Skip to main content
Log in

On the use of the \(L_{p}\) distance in reference point-based approaches for multiobjective optimization

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reference point-based methods are very useful techniques for solving multiobjective optimization problems. In these methods, the most commonly used achievement scalarizing functions are based on the Tchebychev distance (minmax approach), which generates every Pareto optimal solution in any multiobjective optimization problem, but does not allow compensation among the deviations to the reference values given that it minimizes the value of the highest deviation. At the same time, for any \(1 \le p \le \infty \), compromise programming minimizes the \(L_p\) distance to the ideal objective vector from the feasible objective region. Although the ideal objective vector can be replaced by a reference point, achievable reference points are not supported by this approach, and special care must be taken in the unachievable case. In this paper, for \(1 \le p < \infty \), we propose a new scheme based on the \(L_p\) distance, in which different single-objective optimization problems are designed and solved depending on the achievability of the reference point. The formulation proposed allows different compensation degrees among the deviations to the reference values. It is proven that, in the achievable case, any optimal solution obtained is efficient, and, in the unachievable one, it is at least weakly efficient, although it is assured to be efficient if an augmentation term is added to the new formulation. Besides, we suggest an interactive algorithm where the new formulation is embedded. Finally, we show the empirical advantages of the new formulation by its application to both numerical problems and a real multiobjective optimization problem, for achievable and unachievable reference points.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. By compensation degrees between the deviations to the reference values. we refer to the effect that is obtained by aggregating the power p of all the individual deviations to the reference values. In the \(L_p\) distance, the higher the value of p, the more importance is given to the higher deviation (in absolute value).

  2. There is more up to date data from this survey but it does not contain data on satisfaction related variables.

  3. The precise wording of the questions was: How satisfied are you with your present job in terms of ...?

  4. For each \(j=1, \ldots , 7\), the index r in Eq. (22) refers to the number of individuals (observations) in the sample of size N considered for the survey but, once the econometric techniques are applied to estimate the coefficients \(\beta _i^j\) (\(i=1, \ldots , 35\)) and \({\alpha }^j\), r is eliminated. Thus, (22) leads to seven equations.

  5. The two sets of constraints (not reported to conserve space -available upon request-) are: (a) technical constraints, which ensure that certain binary variables do not take the value 1 simultaneously, and (b) some constraints to ensure that the profile of the worker that we are looking for is sufficiently realistic (e.g. defining bounds for the salary depending on the individuals’ highest education level).

  6. We have not included the values of the variables due to space reasons.

  7. The deviation of satisfaction with working time from the reference point also holds negative correlation with earnings (\(-0.490\)), job security (\(-0.978\)), type of work (\(-0.968\)) and number of working hours (\(-0.821\)).

References

  • Deb, K., & Miettinen, K. (2008). A review of nadir point estimation procedures using evolutionary approaches: A tale of dimensionality reduction. In Technical Report KanGAL Report Number 2008004, Indian Institute of Technology. Kanpur, India: Kanpur Genetic Algorithms Laboratory (Kan-GAL).

  • Deb, K., & Miettinen, K. (2010). Nadir point estimation using evolutionary approaches: Better accuracy and computational speed through focused search. In M. Ehrgott, B. Naujoks, T. J. Stewart, & J. Wallenius (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision making for sustainable energy and transportation systems (pp. 339–354). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Deb, K., Miettinen, K., & Chaudhuri, S. (2010). Towards an estimation of nadir objective vector using a hybrid of evolutionary and local search approaches. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 14(6), 821–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deb, K., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., & Zitzler, E. (2002). Scalable multi-objective optimization test problems. In Congress on Evolutionary Computation (pp. 825–830).

  • Ehrgott, M. (2000). Multicriteria optimization. In Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. Springer.

  • Ehrgott, M., & Gandibleux, X. (2002). Multiple criteria optimization. State of the art annotated bibliographic surveys. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrgott, M., & Tenfelde-Podehl, D. (2003). Computation of ideal and nadir values and implications for their use in MCDM methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 151(1), 119–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. B. (1978). Job satisfaction as an economic variable. American Economic Review, 68, 135–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, C. L., & Masud, A. S. M. (1979). Multiple objective decision making—Methods and applications: A state-of-the-art survey. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Luque, M., Miettinen, K., Eskelinen, P., & Ruiz, F. (2009). Incorporating preference information in interactive reference point methods for multiobjective optimization. Omega, 37(2), 450–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luque, M., Miettinen, K., Ruiz, A. B., & Ruiz, F. (2012). A two-slope achievement scalarizing function for interactive multiobjective optimization. Computers & Operations Research, 39(7), 1673–1681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luque, M., Ruiz, F., & Miettinen, K. (2011). Global formulation for interactive multiobjective optimization. OR-Spectrum, 33(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcenaro-Gutierrez, O. D., Luque, M., & Ruiz, F. (2010). An application of multiobjective programming to the study of workers’ satisfaction in the Spanish labour market. European Journal of Operational Research, 203(2), 430–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen, K. (1999). Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen, K., & Mäkelä, M. M. (2002). On scalarizing functions in multiobjective optimization. OR-Spectrum, 24(2), 193–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podkopaev, D. (2007). An approach to finding trade-off solutions by a linear transformation of objective functions. Control and Cybernetics, 36, 347–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, F., Luque, M., & Cabello, J. M. (2009). A classification of the weighting schemes in reference point procedures for multiobjective programming. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(4), 544–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, F., Luque, M., Miguel, F., & Muñoz, M. M. (2008). An additive achievement scalarizing function for multiobjective programming problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 188(3), 683–694.

  • Sawaragi, Y., Nakayama, H., & Tanino, T. (1985). Theory of multiobjective optimization. Orlando: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steuer, R. E. (1986). Multiple criteria optimization: Theory, computation and application. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wierzbicki, A. P. (1980). The use of reference objectives in multiobjective optimization. In G. Fandel & T. Gal (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision making, theory and applications, volume 177 of Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems (pp. 468–486). Springer.

  • Wierzbicki, A. P. (1982). A mathematical basis for satisficing decision making. Mathematical Modelling, 3(25), 391–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wierzbicki, A. P. (1986). On the completeness and constructiveness of parametric characterizations to vector optimization problems. OR-Spectrum, 8(2), 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, P. L. (1973). A class of solutions for group decision problems. Management Science, 19(8), 936–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, P. L. (1985). Multiple-criteria decision-making: Concepts, techniques, and extensions. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. (1973). Compromise programming. In J. Cochrane & M. Zeleny (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision making (pp. 262–301). Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. (1974). A concept of compromise solutions and the method of the displaced ideal. Computers & Operations Research, 1(3), 479–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by the Spanish Ministry of Innovation and Science (MTM2010-14992 and ECO2014-56397-P) and by the Andalusia Regional Ministry of Innovation, Science and Enterprises (PAI groups SEJ-532 and SEJ-445).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariano Luque.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luque, M., Ruiz, A.B., Saborido, R. et al. On the use of the \(L_{p}\) distance in reference point-based approaches for multiobjective optimization. Ann Oper Res 235, 559–579 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-2008-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-2008-0

Keywords

Navigation