Advertisement

Journal of Global Optimization

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 291–306 | Cite as

Bilevel and multilevel programming: A bibliography review

  • Luís N. Vicente
  • Paul H. Calamai
Article

Abstract

This paper contains a bibliography of all references central to bilevel and multilevel programming that the authors know of. It should be regarded as a dynamic and permanent contribution since all the new and appropriate references that are brought to our attention will be periodically added to this bibliography. Readers are invited to suggest such additions, as well as corrections or modifications, and to obtain a copy of the LaTeX and BibTeX files that constitute this manuscript, using the guidelines contained in this paper.

To classify some of the references in this bibliography a short overview of past and current research in bilevel and multilevel programming is included. For those who are interested in but unfamiliar with the references in this area, we hope that this bibliography facilitates and encourages their research.

Key words

Bilevel (two level) three level and multilevel programming static Stackelberg problems hierarchical optimization minimax problems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. Aiyoshi and K. Shimizu. Hierarchical decentralized systems and its new solution by a barrier method.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 11:444–449, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Aiyoshi and K. Shimizu. A solution method for the static constrained Stackelberg problem via penalty method.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 29:1111–1114, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Al-Khayyal, R. Horst, and P. Pardalos. Global optimization of concave functions subject to quadratic constraints: an application in nonlinear bilevel programming.Annals of Operations Research, 34:125–147, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Anandalingam. An analysis of information and incentives in bi-level programming. InIEEE 1985 Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, pages 925–929, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Anandalingam. A mathematical programming model of decentralized multi-level systems.Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39:1021–1033, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Anandalingam and V. Aprey. Multi-level programming and conflict resolution.European Journal of Operational Research, 51:233–247, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Anandalingam and T. Friesz. Hierarchical optimization: an introduction.Annals of Operations Research, 34:1–11, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Anandalingam, R. Mathieu, L. Pittard, and N. Sinha. Artificial intelligence based approaches for solving hierarchical optimization problems. In R. Sharda, B. Golden, E. Wasil, O. Balci and W. Stewart, editor,Impacts of Recent Computer Advances on Operations Research, pages 289–301. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 1983.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Anandalingam and D. White. A solution method for the linear static Stackelberg problem using penalty functions.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 35:1170–1173, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Bard. A grid search algorithm for the linear bilevel programming problem. InProceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the American Institute for Decision Science, pages 256–258, 1982.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Bard. An algorithm for solving the general bilevel programming problem.Mathematics of Operations Research, 8:260–272, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Bard. Coordination of a multidivisional organization through two levels of management.OMEGA, 11:457–468, 1983.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Bard. An efficient point algorithm for a linear two-stage optimization problem.Operations Research, 31:670–684, 1983.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Bard. An investigation of the linear three level programming problem.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 14:711–717, 1984.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Bard. Optimality conditions for the bilevel programming problem.Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 31:13–26, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Bard. Geometric and algorithm developments for a hierarchical planning problem.European Journal of Operational Research, 19:372–383, 1985.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Bard. Convex two-level optimization.Mathematical Programming, 40:15–27, 1988.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Bard. Some properties of the bilevel programming problem.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 68:371–378, 1991. Technical Note.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Bard and J. Falk. An explicit solution to the multi-level programming problem.Computers and Operations Research, 9:77–100, 1982.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Bard and J. Moore. A branch and bound algorithm for the bilevel programming problem.SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 11:281–292, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Bard and J. Moore. An algorithm for the discrete bilevel programming problem.Naval Research Logistics, 39:419–35, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    O. Ben-Ayed.Bilevel linear programming: analysis and application to the network design problem. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1988.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    O. Ben-Ayed. A bilevel linear programming model applied to the Tunisian inter-regional network design problem.Revue Tunisienne d'Économie et de Gestion, 5:235–279, 1990.