Finding a weights-restricted efficient (extreme) point and using it for solving MOLP problems

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0096-3003(03)00210-8Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper deals with solving a multiple objective linear programming problem. A (preferred) weights-vector from a restricted set of weights, incorporating the case that the weighted problem may have unbounded solution, is used for generating a (preferred) efficient (extreme) point. The final solution can be found by changing (interactively) weights-restrictions or comparing weights-restricted efficient extreme points. Also, the results can be used in vector maximum and interactive methods.

Introduction

The Multiple Objective Linear Programming (MOLP) problem can be written:(MOLP)VMaxCxs.t.x∈X={x∈Rn|Ax=b,x⩾0}.

Here, C and A are k×n and m×n matrices, respectively, and bRm.

Since there is usually no point which simultaneously optimizes all the objectives, the concept of efficiency is used:

Definition 1

x̄∈X is efficient if and only if there does not exist another xX such that Cx⩾Cx̄, Cx≠Cx̄.

The aim of MOLP approaches is to find the most preferred solution among the efficient points. To this purpose, there are many methods which use weights. However, the ways these weights are selected, also their uses and interpretations may be different. We consider methods which use the linear problem:(LP(u))MaxuTCxs.t.x∈X,to generate one or more efficient points for presenting to the DM, where u is a vector of positive (usually normalized) weights.

The methods of MOLP can be divided into three category according to which stage of the optimization the DM expresses his/her preferences: before, during or after the optimization [1], [2].

In the first category, the DM may expresses his preferences by a positive weights-vector u. By doing one’s best to estimate u, it is hoped that (LP(u)) will produce the most preferred solution or a solution that is close enough to it. Although there are different procedures for the evaluation of the weights, obtaining their exact values is often impossible [3].

In the second category, we may use (LP(u)) to generate one or a set of efficient candidates in the beginning or during the optimization. The DM provides his preferences interactively using these candidates. By removing some poor points (usually by restricting weights) in each iteration, new candidate(s) are generated and the final solution is selected after some iterations.

In the third category, the first endeavor is to find all (or most) of the efficient solutions. Then, the DM selects the most preferred solution from this set of efficient points through some arbitrary process. In this category (LP(u)) may be used, for example, to generate an initial efficient (extreme) point.

In any case, the discussed methods are based on the optimal solution(s) of (LP(u)). Hence, it is important to select u such that (LP(u)) has (bounded) optimal solution. Note that, even in the first category, unbounded optimal solution to (LP(u)) does not result in unbounded optimal solution to the (MOLP).

In addition, each of the three pure approaches discussed above has some advantages and some disadvantages [2]. A combination of the approaches could combine the advantages of each of the individual approaches while ameliorating the disadvantages. For example, we may use some (imprecise) prior information on weights for removing unacceptable efficient solutions from further investigation and reducing the size of the efficient set (see, for example [4]).

In this paper, existing information (before or during the optimization) is assumed to be in the form of some arbitrary linear restrictions on weights. First, we will produce two methods to generate an efficient (extreme) point under existing restrictions. These methods can be used in many MOLP approaches. Also, we will propose an approach for solving an MOLP. It is assumed that some prior information (linear restrictions on weights) exists which may be refined interactively with additional information from the DM. Then, corresponding to existing information, an efficient extreme point is generated and by moving to a better adjacent efficient point, iteratively, an efficient point which is better than all its adjacent points will be found. Under some assumptions this point is the most preferred (extreme) solution.

Section snippets

Basic theorems and definitions

First, we state the following Theorem to relate efficient points with a family of solutions to the weighted-sums problem (LP(u)) and give a simple proof:

Theorem 1

Let ū∈Rk be a given vector of positive weights. Then, yX is efficient if and only if there exists u⩾ū such that y solves (LP(u)).

Proof

Let y be efficient then there does not exist xX such that CxCy, CxCy. Hence, the optimal objective values of

  • (P) Max ūTs s.t. sCx=−Cy, Ax=b, x⩾0, s⩾0, and its dual

  • (D) Min-uTCy+vTb s.t. −uTC+vTA⩾0, u⩾ū,


are

Generating an efficient point using (LP(u))

To generate a candidate from EWR (or E), using (LP(u)), we need to find weights-vector u from UWR (or U). For this purpose, we use the following problem:Max(Min)f(u)s.t.Fu⩽f,(Cdj)Tu⩽0j=1,…,l,u∈Rk.

Which f(u) may define the DM’s preferences for selecting a good representative of UWR; or simply f(u)=0 when we need only a candidate (not necessarily the preferred one) of UWR. Without loss of generality, for example by deleting inconsistent restrictions on weights and normalizing the weights, we can

Solving MOLP

The previous methods can be used in many MOLP approaches. For example, we can use them to generate an initial efficient (extreme) point for use in vector maximum or interactive algorithms [3], [6], [7], [8], by f(u)=0 and replacing Fuf with u⩾ū, in which ū is a (preferred) positive vector (we may select ū arbitrarily for example ū=e that is a vector of ones). These methods have some advantages over other existing methods. for example in the first method we need only to solve one linear

Example

Consider the multiple objective linear problem defined by (MOLP) with:C=2/31/3000−3/41/4000,A=−21100−11010−13001,andb=2315.

It can be seen that (LP(u)) has unbounded optimal value, and hence fails to generate an efficient point, for every positive vector u=[u1,u2]T with u1>6/7u2.

Now, for instance, let the restrictions on weights be u1+u2=1, 2u1u2>1, u1>0, and u2>0. Also, assume that we prefer to use the middlemost representative of these weights (as is used, for example, in Zionts–Wallenius

Conclusions

The weighted-sums problem (LP(u)) has been used in many MOLP approaches for generating efficient points, using one or a set of weights-vectors u selected from a (restricted) set of weights. The problem may be arisen is when (LP(u)) has no optimal solution (is unbounded) for a selected weights-vector u. To overcome this problem, we have produced two methods which prevent selecting such weights using the restrictions uTCdj⩽0, j=1,2,…,l, or CTuATv⩽0, respectively. A convenient function may also

References (10)

  • C.L. Hwang et al.

    Multiple Objective Decision Making––Methods and Applications

    (1979)
  • G.W. Evans

    An overview of techniques for solving multiobjective mathematical programs

    Mngt. Sci.

    (1984)
  • R.E. Steuer

    Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation, and Application

    (1986)
  • R.E. Steuer

    Multiple objective linear programming with interval criterion weights

    Mngt. Sci.

    (1976)
  • M.S. Bazaraa et al.

    Linear programming and network flows

    (1990)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (4)

  • Maximal flow in possibilistic networks

    2009, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals
  • A DEA model for resource allocation

    2008, Economic Modelling
    Citation Excerpt :

    Regarding Theorems 1 and 2, by solving the provided MOLP (VI) one can answer the question sketched in Section 1. To solve MOLP (VI), we recommend using the method provided by Jahanshahloo and Foroughi (2004), see also (Steuer 1986). The MOLP model (VI) may obtain alternative optimal solutions.

  • On some multiobjective optimization problems arising in biology

    2011, International Journal of Computer Mathematics
View full text