Computational Optimization and Applications

, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 339–361 | Cite as

Proximal gradient methods for multiobjective optimization and their applications

  • Hiroki Tanabe
  • Ellen H. FukudaEmail author
  • Nobuo Yamashita


We propose new descent methods for unconstrained multiobjective optimization problems, where each objective function can be written as the sum of a continuously differentiable function and a proper convex but not necessarily differentiable one. The methods extend the well-known proximal gradient algorithms for scalar-valued nonlinear optimization, which are shown to be efficient for particular problems. Here, we consider two types of algorithms: with and without line searches. Under mild assumptions, we prove that each accumulation point of the sequence generated by these algorithms, if exists, is Pareto stationary. Moreover, we present their applications in constrained multiobjective optimization and robust multiobjective optimization, which is a problem that considers uncertainties. In particular, for the robust case, we show that the subproblems of the proximal gradient algorithms can be seen as quadratic programming, second-order cone programming, or semidefinite programming problems. Considering these cases, we also carry out some numerical experiments, showing the validity of the proposed methods.


Multiobjective optimization Proximal gradient method Robust optimization Pareto stationarity 



This work was supported by the Kyoto University Foundation, and the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (17K00032) from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. We are also grateful to the anonymous referees for their useful comments.


  1. 1.
    Alizadeh, F., Goldfarb, D.: Second-order cone programming. Math. Program. 95(1), 1–52 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beck, A., Eldar, Y.: Strong duality in nonconvex quadratic optimization with two quadratic constraints. SIAM J. Optim. 17(3), 844–860 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beck, A., Teboulle, M.: A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems. SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 2(1), 183–202 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ben-Tal, A., Nemirovski, A.: Robust convex optimization. Math. Oper. Res. 23(4), 769–805 (1998)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berge, C., Patterson, E.M.: Topological Spaces. Dover Publications, Edinburgh (1963)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bertsekas, D.P.: Nonlinear Programming, 2nd edn. Athena Scientific, Belmont (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bertsekas, D.P.: Convex Analysis and Optimization. Athena Scientific, Belmont (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonnel, H., Iusem, A.N., Svaiter, B.F.: Proximal methods in vector optimization. SIAM J. Optim. 15(4), 953–970 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, G., Teboulle, M.: Convergence analysis of a proximal-like minimization algorithm using Bregman functions. SIAM J. Optim. 3(3), 538–543 (1993)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cruz Neto, J.X., Silva, G.J.P., Ferreira, O.P., Lopes, J.O.: A subgradient method for multiobjective optimization. Comput. Optim. Appl. 54(3), 461–472 (2013)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ehrgott, M., Ide, J., Schöbel, A.: Minmax robustness for multi-objective optimization problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 239(1), 17–31 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fliege, J., Graña Drummond, L.M., Svaiter, B.F.: Newton’s method for multiobjective optimization. SIAM J. Optim. 20(2), 602–626 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fliege, J., Svaiter, B.F.: Steepest descent methods for multicriteria optimization. Math. Methods Oper. Res. 51(3), 479–494 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fliege, J., Werner, R.: Robust multiobjective optimization and applications in portfolio optimization. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 234(2), 422–433 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fukuda, E.H., Graña Drummond, L.M.: A survey on multiobjective descent methods. Pesquisa Operacional 34(3), 585–620 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geoffrion, A.M.: Proper efficiency and the theory of vector maximization. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 22(3), 618–630 (1968)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Graña Drummond, L.M., Iusem, A.N.: A projected gradient method for vector optimization problems. Comput. Optim. Appl. 28(1), 5–29 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hogan, W.: Point-to-set maps in mathematical programming. SIAM Rev. 15(3), 591–603 (1973)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morishita, M.: A descent method for robust multiobjective optimization in the presence of implemention errors. Master’s thesis, Kyoto University (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saul, G., Thomas, S.: The computational algorithm for the parametric objective function. Naval Res. Logist. Q. 2(12), 39–45 (1955)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sturm, J.F.: Using SeDuMi 1.02, a Matlab toolbox for optimization over symmetric cones. Optim. Methods Softw. 11(1–4), 625–653 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tseng, P.: Approximation accuracy, gradient methods, and error bound for structured convex optimization. Math. Program. 125(2), 263–295 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zadeh, L.: Optimality and non-scalar-valued performance criteria. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 8(1), 59–60 (1963)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Mathematics and Physics, Graduate School of InformaticsKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations