Skip to main content
Log in

Pareto Analysis vis-à-vis Balance Space Approach in Multiobjective Global Optimization

  • Published:
Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is much controversy about the balance space approach, introduced first in Ref. 1, pp. 138–140, with the consideration of the balance number and balance vectors, and then further developed in Ref. 2, with the consideration of balance points and balance sets. There were attempts to identify the balance space approach with some other methods of multiobjective optimization, notably the method proposed in Ref. 3 and most recently Pareto analysis, as presented in Ref. 4. In this paper, we compare Pareto analysis with the balance space approach on several examples to demonstrate the interrelation and the differences of the two methods. As a byproduct, it is shown that, in some cases, the entire Pareto sets, proper and adjoint, can be determined very simply, without any special investigation of the (nonscalarized, nonconvex) multiobjective global optimization problem. The method of parameter introduction is presented in application to determining the Pareto sets and balance set. The use of computer graphics software complemented with the Gauss–Jordan matrix reduction algorithm is proposed for a class of otherwise intractable problems with nonconvex constraint sets.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Galperin, E. A., The Cubic Algorithm for Optimization and Control, NP Research Publication, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Galperin, E. A., Nonscalarized Multiobjective Global Optimization, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 75, pp. 69–85, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pascoletti, A., and Serafini, P., Scalarizing Vector Optimization Problems, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 42, pp. 499–524, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ehrgott, M., Hamacher, H. W., Klamroth, K., Nickel, S., Schobel, A., and Wiecek, M. M., A Note on the Equivalence of Balance Points and Pareto Solutions in Multiple Objective Programming, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 92, pp. 209–212, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Galperin, E. A., and Zheng, Q., New Theory of Continuous Games, NP Research Publication, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Galperin, E. A., and Zheng, Q., Global Solutions in Optimal Control and Games, NP Research Publication, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Galperin, E. A., The Fast Cubic Algorithm, Computers and Mathematics with Applications, Vol. 25, pp. 147–160, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Galperin, E. A., Spherical Algorithms and Evaluation of the Fixed Point Set, Journal of Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods and Applications, Vol. 23, pp. 1545–1557, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Galperin, E.A. Pareto Analysis vis-à-vis Balance Space Approach in Multiobjective Global Optimization. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 93, 533–545 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022639028824

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022639028824

Navigation