The Light Beam Search — Outranking Based Interactive Procedure for Multiple-Objective Mathematical Programming
An interactive procedure for multiple-objective analysis of linear and non-linear programs is presented. At the decision phase of the procedure, a sample of points, composed of the current point and a number of alternative proposals, is presented to the decision maker (DM). The sample is constnicted to ensure a relatively easy evaluation of the sample by the DM. To this end we use an outranking relation as a local preference model in a neighbourhood of the current point. The outranking relation is used to define a sub-region of the non-dominated set the sample presented to the DM comes from. The DM has two possibilities, or degrees of freedom, to move from one sub-region to another which better fits his/her preferences. The first possibility consists in specifying a new reference point which is then projected onto the non-dominated set in order to find a better non-dominated point. The second possibility consists in shifting the current point to a selected point from the sub-region. In both cases, a new sub-region is defined around the updated current point. This technique can be compared to projecting a focused beam of light from a spotlight in the reference point onto the non-dominated set; the highlighted sub-region changes when either the reference point or the point of interest in the non-dominated set are changed.
KeywordsDecision Maker Middle Point Characteristic Neighbour Preferential Information Current Point
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Benayoun R., de Montgolfier J., Tergny J. and Larichev O. (1971). Linear programming with multiple objective functions: step method (STEM). Operational Research Quarterly, 24, 65–77.Google Scholar
- Korhonen P. (1987). VIG–a visual interactive support system for multiple criteria decision making. Belg. J. OpsRes. Statist. Comput. Sci., 27, 3–15.Google Scholar
- Lee S.M. and Shim J.P. (1986). Interactive goal programming on the microcomputer to establish priorities for small business. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 37, 571–577.Google Scholar
- Lotfi V., Stewart T.J. and Zionts S. (1992). An aspiration-level interactive model for multiple criteria decision making. Comput. Oper. Res.,in press.Google Scholar
- Luce D. (1956). Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometrica,24 178–191.Google Scholar
- Narula S.C., Kirilov L. and Vassilev V. (1992). Reference direction approach for solving multiple objective nonlinear programming problems. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Taipei, 2, 355–362.Google Scholar
- Poincaré H. (1935). La valeur de la Science,Flammarion, Paris.Google Scholar
- Rosen J.B. (1960). The gradient projection method for nonlinear programming. Part I: Linear constraints. SIAM J. Appl. Math., 8.Google Scholar
- Roy B. (1978). ELECTRE III–un algorithme de classement fondé sur une représentation floue des préférences en présence de critè res multiples. Cahiers du CERO, 20, 3–24.Google Scholar
- Roy B. (1985). Méthodologie Jvlulticritè re d’Aide ?i la Décision, Economica, Paris, 1985.Google Scholar
- Wierzbicki A.P. (1980). The use of reference objective in Multiobjective Optimization. In Fandel G. and Gal T. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Theory and Application, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 468–486.Google Scholar