Approximating Pareto frontier using a hybrid line search approach

This is the post-print version of the final paper published in Information Sciences. The published article is available from the link below. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. Copyright @ 2010 Elsevier B.V.The aggregation of objectives in multiple criteria programming is one of the simplest and widely used approach. But it is well known that this technique sometimes fail in different aspects for determining the Pareto frontier. This paper proposes a new approach for multicriteria optimization, which aggregates the objective functions and uses a line search method in order to locate an approximate efficient point. Once the first Pareto solution is obtained, a simplified version of the former one is used in the context of Pareto dominance to obtain a set of efficient points, which will assure a thorough distribution of solutions on the Pareto frontier. In the current form, the proposed technique is well suitable for problems having multiple objectives (it is not limited to bi-objective problems) and require the functions to be continuous twice differentiable. In order to assess the effectiveness of this approach, some experiments were performed and compared with two recent well known population-based metaheuristics namely ParEGO and NSGA II. When compared to ParEGO and NSGA II, the proposed approach not only assures a better convergence to the Pareto frontier but also illustrates a good distribution of solutions. From a computational point of view, both stages of the line search converge within a short time (average about 150 ms for the first stage and about 20 ms for the second stage). Apart from this, the proposed technique is very simple, easy to implement and use to solve multiobjective problems.CNCSIS IDEI 2412, Romani

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

Possibility/Necessity-Based Probabilistic Expectation Models for Linear Programming Problems with Discrete Fuzzy Random Variables

This paper considers linear programming problems (LPPs) where the objective functions involve discrete fuzzy random variables (fuzzy set-valued discrete random variables). New decision making models, which are useful in fuzzy stochastic environments, are proposed based on both possibility theory and probability theory. In multi-objective cases, Pareto optimal solutions of the proposed models are newly defined. Computational algorithms for obtaining the Pareto optimal solutions of the proposed models are provided. It is shown that problems involving discrete fuzzy random variables can be transformed into deterministic nonlinear mathematical programming problems which can be solved through a conventional mathematical programming solver under practically reasonable assumptions. A numerical example of agriculture production problems is given to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed models to real-world problems in fuzzy stochastic environments

A Novel Technique for Solving Multiobjective Fuzzy Linear Programming Problems

This study considers multiobjective fuzzy linear programming (MFLP) problems in which the coefficients in the objective functions are triangular fuzzy numbers. The study proposing a new technique to transform MFLP problems into the equivalent single fuzzy linear programming problem and then solving it via linear ranking function using the simplex method, supported by numerical example

A Better Approach for Solving a Fuzzy Multiobjective Programming Problem by Level Sets

In this paper, we deal with the resolution of a fuzzy multiobjective programming problem using the level sets optimization. We compare it to other optimization strategies studied until now and we propose an algorithm to identify possible Pareto efficient optimal solutions

On multiobjective optimization from the nonsmooth perspective

Practical applications usually have multiobjective nature rather than having only one objective to optimize. A multiobjective problem cannot be solved with a single-objective solver as such. On the other hand, optimization of only one objective may lead to an arbitrary bad solutions with respect to other objectives. Therefore, special techniques for multiobjective optimization are vital. In addition to multiobjective nature, many real-life problems have nonsmooth (i.e. not continuously differentiable) structure. Unfortunately, many smooth (i.e. continuously differentiable) methods adopt gradient-based information which cannot be used for nonsmooth problems. Since both of these characteristics are relevant for applications, we focus here on nonsmooth multiobjective optimization. As a research topic, nonsmooth multiobjective optimization has gained only limited attraction while the fields of nonsmooth single-objective and smooth multiobjective optimization distinctively have attained greater interest. This dissertation covers parts of nonsmooth multiobjective optimization in terms of theory, methodology and application. Bundle methods are widely considered as effective and reliable solvers for single-objective nonsmooth optimization. Therefore, we investigate the use of the bundle idea in the multiobjective framework with three different methods. The first one generalizes the single-objective proximal bundle method for the nonconvex multiobjective constrained problem. The second method adopts the ideas from the classical steepest descent method into the convex unconstrained multiobjective case. The third method is designed for multiobjective problems with constraints where both the objectives and constraints can be represented as a difference of convex (DC) functions. Beside the bundle idea, all three methods are descent, meaning that they produce better values for each objective at each iteration. Furthermore, all of them utilize the improvement function either directly or indirectly. A notable fact is that none of these methods use scalarization in the traditional sense. With the scalarization we refer to the techniques transforming a multiobjective problem into the single-objective one. As the scalarization plays an important role in multiobjective optimization, we present one special family of achievement scalarizing functions as a representative of this category. In general, the achievement scalarizing functions suit well in the interactive framework. Thus, we propose the interactive method using our special family of achievement scalarizing functions. In addition, this method utilizes the above mentioned descent methods as tools to illustrate the range of optimal solutions. Finally, this interactive method is used to solve the practical case studies of the scheduling the final disposal of the spent nuclear fuel in Finland.Käytännön optimointisovellukset ovat usein luonteeltaan ennemmin moni- kuin yksitavoitteisia. Erityisesti monitavoitteisille tehtäville suunnitellut menetelmät ovat tarpeen, sillä monitavoitteista optimointitehtävää ei sellaisenaan pysty ratkaisemaan yksitavoitteisilla menetelmillä eikä vain yhden tavoitteen optimointi välttämättä tuota mielekästä ratkaisua muiden tavoitteiden suhteen. Monitavoitteisuuden lisäksi useat käytännön tehtävät ovat myös epäsileitä siten, etteivät niissä esiintyvät kohde- ja rajoitefunktiot välttämättä ole kaikkialla jatkuvasti differentioituvia. Kuitenkin monet optimointimenetelmät hyödyntävät gradienttiin pohjautuvaa tietoa, jota ei epäsileille funktioille ole saatavissa. Näiden molempien ominaisuuksien ollessa keskeisiä sovelluksia ajatellen, keskitytään tässä työssä epäsileään monitavoiteoptimointiin. Tutkimusalana epäsileä monitavoiteoptimointi on saanut vain vähän huomiota osakseen, vaikka sekä sileä monitavoiteoptimointi että yksitavoitteinen epäsileä optimointi erikseen ovat aktiivisia tutkimusaloja. Tässä työssä epäsileää monitavoiteoptimointia on käsitelty niin teorian, menetelmien kuin käytännön sovelluksien kannalta. Kimppumenetelmiä pidetään yleisesti tehokkaina ja luotettavina menetelminä epäsileän optimointitehtävän ratkaisemiseen ja siksi tätä ajatusta hyödynnetään myös tässä väitöskirjassa kolmessa eri menetelmässä. Ensimmäinen näistä yleistää yksitavoitteisen proksimaalisen kimppumenetelmän epäkonveksille monitavoitteiselle rajoitteiselle tehtävälle sopivaksi. Toinen menetelmä hyödyntää klassisen nopeimman laskeutumisen menetelmän ideaa konveksille rajoitteettomalle tehtävälle. Kolmas menetelmä on suunniteltu erityisesti monitavoitteisille rajoitteisille tehtäville, joiden kohde- ja rajoitefunktiot voidaan ilmaista kahden konveksin funktion erotuksena. Kimppuajatuksen lisäksi kaikki kolme menetelmää ovat laskevia eli ne tuottavat joka kierroksella paremman arvon jokaiselle tavoitteelle. Yhteistä on myös se, että nämä kaikki hyödyntävät parannusfunktiota joko suoraan sellaisenaan tai epäsuorasti. Huomattavaa on, ettei yksikään näistä menetelmistä hyödynnä skalarisointia perinteisessä merkityksessään. Skalarisoinnilla viitataan menetelmiin, joissa usean tavoitteen tehtävä on muutettu sopivaksi yksitavoitteiseksi tehtäväksi. Monitavoiteoptimointimenetelmien joukossa skalarisoinnilla on vankka jalansija. Esimerkkinä skalarisoinnista tässä työssä esitellään yksi saavuttavien skalarisointifunktioiden perhe. Yleisesti saavuttavat skalarisointifunktiot soveltuvat hyvin interaktiivisten menetelmien rakennuspalikoiksi. Täten kuvaillaan myös esiteltyä skalarisointifunktioiden perhettä hyödyntävä interaktiivinen menetelmä, joka lisäksi hyödyntää laskevia menetelmiä optimaalisten ratkaisujen havainnollistamisen apuna. Lopuksi tätä interaktiivista menetelmää käytetään aikatauluttamaan käytetyn ydinpolttoaineen loppusijoitusta Suomessa

An Algorithm for Biobjective Mixed Integer Quadratic Programs

Multiobjective quadratic programs (MOQPs) are appealing since convex quadratic programs have elegant mathematical properties and model important applications. Adding mixed-integer variables extends their applicability while the resulting programs become global optimization problems. Thus, in this work, we develop a branch and bound (BB) algorithm for solving biobjective mixed-integer quadratic programs (BOMIQPs). An algorithm of this type does not exist in the literature. The algorithm relies on five fundamental components of the BB scheme: calculating an initial set of efficient solutions with associated Pareto points, solving node problems, fathoming, branching, and set dominance. Considering the properties of the Pareto set of BOMIQPs, two new fathoming rules are proposed. An extended branching module is suggested to cooperate with the node problem solver. A procedure to make the dominance decision between two Pareto sets with limited information is proposed. This set dominance procedure can eliminate the dominated points and eventually produce the Pareto set of the BOMIQP. Numerical examples are provided. Solving multiobjective quadratic programs (MOQPs) is fundamental to our research. Therefore, we examine the algorithms for this class of problems with different perspectives. The scalarization techniques for (strictly) convex MOPs are reviewed and the available algorithms for computing efficient solutions for MOQPs are discussed. These algorithms are compared with respect to four properties of MOQPs. In addition, methods for solving parametric multiobjective quadratic programs are studied. Computational studies are provided with synthetic instances, and examples in statistics and portfolio optimization. The real-life context reveals the interplay between the scalarizations and provides an additional insight into the obtained parametric solution sets

A Heuristic Algorithm for Nonlinear Lexicography Goal Programming with an Efficient Initial Solution

In this paper,  a heuristic algorithm is proposed in order to solve a nonlinear lexicography goal programming (NLGP) by using an efficient initial point. Some numerical experiments showed that the search quality by the proposed heuristic in a multiple objectives problem depends on the initial point features, so in the proposed approach the initial point is retrieved by Data Envelopment Analysis to be selected as an efficient solution. There are some weaknesses in classic NLGP algorithm that lead to trapping into the local optimum, so a simulated annealing concept is implemented during the searching stage to increase the diversity of search in the solution space. Some numerical examples with different sizes were generated and comparison of results confirms that the proposed solution heuristic is more efficient than the classic approach. Moreover the proposed approach was extended for cases with ordinal weights of inputs or outputs. The computational experiments for 5 numerical instances and the statistical analysis indicate that the proposed heuristic algorithm is a robust procedure to find better preferred solution comparing to the classic NLGP

Quality Representation in Multiobjective Programming

In recent years, emphasis has been placed on generating quality representations of the nondominated set of multiobjective programming problems. This manuscript presents two methods for generating discrete representations with equidistant points for multiobjective programs with solution sets determined by convex cones. The Bilevel Controlled Spacing (BCS) method has a bilevel structure with the lower-level generating the nondominated points and the upper-level controlling the spacing. The Constraint Controlled Spacing (CCS) method is based on the epsilon-constraint method with an additional constraint to control the spacing of generated points. Both methods (under certain assumptions) are proven to produce (weakly) nondominated points. Along the way, several interesting results about obtuse, simplicial cones are also proved. Both the BCS and CCS methods are tested and show promise on a variety of problems: linear, convex, nonconvex (CCS only), two-dimensional, and three-dimensional. Sample Matlab code for two of these examples can be found in the appendices as well as tables containing the generated solution points. The manuscript closes with conclusions and ideas for further research in this field