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

Bundle methods in nonsmooth DC optimization

Due to the complexity of many practical applications, we encounter optimization problems with nonsmooth functions, that is, functions which are not continuously differentiable everywhere. Classical gradient-based methods are not applicable to solve such problems, since they may fail in the nonsmooth setting. Therefore, it is imperative to develop numerical methods specifically designed for nonsmooth optimization. To date, bundle methods are considered to be the most efficient and reliable general purpose solvers for this type of problems. The idea in bundle methods is to approximate the subdifferential of the objective function by a bundle of subgradients. This information is then used to build a model for the objective. However, this model is typically convex and, due to this, it may be inaccurate and unable to adequately reflect the behaviour of the objective function in the nonconvex case. These circumstances motivate to design new bundle methods based on nonconvex models of the objective function. In this dissertation, the main focus is on nonsmooth DC optimization that constitutes an important and broad subclass of nonconvex optimization problems. A DC function can be presented as a difference of two convex functions. Thus, we can obtain a model that utilizes explicitly both the convexity and concavity of the objective by approximating separately the convex and concave parts. This way we end up with a nonconvex DC model describing the problem more accurately than the convex one. Based on the new DC model we introduce three different bundle methods. Two of them are designed for unconstrained DC optimization and the third one is capable of solving also multiobjective and constrained DC problems. The finite convergence is proved for each method. The numerical results demonstrate the efficiency of the methods and show the benefits obtained from the utilization of the DC decomposition. Even though the usage of the DC decomposition can improve the performance of the bundle methods, it is not always available or possible to construct. Thus, we present another bundle method for a general objective function implicitly collecting information about the DC structure. This method is developed for large-scale nonsmooth optimization and its convergence is proved for semismooth functions. The efficiency of the method is shown with numerical results. As an application of the developed methods, we consider the clusterwise linear regression (CLR) problems. By applying the support vector machines (SVM) approach a new model for these problems is proposed. The objective in the new formulation of the CLR problem is expressed as a DC function and a method based on one of the presented bundle methods is designed to solve it. Numerical results demonstrate robustness of the new approach to outliers.Monissa käytännön sovelluksissa tarkastelun kohteena oleva ongelma on monimutkainen ja joudutaan näin ollen mallintamaan epäsileillä funktioilla, jotka eivät välttämättä ole jatkuvasti differentioituvia kaikkialla. Klassisia gradienttiin perustuvia optimointimenetelmiä ei voida käyttää epäsileisiin tehtäviin, sillä epäsileillä funktioilla ei ole olemassa klassista gradienttia kaikkialla. Näin ollen epäsileään optimointiin on välttämätöntä kehittää omia numeerisia ratkaisumenetelmiä. Näistä kimppumenetelmiä pidetään tällä hetkellä kaikista tehokkaimpina ja luotettavimpina yleismenetelminä kyseisten tehtävien ratkaisemiseksi. Ideana kimppumenetelmissä on approksimoida kohdefunktion alidifferentiaalia kimpulla, joka on muodostettu keräämällä kohdefunktion aligradientteja edellisiltä iteraatiokierroksilta. Tätä tietoa hyödyntämällä voidaan muodostaa kohdefunktiolle malli, joka on alkuperäistä tehtävää helpompi ratkaista. Käytetty malli on tyypillisesti konveksi ja näin ollen se voi olla epätarkka ja kykenemätön esittämään alkuperäisen tehtävän rakennetta epäkonveksissa tapauksessa. Tästä syystä väitöskirjassa keskitytään kehittämään uusia kimppumenetelmiä, jotka mallinnusvaiheessa muodostavat kohdefunktiolle epäkonveksin mallin. Pääpaino väitöskirjassa on epäsileissä optimointitehtävissä, joissa funktiot voidaan esittää kahden konveksin funktion erotuksena (difference of two convex functions). Kyseisiä funktioita kutsutaan DC-funktioiksi ja ne muodostavat tärkeän ja laajan epäkonveksien funktioiden osajoukon. Tämä valinta mahdollistaa kohdefunktion konveksisuuden ja konkaavisuuden eksplisiittisen hyödyntämisen, sillä uusi malli kohdefunktiolle muodostetaan yhdistämällä erilliset konveksille ja konkaaville osalle rakennetut mallit. Tällä tavalla päädytään epäkonveksiin DC-malliin, joka pystyy kuvaamaan ratkaistavaa tehtävää tarkemmin kuin konveksi arvio. Väitöskirjassa esitetään kolme erilaista uuden DC-mallin pohjalta kehitettyä kimppumenetelmää sekä todistetaan menetelmien konvergenssit. Kaksi näistä menetelmistä on suunniteltu rajoitteettomaan DC-optimointiin ja kolmannella voidaan ratkaista myös monitavoitteisia ja rajoitteellisia DC-optimointitehtäviä. Numeeriset tulokset havainnollistavat menetelmien tehokkuutta sekä DC-hajotelman käytöstä saatuja etuja. Vaikka DC-hajotelman käyttö voi parantaa kimppumenetelmien suoritusta, sitä ei aina ole saatavilla tai mahdollista muodostaa. Tästä syystä väitöskirjassa esitetään myös neljäs kimppumenetelmä konvergenssitodistuksineen yleiselle kohdefunktiolle, jossa kerätään implisiittisesti tietoa kohdefunktion DC-rakenteesta. Menetelmä on kehitetty erityisesti suurille epäsileille optimointitehtäville ja sen tehokkuus osoitetaan numeerisella testauksella Sovelluksena väitöskirjassa tarkastellaan datalle klustereittain tehtävää lineaarista regressiota (clusterwise linear regression). Kyseiselle sovellukselle muodostetaan uusi malli hyödyntäen koneoppimisessa käytettyä SVM-lähestymistapaa (support vector machines approach) ja saatu kohdefunktio esitetään DC-funktiona. Näin ollen yhtä kehitetyistä kimppumenetelmistä sovelletaan tehtävän ratkaisemiseen. Numeeriset tulokset havainnollistavat uuden lähestymistavan robustisuutta ja tehokkuutta

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

Aspiration Based Decision Analysis and Support Part I: Theoretical and Methodological Backgrounds

In the interdisciplinary and intercultural systems analysis that constitutes the main theme of research in IIASA, a basic question is how to analyze and support decisions with help of mathematical models and logical procedures. This question -- particularly in its multi-criteria and multi-cultural dimensions -- has been investigated in System and Decision Sciences Program (SDS) since the beginning of IIASA. Researchers working both at IIASA and in a large international network of cooperating institutions contributed to a deeper understanding of this question. Around 1980, the concept of reference point multiobjective optimization was developed in SDS. This concept determined an international trend of research pursued in many countries cooperating with IIASA as well as in many research programs at IIASA -- such as energy, agricultural, environmental research. SDS organized since this time numerous international workshops, summer schools, seminar days and cooperative research agreements in the field of decision analysis and support. By this international and interdisciplinary cooperation, the concept of reference point multiobjective optimization has matured and was generalized into a framework of aspiration based decision analysis and support that can be understood as a synthesis of several known, antithetical approaches to this subject -- such as utility maximization approach, or satisficing approach, or goal -- program -- oriented planning approach. Jointly, the name of quasisatisficing approach can be also used, since the concept of aspirations comes from the satisficing approach. Both authors of the Working Paper contributed actively to this research: Andrzej Wierzbicki originated the concept of reference point multiobjective optimization and quasisatisficing approach, while Andrzej Lewandowski, working from the beginning in the numerous applications and extensions of this concept, has had the main contribution to its generalization into the framework of aspiration based decision analysis and support systems. This paper constitutes a draft of the first part of a book being prepared by these two authors. Part I, devoted to theoretical foundations and methodological background, written mostly by Andrzej Wierzbicki, will be followed by Part II, devoted to computer implementations and applications of decision support systems based on mathematical programming models, written mostly by Andrzej Lewandowski. Part III, devoted to decision support systems for the case of subjective evaluations of discrete decision alternatives, will be written by both authors