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    O. Ben-Ayed. Bilevel linear programming.Computers and Operations Research, 20:485–501, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    O. Ben-Ayed and C. Blair. Computational difficulties of bilevel linear programming.Operations Research, 38:556–560, 1990.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    O. Ben-Ayed, C. Blair, D. Boyce, and L. LeBlanc. Construction of a real-world bilevel linear programming model of the highway design problem.Annals of Operations Research, 34:219–254, 1992.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    O. Ben-Ayed, D. Boyce, and C. Blair. A general bilevel linear programming formulation of the network design problem.Transportation Research, 22 B:311–318, 1988.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    H. Benson. On the structure and properties of a linear multilevel programming problem.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 60:353–373, 1989.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Z. Bi.Numerical methods for bilevel programming problems. PhD thesis, Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, 1992.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Z. Bi and P. Calamai. Optimality conditions for a class of bilevel programming problems. Technical Report #191-O-191291, Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, 1991.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Z. Bi, P. Calamai, and A. Conn. An exact penalty function approach for the linear bilevel programming problem. Technical Report #167-O-310789, Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, 1989.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Z. Bi, P. Calamai, and A. Conn. An exact penalty function approach for the nonlinear bilevel programming problem. Technical Report #180-O-170591, Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, 1991.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    W. Bialas and M. Karwan. Multilevel linear programming. Technical Report 78-1, Operations Research Program, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1978.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    W. Bialas and M. Karwan. On two-level optimization.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 27:211–214, 1982.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    W. Bialas and M. Karwan. Two-level linear programming.Management Science, 30:1004–1020, 1984.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    W. Bialas, M. Karwan, and J. Shaw. A parametric complementary pivot approach for two-level linear programming. Technical Report 80-2, Operations Research Program, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1980.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    J. Bisschop, W. Candler, J. Duloy, and G. O'Mara. The indus basin model: a special application of two-level linear programming.Mathematical Programming Study, 20:30–38, 1982.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    C. Blair. The computational complexity of multi-level linear programs.Annals of Operations Research, 34:13–19, 1992.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    J. Bracken, J. Falk, and J. McGill. Equivalence of two mathematical programs with optimization problems in the constraints.Operations Research, 22:1102–1104, 1974.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    J. Bracken and J. McGill. Mathematical programs with optimization problems in the constraints.Operations Research, 21:37–44, 1973.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    J. Bracken and J. McGill. Defense applications of mathematical programs with optimization problems in the constraints.Operations Research, 22:1086–1096, 1974.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    J. Bracken and J. McGill. A method for solving mathematical programs with nonlinear programs in the constraints.Operations Research, 22:1097–1101, 1974.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    J. Bracken and J. McGill. Production and marketing decisions with multiple objectives in a competitive environment.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 24:449–458, 1978.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    P. Calamai and L. Vicente. Generating linear and linear-quadratic bilevel programming problems.SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 14:770–782, 1993.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    P. Calamai and L. Vicente. Algorithm 728: Fortran subroutines for generating quadratic bilevel programming problems.ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 20:120–123, 1994.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    P. Calamai and L. Vicente. Generating quadratic bilevel programming problems.ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 20:103–119, 1994.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    W. Candler. A linear bilevel programming algorithm: A comment.Computers and Operations Research, 15:297–298, 1988.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    W. Candler, J. Fortuny-Amat, and B. McCarl. The potential role of multilevel programming in agricultural economics.American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63:521–531, 1981.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    W. Candler and R. Norton. Multilevel programming. Technical Report 20, World Bank Development Research Center, Washington D.C., 1977.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    W. Candler and R. Norton. Multilevel programming and development policy. Technical Report 258, World Bank Staff, Washington D.C., 1977.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    W. Candler and R. Townsley. A linear two-level programming problem.Computers and Operations Research, 9:59–76, 1982.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    R. Cassidy, M. Kirby, and W. Raike. Efficient distribution of resources through three levels of government.Management Science, 17:462–473, 1971.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    M. Cellis, J. Dennis, and R. Tapia. A trust region strategy for nonlinear equality constrained optimization. InNumerical Optimization 1984, Proceedings 20, pages 71–82. SIAM, Philadelphia, 1985.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Y. Chen.Bilevel programming problems: analysis, algorithms and applications. PhD thesis, Université de Montréal, 1993.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Y. Chen and M. Florian. The nonlinear bilevel programming problem: a general formulation and optimality conditions. Technical Report CRT-794, Centre de Recherche sur les Transports, 1991.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Y. Chen and M. Florian. On the geometry structure of linear bilevel programs: a dual approach. Technical Report CRT-867, Centre de Recherche sur les Transports, 1992.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Y. Chen and M. Florian. The nonlinear bilevel programming problem: formulations, regularity and optimality conditions. Technical Report CRT-794, Centre de Recherche sur les Transports, 1993.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Y. Chen, M. Florian, and S. Wu. A descent dual approach for linear bilevel programs. Technical Report CRT-866, Centre de Recherche sur les Transports, 1992.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    P. Clarke and A. Westerberg. A note on the optimality conditions for the bilevel programming problem.Naval Research Logistics, 35:413–418, 1988.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    S. Dempe. A simple algorithm for the linear bilevel programming problem.Optimization, 18:373–385, 1987.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    S. Dempe. On one optimality condition for bilevel optimization.Vestnik Leningrad Gos. University, pages 10–14, 1989. Serija I, in Russian, translation Vestnik Leningrad University, Math., 22:11–16, 1989.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    S. Dempe. A necessary and a sufficient optimality condition for bilevel programming problems.Optimization, 25:341–354, 1992.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    S. Dempe. Optimality conditions for bilevel programming problems. In P. Kall, editor,System modelling and optimization, pages 17–24. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    A. deSilva.Sensitivity formulas for nonlinear factorable programming and their application to the solution of an implicitly defined optimization model of US crude oil production. PhD thesis, George Washington University, 1978.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    A. deSilva and G. McCormick. Implicitly defined optimization problems.Annals of Operations Research, 34:107–124, 1992.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Y. Dirickx and L. Jennegren.Systems analysis by multi-level methods: with applications to economics and management. John Wiley, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    T. Edmunds.Algorithms for nonlinear bilevel mathematical programs. PhD thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 1988.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    T. Edmunds and J. Bard. Algorithms for nonlinear bilevel mathematical programming.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 21:83–89, 1991.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    T. Edmunds and J. Bard. An algorithm for the mixed-integer nonlinear bilevel programming problem.Annals of Operations Research, 34:149–162, 1992.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    M. Florian and Y. Chen. A bilevel programming approach to estimating O-D matrix by traffic counts. Technical Report CRT-750, Centre de Recherche sur les Transports, 1991.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    M. Florian and Y. Chen. A coordinate descent method for bilevel O-D matrix estimation problems. Technical Report CRT-807, Centre de Recherche sur les Transports, 1993.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    J. Fortuny-Amat and B. McCarl. A representation and economic interpretation of a two-level programming problem.Journal of the Operational Research Society, 32:783–792, 1981.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    T. Friesz, C. Suwansirikul, and R. Tobin. Equilibrium decomposition optimization: a heuristic for the continuous equilibrium network design problem.Transportation Science, 21:254–263, 1987.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    T. Friesz, R. Tobin, H. Cho, and N. Mehta. Sensitivity analysis based heuristic algorithms for mathematical programs with variational inequality constraints.Mathematical Programming, 48:265–284, 1990.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    G. Gallo and A. Ülkücü. Bilinear programming: an exact algorithm.Mathematical Programming, 12:173–194, 1977.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    P. Hansen, B. Jaumard, and G. Savard. New branch-and-bound rules for linear bilevel programming.SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 13:1194–1217, 1992.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    P. Harker and J.-S. Pang. Existence of optimal solutions to mathematical programs with equilibrium constraints.Operations Research Letters, 7:61–64, 1988.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    A. Haurie, R. Loulou, and G. Savard. A two-level systems analysis model of power cogeneration under asymmetric pricing. Technical Report G-89-34, Groupe d'Études et de Recherche en Analyse des Décisions, 1989.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    A. Haurie, G. Savard, and D. White. A note on: an efficient point algorithm for a linear two-stage optimization problem.Operations Research, 38:553–555, 1990.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    B. Hobbs and S. Nelson. A nonlinear bilevel model for analysis of electric utility demand-side planning issues.Annals of Operations Research, 34:255–274, 1992.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Y. Ishizuka. Optimality conditions for quasi-differentiable programs with applications to two-level optimization.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 26:1388–1398, 1988.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Y. Ishizuka and E. Aiyoshi. Double penalty method for bilevel optimization problems.Annals of Operations Research, 34:73–88, 1992.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    R. Jan and M. Chern. Multi-level nonlinear integer programming. 1990. (Preprint from the Department of Computer and Information Science, National Chiao Tung University).Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    R. Jeroslow. The polynomial hierarchy and a simple model for competitive analysis.Mathematical Programming, 32:146–164, 1985.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    J. Júdice and A. Faustino. The solution of the linear bilevel programming problem by using the linear complementarity problem.Investigação Operacional, 8:77–95, 1988.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    J. Júdice and A. Faustino. A sequential LCP method for bilevel linear programming.Annals of Operations Research, 34:89–106, 1992.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    J. Júdice and A. Faustino. The linear-quadratic bilevel programming problem.INFOR, 32:87–98, 1994.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    T. Kim and S. Suh. Toward developing a national transportation planning model: a bilevel programming approach for Korea.Annals of Regional Science, 22:65–80, 1988.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    M. Kocvara and J. Outrata. A nondifferentiable approach to the solution of optimum design problems with variational inequalities. In P. Kall, ed.,System Modelling and Optimization, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences 180, pages 364–373. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    M. Kocvara and J. Outrata. A numerical solution of two selected shape optimization problems. Technical Report DFG (German Scientific Foundation) Research Report 464, University of Bayreuth, 1993.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    C. Kolstad. A review of the literature on bi-level mathematical programming. Technical Report LA-10284-MS, US-32, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1985.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    C. Kolstad and L. Lasdon. Derivative evaluation and computational experience with large bilevel mathematical programs.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 65:485–499, 1990.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    M. Labbé, P. Marcotte, and G. Savard. A bilevel model of taxation and its application to optimal highway policy. 1993. Preprint.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    L. Leblanc and D. Boyce. A bilevel programming algorithm for exact solution of the network design problem with user-optimal flows.Transportation Research, 20B:259–265, 1986.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    P. Loridan and J. Morgan. Approximate solutions for two-level optimization problems. In K. Hoffman, J. Hiriart-Urruty, C. Lamerachal and J. Zowe, editor,Trends in Mathematical Optimization, volume 84 of International Series of Numerical Mathematics, pages 181–196. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1988.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    P. Loridan and J. Morgan. A theoretical approximation scheme for Stackelberg problems.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 61:95-l10, 1989.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    P. Loridan and J. Morgan. ε-Regularized two-level optimization problems: approximation and existence results. InOptimization -Fifth French-German Conference, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1405, pages 99–113. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    P. Loridan and J. Morgan. New results on approximate solutions in two-level optimization.Optimization, 20:819–836, 1989.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    P. Loridan and J. Morgan.Quasi convex lower level problem and applications in two level optimization, volume 345 of Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, pages 325–341. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    P. Luh, T.-S. Chang, and T. Ning. Three-level Stackelberg decision problems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 29:280–282, 1984.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Z.-Q. Luo, J.-S. Pang, and S. Wu. Exact penalty functions for mathematical programs and bilevel programs with analytic constraints. 1993. Preprint from the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, McMaster University.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    P. Marcotte. Network optimization with continuous control parameters.Transportation Science, 17:181–197, 1983.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    P. Marcotte. Network design problem with congestion effects: a case of bilevel programming.Mathematical Programming, 34:142–162, 1986.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    P. Marcotte. A note on bilevel programming algorithm by LeBlanc and Boyce.Transportation Research, 22 B:233–237, 1988.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    P. Marcotte and G. Marquis. Efficient implementation of heuristics for the continuous network design problem.Annals of Operations Research, 34:163–176, 1992.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    P. Marcotte and G. Savard. A note on the pareto optimality of solutions to the linear bilevel programming problem.Computers and Operations Research, 18:355–359, 1991.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    P. Marcotte and G. Savard. Novel approaches to the discrimination problem.ZOR — Methods and Models of Operations Research, 36:517–545, 1992.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    P. Marcotte and D. Zhu. Exact and inexact penalty methods for the generalized bilevel programming problem. Technical Report CRT-920, Centre de Recherche sur les Transports, 1992.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    R. Mathieu, L. Pittard, and G. Anandalingam. Genetic algorithm based approach to bi-level linear programming.RAIRO: Recherche Operationelle, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    M. Mesanovic, D. Macko, and Y. Takahara.Theory of hierarchical, multilevel systems. Academic Press, New York and London, 1970.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    T. Miller, T. Friesz, and R. Tobin. Heuristic algorithms for delivered price spatially competitive network facility location problems.Annals of Operations Research, 34:177–202, 1992.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    J. Moore.Extensions to the multilevel linear programming problem. PhD thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, 1988.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    J. Moore and J. Bard. The mixed integer linear bilevel programming problem.Operations Research, 38:911–921, 1990.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    S. Narula and A. Nwosu. A dynamic programming solution for the hierarchical linear programming problem. Technical Report 37–82, Department of Operations Research and Statistics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1982.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    S. Narula and A. Nwosu. Two-level hierarchical programming problems. In P. Hansen, editor,Essays and surveys on multiple criteria decision making, pages 290–299. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    S. Narula and A. Nwosu. An algorithm to solve a two-level resource control pre-emptive hierarchical programming problem. In P. Serafini, editor,Mathematics of multiple-objective programming. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    P. Neittaanmäki and A. Stachurski. Solving some optimal control problems using the barrier penalty function method. In H.-J. Sebastian and K. Tammer, editors,Proceedings of the 14th 1F1P Conference on System Modelling and Optimization, Leipzig 1989, pages 358–367. Springer, 1990.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    A. Nwosu.Pre-emptive hierarchical programming problem: a decentralized decision model. PhD thesis, Department of Operations Research and Statistics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1983.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    H. Önal. Computational experience with a mixed solution method for bilevel linear/quadratic programs. 1992. (Preprint from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    H. Önal. A modified simplex approach for solving bilevel linear programming problems.European Journal of Operational Research, 67:126–135, 1993.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    J. Outrata. On the numerical solution of a class of Stackelberg problems.ZOR-Methods and Models of Operations Research, 34:255–277, 1990.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    J. Outrata. Necessary optimality conditions for Stackelberg problems.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 76:305–320, 1993.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    J. Outrata. On optimization problems with variational inequality constraints.SIAM Journal on Optimization, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    J. Outrata and J. Zowe. A numerical approach to optimization problems with variational inequality constraints. Technical Report DFG (German Scientific Foundation) Research Report 463, University of Bayreuth, 1993.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    G. Papavassilopoulos. Algorithms for static Stackelberg games with linear costs and polyhedral constraints. InProceedings of the 21st IEEE Conference on Decisions and Control, pages 647–652, 1982.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    F. Parraga.Hierarchical programming and applications to economic policy. PhD thesis, Systems and Industrial Engineering Department, University of Arizona, 1981.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    G. Savard.Contributions à la programmation mathématique deux niveaux. PhD thesis, École Polytechnique, Université de Montréal, 1989.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    G. Savard and J. Gauvin. The steepest descent direction for the nonlinear bilevel programming problem. Technical Report G-90-37, Groupe d'Études et de Recherche en Analyse des Décisions, 1990.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    G. Schenk. A multilevel programming model for determining regional effluent charges. Master's thesis, Department of Industrial Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1980.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    R. Segall. Bi-level geometric programming: a new optimization model. 1989. (Preprint from the Department of Mathematics, University of Lowell Olsen Hall).Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    J. Shaw. A parametric complementary pivot approach to multilevel programming. Master's thesis, Department of Industrial Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1980.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    H. Sherali. A multiple leader Stackelberg model and analysis.Operations Research, 32:390–404, 1984.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    K. Shimizu.Two-level decision problems and their new solution methods by a penalty method, volume 2 ofControl science and technology for the progress of society, pages 1303–1308. IFAC, 1982.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    K. Shimizu and E. Aiyoshi. A new computational method for Stackelberg and min-max problems by use of a penalty method.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 26:460–466, 1981.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    K. Shimizu and E. Aiyoshi. Optimality conditions and algorithms for parameter design problems with two-level structure.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 30:986–993, 1985.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    M. Simaan. Stackelberg optimization of two-level systems.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 7:554–557, 1977.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    H. Stackelberg.The theory of the market economy. Oxford University Press, 1952.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    S. Suh and T. Kim. Solving nonlinear bilevel programming models of the equilibrium network design problem: a comparative review.Annals of Operations Research, 34:203–218, 1992.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    C. Suwansirikul, T. Friesz, and R. Tobin. Equilibrium decomposed optimization: a heuristic for the continuous equilibrium network design problem.Transportation Science, 21:254–263, 1987.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    T. Tanino and T. Ogawa. An algorithm for solving two-level convex optimization problems.International Journal of Systems Science, 15:163–174, 1984.Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    R. Tobin and T. Friesz. Spatial competition facility location models: definition, formulation and solution approach.Annals of Operations Research, 6:49–74, 1986.Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    H. Tuy, A. Migdalas, and P. Värbrand. A global optimization approach for the linear two-level program.Journal of Global Optimization, 3:1–23, 1993.Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    G. Ünlü. A linear bilevel programming algorithm based on bicriteria programming.Computers and Operations Research, 14:173–179, 1987.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    L. Vicente. Bilevel programming. Master's thesis, Department of Mathematics, University of Coimbra, 1992. Written in Portuguese.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    L. Vicente and P. Calamai. Geometry and local optimality conditions for bilevel programs with quadratic strictly convex lower levels. Technical Report #198-O-150294, Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, 1994.Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    L. Vicente, G. Savard, and J. Júdice. Descent approaches for quadratic bilevel programming.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    U. Wen.Mathematical methods for multilevel linear programming. PhD thesis, Department of Industrial Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1981.Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    U. Wen. The “Kth-Best” algorithm for multilevel programming. 1981. (Preprint from the Department of Operations Research, State University of New York at Buffalo).Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    U. Wen. A solution procedure for the resource control problem in two-level hierarchical decision processes.Journal of Chinese Institute of Engineers, 6:91–97, 1983.Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    U. Wen and W. Bialas. The hybrid algorithm for solving the three-level linear programming problem.Computers and Operations Research, 13:367–377, 1986.Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    U. Wen and S. Hsu. A note on a linear bilevel programming algorithm based on bicriteria programming.Computers and Operations Research, 16:79–83, 1989.Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    U. Wen and S. Hsu. Efficient solutions for the linear bilevel programming problem.European Journal of Operational Research, 62:354–362, 1991.Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    U. Wen and S. Hsu. Linear bi-level programming problems — a review.Journal of the Operational Research Society, 42:125–133, 1991.Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    U. Wen and Y. Yang. Algorithms for solving the mixed integer two-level linear programming problem.Computers and Operations Research, 17:133–142, 1990.Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    D. White and G. Anandalingam. A penalty function approach for solving bi-level linear programs.Journal of Global Optimization, 3:397–419, 1993.Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    S. Wu, P. Marcotte, and Y. Chen. A cutting plane method for linear bilevel programs. 1993. (Preprint from the Centre de Research sur les Transports).Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    J. Ye and D. Zhu. Optimality conditions for bilevel programming problems. Technical Report DMS-618-IR, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Victoria, 1993. 1992, Revised 1993.Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    J. Ye, D. Zhu, and Q. Zhu. Generalized bilevel programming problems. Technical Report DMS-646-IR, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Victoria, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luís N. Vicente
    • 1
  • Paul H. Calamai
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de MatemáticaUniversidade de CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Systems Design EngineeringUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations