novel tailored algorithm is proposed to search for the solution, in the form of a Bayesian optimization algorithm: sequential sampling decisions are made based on acquisition functions that derive from an instrumental Gaussian process prior. Our approach is tested on four problems with respectively four, six, eight, and nine objectives. The method is available in the Rpackage GPGame available on CRAN at https://cran.r-project.org/package=GPGame

Multiobjective Design and Innovization of Robust Stormwater Management Plans

In the United States, states are federally mandated to develop watershed management plans to mitigate pollution from increased impervious surfaces due to land development such as buildings, roadways, and parking lots. These plans require a major investment in water retention infrastructure, known as structural Best Management Practices (BMPs). However, the discovery of BMP configurations that simultaneously minimize implementation cost and pollutant load is a complex problem. While not required by law, an additional challenge is to find plans that not only meet current pollutant load targets, but also take into consideration anticipated changes in future precipitation patterns due to climate change. In this dissertation, a multi-scale, multiobjective optimization method is presented to tackle these three objectives. The method is demonstrated on the Bartlett Brook mixed-used impaired watershed in South Burlington, VT. New contributions of this work include: (A) A method for encouraging uniformity of spacing along the non-dominated front in multiobjective evolutionary optimization. This method is implemented in multiobjective differential evolution, is validated on standard benchmark biobjective problems, and is shown to outperform existing methods. (B) A procedure to use GIS data to estimate maximum feasible BMP locations and sizes in subwatersheds. (C) A multi-scale decomposition of the watershed management problem that precalculates the optimal cost BMP configuration across the entire range of possible treatment levels within each subwatershed. This one-time pre-computation greatly reduces computation during the evolutionary optimization and enables formulation of the problem as real-valued biobjective global optimization, thus permitting use of multiobjective differential evolution. (D) Discovery of a computationally efficient surrogate for sediment load. This surrogate is validated on nine real watersheds with different characteristics and is used in the initial stages of the evolutionary optimization to further reduce the computational burden. (E) A lexicographic approach for incorporating the third objective of finding non-dominated solutions that are also robust to climate change. (F) New visualization methods for discovering design principles from dominated solutions. These visualization methods are first demonstrated on simple truss and beam design problems and then used to provide insights into the design of complex watershed management plans. It is shown how applying these visualization methods to sensitivity data can help one discover solutions that are robust to uncertain forcing conditions. In particular, the visualization method is applied to discover new design principles that may make watershed management plans more robust to climate change

Fuzzy Bilevel Optimization

In the dissertation the solution approaches for different fuzzy optimization problems are presented. The single-level optimization problem with fuzzy objective is solved by its reformulation into a biobjective optimization problem. A special attention is given to the computation of the membership function of the fuzzy solution of the fuzzy optimization problem in the linear case. Necessary and sufficient optimality conditions of the the convex nonlinear fuzzy optimization problem are derived in differentiable and nondifferentiable cases. A fuzzy optimization problem with both fuzzy objectives and constraints is also investigated in the thesis in the linear case. These solution approaches are applied to fuzzy bilevel optimization problems. In the case of bilevel optimization problem with fuzzy objective functions, two algorithms are presented and compared using an illustrative example. For the case of fuzzy linear bilevel optimization problem with both fuzzy objectives and constraints k-th best algorithm is adopted.:1 Introduction 1 1.1 Why optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Fuzziness as a concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 2 1.3 Bilevel problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 Preliminaries 11 2.1 Fuzzy sets and fuzzy numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.3 Fuzzy order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.4 Fuzzy functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 3 Optimization problem with fuzzy objective 19 3.1 Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.2 Solution method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.3 Local optimality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.4 Existence of an optimal solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4 Linear optimization with fuzzy objective 27 4.1 Main approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.2 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.3 Optimality conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.4 Membership function value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.4.1 Special case of triangular fuzzy numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.4.2 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 5 Optimality conditions 47 5.1 Differentiable fuzzy optimization problem . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 48 5.1.1 Basic notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.1.2 Necessary optimality conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49 5.1.3 Suffcient optimality conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5.2 Nondifferentiable fuzzy optimization problem . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.2.1 Basic notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.2.2 Necessary optimality conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 5.2.3 Suffcient optimality conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.2.4 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 6 Fuzzy linear optimization problem over fuzzy polytope 59 6.1 Basic notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 6.2 The fuzzy polytope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 6.3 Formulation and solution method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 65 6.4 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 7 Bilevel optimization with fuzzy objectives 73 7.1 General formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 7.2 Solution approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 7.3 Yager index approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 7.4 Algorithm I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 7.5 Membership function approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 7.6 Algorithm II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 7.7 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 8 Linear fuzzy bilevel optimization (with fuzzy objectives and constraints) 87 8.1 Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 8.2 Solution approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 8.3 Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 8.4 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 9 Conclusions 95 Bibliography 9

Multi-objective combinatorial optimization problems in transportation and defense systems

Multi-objective Optimization problems arise in many applications; hence, solving them efficiently is important for decision makers. A common procedure to solve such problems is to generate the exact set of Pareto efficient solutions. However, if the problem is combinatorial, generating the exact set of Pareto efficient solutions can be challenging. This dissertation is dedicated to Multi-objective Combinatorial Optimization problems and their applications in system of systems architecting and railroad track inspection scheduling. In particular, multi-objective system of systems architecting problems with system flexibility and performance improvement funds have been investigated. Efficient solution methods are proposed and evaluated for not only the system of systems architecting problems, but also a generic multi-objective set covering problem. Additionally, a bi-objective track inspection scheduling problem is introduced for an automated ultrasonic inspection vehicle. Exact and approximation methods are discussed for this bi-objective track inspection scheduling problem --Abstract, page iii