Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 147, Issue 1, pp 343–360 | Cite as

A discussion of scalarization techniques for multiple objective integer programming

  • Matthias EhrgottEmail author


In this paper we consider solution methods for multiobjective integer programming (MOIP) problems based on scalarization. We define the MOIP, discuss some common scalarizations, and provide a general formulation that encompasses most scalarizations that have been applied in the MOIP context as special cases. We show that these methods suffer some drawbacks by either only being able to find supported efficient solutions or introducing constraints that can make the computational effort to solve the scalarization prohibitive. We show that Lagrangian duality applied to the general scalarization does not remedy the situation. We also introduce a new scalarization technique, the method of elastic constraints, which is shown to be able to find all efficient solutions and overcome the computational burden of the scalarizations that use constraints on objective values. Finally, we present some results from an application in airline crew scheduling as evidence.


Multiobjective optimization Integer programming Scalarization Lagrangian duality Elastic constraints Crew scheduling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Benson, H.P. (1978). “Existence of Efficient Solutions for Vector Maximization Problems.” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 26(4), 569–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bitran, G.R. (1977). “Linear Multiple Objective Programs with Zero-One Variables.” Mathematical Programming, 13, 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bitran, G.R. (1979). “Theory and Algorithms for Linear Multiple Objective Programs with Zero-One Variables.” Mathematical Programming, 17, 362–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butchers, E.R., P.R. Day, A.P. Goldie, S. Miller, J.A. Meyer, D.M. Ryan, A.C. Scott, and C.A. Wallace. (2001). “Optimised Crew Scheduling at Air New Zealand.” Interfaces, 31(1), 30–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camerini, P. and C. Vercellis. (1984). “The Matroidal Knapsack: A Class of (Often) Well-Solvable Problems.” Operations Research Letters, 3(3), 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlyle, W.M. and R.K. Wood. (2003). “Lagrangian Relaxation and Enumeration for Solving Constrained Shortest Path Problems.” In L. Foulds (Ed.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Operational Research Society of New Zealand, pp. 3–12. Operational Research Society of New Zealand, Auckland.Google Scholar
  7. Chankong, V. and Y.Y. Haimes. (1983). Multiobjective Decision Making Theory and Methodology. New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  8. Chung, S., H.W. Hamacher, F. Maffioli, and K.G. Murty. (1993). “Note on Combinatorial Optimization with Max-Linear Objective Functions.” Discrete Applied Mathematics, 42, 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ecker, H.G. and N.S. Hegner. (1978). “On Computing an Initial Efficient Extreme Point.” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 29(10), 1005–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ecker, J.G. and I.A. Kouada. (1975). “Finding Efficient Points for Linear Multiple Objective Programs.” Mathematical Programming, 8, 375–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehrgott, M. and X. Gandibleux. (2000). “A Survey and Annotated Bibliography of Multiobjective Combinatorial Optimization.” OR Spektrum, 22, 425–460.Google Scholar
  12. Ehrgott, M. and X. Gandibleux (Eds.). (2002). Multiple Criteria Optimization—State of the Art Annotated Bibliographic Surveys, volume 52 of Kluwer's International Series in Operations Research and Management Science. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Ehrgott, M. and D.M. Ryan. (2002). “Constructing Robust Crew Schedules with Bicriteria Optimization.” Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 11(3), 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehrgott, M. and D.M. Ryan. (2003). “The Method of Elastic Constraints for Multiobjective Combinatorial Optimization and its Application in Airline Crew Scheduling.” In T. Tanino, T. Tanaka, and M. Inuiguchi, (Eds.), Multi-Objective Programming and Goal-Programming, pp. 117–122. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Gardiner, L.R. and R.E. Steuer. (1994). “Unified Interactive Multiple Objective Programming.” European Journal of Operational Research, 74, 391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garey, M.R. and D.S. Johnson. (1979). Computers and Intractability—A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Guddat, J., F. Guerra Vasquez, K. Tammer, and K. Wendler. (1985). Multiobjective and Stochastic Optimization Based on Parametric Optimization. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Klamroth, K., J. Tind, and S. Zust. (2004). “Integer Programming Duality in Multiple Objective Programming.” Journal of Global Optimization, To appear.Google Scholar
  19. Kouvelis, P. and G. Yu. (1997). Robust Discrete Optimization and Its Applications, volume 14 of Nonconvex Optimization and its Applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Mavrotas, G. and D. Diakoulaki. (1998). “A Branch and Bound Algorithm for Mixed Zero-One Multiple Objective Linear Programming.” European Journal of Operational Research, 107(3), 530–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Steuer, R.E. and E.U. Choo. (1983). “An Interactive Weighted Tchebycheff Procedure for Multiple Objective Programming.” Mathematical Programming, 26, 326–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Visáe, M., J. Teghem, M. Pirlot, and E.L. Ulungu (1998). “Two-Phases Method and Branch-and-Bound Procedures to Solve the Bi-Objective Knapsack Problem.” Journal of Global Optimization, 12, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Warburton, A. (1987). “Approximation of Pareto Optima in Multiple-Objective Shortest-Path Problems.” Operations Research, 35(1), 70 –79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wierzbicki, A.P. (1986). “A Methodological Approach to Comparing Parametric Characterizations of Efficient Solutions.” In G. Fandel, M. Grauer, A. Kurzhanski, and A.P. Wierzbicki (Eds.), Large-Scale Modelling and Interactive Decision Analysis, volume 273 of Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, pp. 27–45. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Wierzbicki, A.P. (1986). “On the Completeness and Constructiveness of Parametric Characterizations to Vector Optimization Problems.” OR Spektrum, 8(2), 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wierzbicki, A.P., M. Makowski, and J. Wessels (Eds.). (2000). Model-Based Decision Support Methodology with Environmental Applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering ScienceThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations