Optimization and Engineering

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 89–117 | Cite as

GoNDEF: an exact method to generate all non-dominated points of multi-objective mixed-integer linear programs

  • Seyyed Amir Babak Rasmi
  • Metin TürkayEmail author
Research Article


Most real-world problems involve multiple conflicting criteria. These problems are called multi-criteria/multi-objective optimization problems (MOOP). The main task in solving MOOPs is to find the non-dominated (ND) points in the objective space or efficient solutions in the decision space. A ND point is a point in the objective space with objective function values that cannot be improved without worsening another objective function. In this paper, we present a new method that generates the set of ND points for a multi-objective mixed-integer linear program (MOMILP). The Generator of ND and Efficient Frontier (GoNDEF) for MOMILPs finds that the ND points represented as points, line segments, and facets consist of every type of ND point. First, the GoNDEF sets integer variables to the values that result in ND points. Fixing integer variables to specific values results in a multi-objective linear program (MOLP). This MOLP has its own set of ND points. A subset of this set establishes a subset of the ND points set of the MOMILP. In this paper, we present an extensive theoretical analysis of the GoNDEF and illustrate its effectiveness on a set of instance problems.


Multi-objective optimization Mixed-integer linear programming Non-dominated point Exact method 



Financial support for this work by TUPRAS under grant OS.00054 is gratefully acknowledged. MT gratefully acknowledges the computational infrastructure support provided by the IBM Corporation through the IBM SUR award. The authors acknowledge valuable comments and suggestions provided by Emre Alper Yıldırım, Emre Mengi, Seyed Mojtaba Hosseini, Ali Fattahi, Matthias Ehrgott, and referees of Optimization and Engineering journal.


  1. Abounacer R, Rekik M, Renaud J (2014) An exact solution approach for multi-objective location-transportation problem for disaster response. Comput Oper Res 41:83–93MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Alves MJ, Clımaco J (2000) An interactive reference point approach for multiobjective mixed-integer programming using branch-and-bound. Eur J Oper Res 124(3):478–494MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Alves MJ, Clímaco J (2007) A review of interactive methods for multiobjective integer and mixed-integer programming. Eur J Oper Res 180(1):99–115MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Alves MJ, Costa JP (2016) Graphical exploration of the weight space in three-objective mixed integer linear programs. Eur J Oper Res 248(1):72–83MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Anvari S, Turkay M (2017) The facility location problem from the perspective of triple bottom line accounting of sustainability. Int J Prod Res 55(21):6266–6287Google Scholar
  6. Armand P (1993) Finding all maximal efficient faces in multiobjective linear programming. Math Program 61(1–3):357–375MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Armand P, Malivert C (1991) Determination of the efficient set in multiobjective linear programming. J Optim Theory Appl 70(3):467–489MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Belotti P, Soylu B, Wiecek MM (2013) A branch-and-bound algorithm for biobjective mixed-integer programs. Optimization Online.
  9. Boland N, Charkhgard H, Savelsbergh M (2014) A simple and efficient algorithm for solving three objective integer programs. Optimization Online.
  10. Boland N, Charkhgard H, Savelsbergh M (2015) A criterion space search algorithm for biobjective mixed integer programming: the triangle splitting method. INFORMS J Comput 27(4):597–618MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Boland N, Charkhgard H, Savelsbergh M (2016) The l-shape search method for triobjective integer programming. Math Program Comput 8(2):217–251MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Boland N, Charkhgard H, Savelsbergh M (2017a) A new method for optimizing a linear function over the efficient set of a multiobjective integer program. Eur J Oper Res 260(3):904–919MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Boland N, Charkhgard H, Savelsbergh M (2017b) The quadrant shrinking method: a simple and efficient algorithm for solving tri-objective integer programs. Eur J Oper Res 260(3):873–885MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Can E, Erol S (2014) A multi-objective mixed integer linear programming model for energy resource allocation problem: the case of turkey. Gazi Univ J Sci 27(4):1157–1168Google Scholar
  15. Charkhgard H, Takalloo M, Haider Z (2018) Bi-objective autonomous vehicle repositioning problem with travel time uncertainty
  16. Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms, vol 16. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 6(2):182–197Google Scholar
  18. Ehrgott M (2006) A discussion of scalarization techniques for multiple objective integer programming. Ann Oper Res 147(1):343–360MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Ehrgott M, Puerto J, Rodriguez-Chia A (2007) Primal-dual simplex method for multiobjective linear programming. J Optim Theory Appl 134(3):483–497MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans JP, Steuer R (1973) A revised simplex method for linear multiple objective programs. Math Program 5(1):54–72MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Fattahi A, Turkay M (2018) A one direction search method to find the exact nondominated frontier of biobjective mixed-binary linear programming problems. Eur J Oper Res 266(2):415–425MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Gobbi M (2013) A k, k-\(\varepsilon\) optimality selection based multi objective genetic algorithm with applications to vehicle engineering. Optim Eng 14(2):345–360MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Hooker J (2011) Logic-based methods for optimization: combining optimization and constraint satisfaction, vol 2. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Hooker JN (1994) Logic-based methods for optimization. In: Principles and practice of constraint programming. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 336–349Google Scholar
  25. Jahanshahloo GR, Hosseinzadeh F, Shoja N, Tohidi G (2005) A method for generating all efficient solutions of 0–1 multi-objective linear programming problem. Appl Math Comput 169(2):874–886MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Jorge JM (2009) An algorithm for optimizing a linear function over an integer efficient set. Eur J Oper Res 195(1):98–103MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Lokman B, Köksalan M (2013) Finding all nondominated points of multi-objective integer programs. J Glob Optim 57(2):347–365MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Lokman B, Köksalan M (2014) Finding highly preferred points for multi-objective integer programs. IIE Trans 46(11):1181–1195Google Scholar
  29. Mavrotas G, Diakoulaki D (2005) Multi-criteria branch and bound: a vector maximization algorithm for mixed 0–1 multiple objective linear programming. Appl Math Comput 171(1):53–71MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Mavrotas G, Florios K (2013) An improved version of the augmented \(\varepsilon\)-constraint method (augmecon2) for finding the exact pareto set in multi-objective integer programming problems. Appl Math Comput 219(18):9652–9669MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Miettinen K, Hakanen J, Podkopaev D (2016) Interactive nonlinear multiobjective optimization methods. In: Multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer, New York, pp 927–976Google Scholar
  32. Nadarajah SK, Tatossian C (2010) Multi-objective aerodynamic shape optimization for unsteady viscous flows. Optim Eng 11(1):67–106MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Najafi M, Eshghi K, Dullaert W (2013) A multi-objective robust optimization model for logistics planning in the earthquake response phase. Transp Res Part E: Logist Transp Rev 49(1):217–249Google Scholar
  34. Özlen M, Azizoğlu M (2009) Multi-objective integer programming: a general approach for generating all non-dominated solutions. Eur J Oper Res 199(1):25–35MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Özlen M, Burton BA, MacRae CA (2014) Multi-objective integer programming: an improved recursive algorithm. J Optim Theory Appl 160(2):470–482MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Özpeynirci Ö, Köksalan M (2010) An exact algorithm for finding extreme supported nondominated points of multiobjective mixed integer programs. Manag Sci 56(12):2302–2315zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Pascual-González J, Jiménez-Esteller L, Guillén-Gosálbez G, Siirola JJ, Grossmann IE (2016) Macro-economic multi-objective input-output model for minimizing CO2 emissions: application to the US economy. AIChE J 62(10):3639–3656Google Scholar
  38. Przybylski A, Gandibleux X, Ehrgott M (2010) A recursive algorithm for finding all nondominated extreme points in the outcome set of a multiobjective integer programme. INFORMS J Comput 22(3):371–386MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Rudloff B, Ulus F, Vanderbei R (2017) A parametric simplex algorithm for linear vector optimization problems. Math Program 163(1–2):213–242MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Saule C, Giegerich R (2015) Pareto optimization in algebraic dynamic programming. Algorithms Mol Biol 10(1):1Google Scholar
  41. Sayin S (1996) An algorithm based on facial decomposition for finding the efficient set in multiple objective linear programming. Oper Res Lett 19(2):87–94MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Schechter M (2005) A correction to the connectedness of the Evans–Steuer algorithm of multiple objective linear programming. Found Comput Dec Sci 30(4):351–360MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Soylu B, Yıldız GB (2016) An exact algorithm for biobjective mixed integer linear programming problems. Comput Oper Res 72:204–213MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Steuer RE (1994) Random problem generation and the computation of efficient extreme points in multiple objective linear programming. Comput Optim Appl 3(4):333–347MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Steuer RE, Choo EU (1983) An interactive weighted Tchebycheff procedure for multiple objective programming. Math Program 26(3):326–344MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Stidsen T, Andersen KA, Dammann B (2014) A branch and bound algorithm for a class of biobjective mixed integer programs. Manag Sci 60(4):1009–1032Google Scholar
  47. Sylva J, Crema A (2004) A method for finding the set of non-dominated vectors for multiple objective integer linear programs. Eur J Oper Res 158(1):46–55MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Tohidi G, Razavyan S (2012) An l1-norm method for generating all of efficient solutions of multi-objective integer linear programming problem. J Ind Eng Int 8(1):1–8Google Scholar
  49. Vadenbo C, Hellweg S, Guillén-Gosálbez G (2014) Multi-objective optimization of waste and resource management in industrial networks—part I: model description. Resour Conserv Recycl 89:52–63Google Scholar
  50. Vincent T, Seipp F, Ruzika S, Przybylski A, Gandibleux X (2013) Multiple objective branch and bound for mixed 0–1 linear programming: corrections and improvements for the biobjective case. Comput Oper Res 40(1):498–509MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Wiecek MM, Ehrgott M, Engau A (2016) Continuous multiobjective programming. Springer, New York, pp 739–815Google Scholar
  52. Yu PL, Zeleny M (1975) The set of all nondominated solutions in linear cases and a multicriteria simplex method. J Math Anal Appl 49(2):430–468MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Zitzler E (1999) Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: methods and applications, vol 63. Ithaca, ShakerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringKoç UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations