Solving ill-posed bilevel programs

This paper deals with ill-posed bilevel programs, i.e., problems admitting multiple lower-level solutions for some upper-level parameters. Many publications have been devoted to the standard optimistic case of this problem, where the difficulty is essentially moved from the objective function to the feasible set. This new problem is simpler but there is no guaranty to obtain local optimal solutions for the original optimistic problem by this process. Considering the intrinsic non-convexity of bilevel programs, computing local optimal solutions is the best one can hope to get in most cases. To achieve this goal, we start by establishing an equivalence between the original optimistic problem an a certain set-valued optimization problem. Next, we develop optimality conditions for the latter problem and show that they generalize all the results currently known in the literature on optimistic bilevel optimization. Our approach is then extended to multiobjective bilevel optimization, and completely new results are derived for problems with vector-valued upper- and lower-level objective functions. Numerical implementations of the results of this paper are provided on some examples, in order to demonstrate how the original optimistic problem can be solved in practice, by means of a special set-valued optimization problem

Necessary Conditions in Multiobjective Optimization With Equilibrium Constraints

In this paper we study multiobjective optimization problems with equilibrium constraints (MOECs) described by generalized equations in the form 0 is an element of the set G(x,y) + Q(x,y), where both mappings G and Q are set-valued. Such models particularly arise from certain optimization-related problems governed by variational inequalities and first-order optimality conditions in nondifferentiable programming. We establish verifiable necessary conditions for the general problems under consideration and for their important specifications using modern tools of variational analysis and generalized differentiation. The application of the obtained necessary optimality conditions is illustrated by a numerical example from bilevel programming with convex while nondifferentiable data

Optimality Conditions for Semivectorial Bilevel Convex Optimal Control Problems

We present optimality conditions for bilevel optimal control problems where the upper level, to be solved by a leader, is a scalar optimal control problem and the lower level, to be solved by several followers, is a multiobjective convex optimal control problem. Multiobjective optimal control problems arise in many application areas where several conflicting objectives need to be considered. Minimize several objective functionals leads to solutions such that none of the objective functional values can be improved further without deteriorating another. The set of all such solutions is referred to as efficient (also called Pareto optimal, noninferior, or nondominated) set of solutions. The lower level of the semivectorial bilevel optimal control problems can be considered to be associated to a ”grande coalition” of a p-player cooperative differential game, every player having its own objective and control function. We consider situations in which these p-?players react as ”followers” to every decision imposed by a ”leader” (who acts at the so-called upper level). The best reply correspondence of the followers being in general non uniquely determined, the leader cannot predict the followers choice simply on the basis of his rational behavior. So, the choice of the best strategy from the leader point of view depends of how the followers choose a strategy among his best responses. In this paper, we will consider two (extreme) possibilities: (i) the optimistic situation, when for every decison of the leader, the followers will choose a strategy amongst the efficient controls which minimizes the (scalar) objective of the leader; in this case the leader will choose a strategy which minimizes the best he can obtain amongst all the best responses of the followers: (ii) the pessimistic situation, when the followers can choose amongst the efficient controls one which maximizes the (scalar) objective of the leader; in this case the leader will choose a strategy which minimizes the worst he could obtain amongst all the best responses of the followers. This paper continues the research initiated in [17] where existence results for these problems have been obtained.

Notes on the value function approach to multiobjective bilevel optimization

This paper is concerned with the value function approach to multiobjective bilevel optimization which exploits a lower level frontier-type mapping in order to replace the hierarchical model of two interdependent multiobjective optimization problems by a single-level multiobjective optimization problem. As a starting point, different value-function-type reformulations are suggested and their relations are discussed. Here, we focus on the situations where the lower level problem is solved up to efficiency or weak efficiency, and an intermediate solution concept is suggested as well. We study the graph-closedness of the associated efficiency-type and frontier-type mappings. These findings are then used for two purposes. First, we investigate existence results in multiobjective bilevel optimization. Second, for the derivation of necessary optimality conditions via the value function approach, it is inherent to differentiate frontier-type mappings in a generalized way. Here, we are concerned with the computation of upper coderivative estimates for the frontier-type mapping associated with the setting where the lower level problem is solved up to weak efficiency. We proceed in two ways, relying, on the one hand, on a weak domination property and, on the other hand, on a scalarization approach. Throughout the paper, illustrative examples visualize our findings, the necessity of crucial assumptions, and some flaws in the related literature.Comment: 30 page

On implicit variables in optimization theory

Implicit variables of a mathematical program are variables which do not need to be optimized but are used to model feasibility conditions. They frequently appear in several different problem classes of optimization theory comprising bilevel programming, evaluated multiobjective optimization, or nonlinear optimization problems with slack variables. In order to deal with implicit variables, they are often interpreted as explicit ones. Here, we first point out that this is a light-headed approach which induces artificial locally optimal solutions. Afterwards, we derive various Mordukhovich-stationarity-type necessary optimality conditions which correspond to treating the implicit variables as explicit ones on the one hand, or using them only implicitly to model the constraints on the other. A detailed comparison of the obtained stationarity conditions as well as the associated underlying constraint qualifications will be provided. Overall, we proceed in a fairly general setting relying on modern tools of variational analysis. Finally, we apply our findings to different well-known problem classes of mathematical optimization in order to visualize the obtained theory.Comment: 33 page

Variational Analysis of Marginal Functions with Applications to Bilevel Programming

This paper pursues a twofold goal. First to derive new results on generalized differentiation in variational analysis focusing mainly on a broad class of intrinsically nondifferentiable marginal/value functions. Then the results established in this direction apply to deriving necessary optimality conditions for the optimistic version of bilevel programs that occupy a remarkable place in optimization theory and its various applications. We obtain new sets of optimality conditions in both smooth and smooth settings of finite-dimensional and infinite-dimensional spaces

KKT reformulation and necessary conditions for optimality in nonsmooth bilevel optimization

For a long time, the bilevel programming problem has essentially been considered as a special case of mathematical programs with equilibrium constraints (MPECs), in particular when the so-called KKT reformulation is in question. Recently though, this widespread believe was shown to be false in general. In this paper, other aspects of the difference between both problems are revealed as we consider the KKT approach for the nonsmooth bilevel program. It turns out that the new inclusion (constraint) which appears as a consequence of the partial subdifferential of the lower-level Lagrangian (PSLLL) places the KKT reformulation of the nonsmooth bilevel program in a new class of mathematical program with both set-valued and complementarity constraints. While highlighting some new features of this problem, we attempt here to establish close links with the standard optimistic bilevel program. Moreover, we discuss possible natural extensions for C-, M-, and S-stationarity concepts. Most of the results rely on a coderivative estimate for the PSLLL that we also provide in this paper

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