Advertisement

SASS: slicing with adaptive steps search method for finding the non-dominated points of tri-objective mixed-integer linear programming problems

  • Seyyed Amir Babak Rasmi
  • Ali Fattahi
  • Metin TürkayEmail author
S.I.: MOPGP 2017
  • 68 Downloads

Abstract

Multi-objective optimization problems (MOOP) reflect the complexity of many real-world decision problems where objectives are conflicting. The presence of more than one criterion makes finding the non-dominated (ND) points a crucial issue in the decision making process. Tri-objective mixed-integer linear programs (TOMILP) are an important subclass of MOOPs that are applicable to many problems in economics, business, science, and engineering including sustainable systems that must consider economic, environmental, and social concerns simultaneously. The literature on finding the ND points of TOMILPs is limited; there are only a few algorithms published in the literature that do not guarantee generating the entire ND points of TOMILPs. We present a new method, the Slicing with Adaptive Steps Search (SASS), to generate the ND points of TOMILPs. The result of SASS is primarily a superset of the set of ND points in the form of (partially) ND faces. We then perform a post-processing to eliminate the dominated parts of the partially ND faces. We provide a theoretical analysis of SASS and illustrate its effectiveness on a large set of instances.

Keywords

Tri-objective programming Mixed-integer linear programming Non-dominated points Lexicographic optimization Exact method Non-dominated faces 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the computational infrastructure support provided by the IBM Corporation through the IBM SUR award. We also acknowledge valuable comments and suggestions provided by Emre Alper Yıldırım, Emre Mengi, Matthias Ehrgott, Annals of OR and MOPGP 2017 conference referees. Funding was provided by TUPRAS (OS.00054).

References

  1. Alves, M. J., & Clımaco, J. (2000). An interactive reference point approach for multiobjective mixed-integer programming using branch-and-bound. European Journal of Operational Research, 124(3), 478–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alves, M. J., & Costa, J. P. (2016). Graphical exploration of the weight space in three-objective mixed integer linear programs. European Journal of Operational Research, 248(1), 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anvari, S., & Turkay, M. (2017). The facility location problem from the perspective of triple bottom line accounting of sustainability. International Journal of Production Research, 55(21), 6266–6287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belotti, P., Soylu, B., & Wiecek, M. M. (2013). A branch-and-bound algorithm for biobjective mixed-integer programs. Optimization Online. http://www.optimization-online.org/DB_FILE/2013/01/3719.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2017.
  5. Bhinge, R., Moser, R., Moser, E., Lanza, G., & Dornfeld, D. (2015). Sustainability optimization for global supply chain decision-making. Procedia CIRP, 26, 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boland, N., Charkhgard, H., & Savelsbergh, M. (2015a). A criterion space search algorithm for biobjective integer programming: The balanced box method. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 27(4), 735–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boland, N., Charkhgard, H., & Savelsbergh, M. (2015b). A criterion space search algorithm for biobjective mixed integer programming: The triangle splitting method. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 27(4), 597–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boland, N., Charkhgard, H., & Savelsbergh, M. (2016). The l-shape search method for triobjective integer programming. Mathematical Programming Computation, 8(2), 217–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boland, N., Charkhgard, H., & Savelsbergh, M. (2017). The quadrant shrinking method: A simple and efficient algorithm for solving tri-objective integer programs. European Journal of Operational Research, 260(3), 873–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Branke, J., Deb, K., & Miettinen, K. (2008). Multiobjective optimization: Interactive and evolutionary approaches (Vol. 5252). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, Z., & Andresen, S. (2014). A multiobjective optimization model of production-sourcing for sustainable supply chain with consideration of social, environmental, and economic factors. Mathematical Problems in Engineering.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/616107.Google Scholar
  12. Chinchuluun, A., & Pardalos, P. M. (2007). A survey of recent developments in multiobjective optimization. Annals of Operations Research, 154(1), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrgott, M. (2000). Multicriteria optimization. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems (Vol. 491). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Ehrgott, M. (2006). A discussion of scalarization techniques for multiple objective integer programming. Annals of Operations Research, 147(1), 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ehrgott, M., Gandibleux, X., & Przybylski, A. (2016). Exact methods for multi-objective combinatorial optimisation. In S. Greco, M. Ehrgott, & J. R. Figueira (Eds.), Multiple criteria analysis: Decision state of the art surveys (pp. 817–850). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elkington, J. (1999). Triple bottom-line reporting: Looking for balance. AUSTRALIAN CPA, 69, 18–21.Google Scholar
  17. Evans, J. P., & Steuer, R. (1973). A revised simplex method for linear multiple objective programs. Mathematical Programming, 5(1), 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fattahi, A., & Turkay, M. (2015). \(\epsilon \)-OA for the solution of bi-objective generalized disjunctive programming problems in the synthesis of nonlinear process networks. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 72, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fattahi, A., & Turkay, M. (2018). A one direction search method to find the exact nondominated frontier of biobjective mixed-binary linear programming problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 266(2), 415–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fruhwirth, B., & Mekelburg, K. (1994). On the efficient point set of tricriteria linear programs. European Journal of Operational Research, 72(1), 192–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hassine, H., Barkallah, M., Bellacicco, A., Louati, J., Riviere, A., & Haddar, M. (2015). Multi objective optimization for sustainable manufacturing, application in turning. International Journal of Simulation Modelling, 14(1), 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hooker, J. (2011) The logic of discrete variables. In R. L. Graham, & J. K. Lenstra (Eds.), Logic-based methods for optimization: combining optimization and constraint satisfaction (vol. 2, pp. 61–68). Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Jorge, J. M. (2009). An algorithm for optimizing a linear function over an integer efficient set. European Journal of Operational Research, 195(1), 98–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lokman, B., & Köksalan, M. (2013). Finding all nondominated points of multi-objective integer programs. Journal of Global Optimization, 57(2), 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mavrotas, G., & Diakoulaki, D. (2005). Multi-criteria branch and bound: A vector maximization algorithm for mixed 0–1 multiple objective linear programming. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 171(1), 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 219(18), 9652–9669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miettinen, K., Hakanen, J., & Podkopaev, D. (2016). Interactive nonlinear multiobjective optimization methods. In S. Greco, M. Ehrgott, & J. R. Figueira (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 927–976). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Özlen, M., & Azizoğlu, M. (2009). Multi-objective integer programming: A general approach for generating all non-dominated solutions. European Journal of Operational Research, 199(1), 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ozlen, M., Burton, B. A., & MacRae, C. A. (2014). Multi-objective integer programming: An improved recursive algorithm. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 160(2), 470–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Özpeynirci, Ö., & Köksalan, M. (2010). An exact algorithm for finding extreme supported nondominated points of multiobjective mixed integer programs. Management Science, 56(12), 2302–2315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Przybylski, A., Gandibleux, X., & Ehrgott, M. (2010a). A recursive algorithm for finding all nondominated extreme points in the outcome set of a multiobjective integer programme. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 22(3), 371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Przybylski, A., Gandibleux, X., & Ehrgott, M. (2010b). A two phase method for multi-objective integer programming and its application to the assignment problem with three objectives. Discrete Optimization, 7(3), 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rasmi, S. A. B., & Türkay, M. (2019). Gondef: an exact method to generate all non-dominated points of multi-objective mixed-integer linear programs. Optimization and Engineering, 20(1), 89–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rasmi, S. A. B., Kazan, C., & Türkay, M. (2019). A multi-criteria decision analysis to include environmental, social, and cultural issues in the sustainable aggregate production plans. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 132, 348–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Soylu, B., & Yıldız, G. B. (2016). An exact algorithm for biobjective mixed integer linear programming problems. Computers & Operations Research, 72, 204–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steuer, R. E., & Choo, E. U. (1983). An interactive weighted tchebycheff procedure for multiple objective programming. Mathematical Programming, 26(3), 326–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stidsen, T., Andersen, K. A., & Dammann, B. (2014). A branch and bound algorithm for a class of biobjective mixed integer programs. Management Science, 60(4), 1009–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sylva, J., & Crema, A. (2004). A method for finding the set of non-dominated vectors for multiple objective integer linear programs. European Journal of Operational Research, 158(1), 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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. Computers & Operations Research, 40(1), 498–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wiecek, M. M., Ehrgott, M., & Engau, A. (2016). Continuous multiobjective programming. In S. Greco, M. Ehrgott, & J. R. Figueira (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 739–815). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yu, P., & Zeleny, M. (1975). The set of all nondominated solutions in linear cases and a multicriteria simplex method. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 49(2), 430–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringKoç UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Johns Hopkins University Carey Business SchoolBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations