A methodological guide to multiobjective optimization

  • Andrzej P. Wierzbicki
Plenary Lectures
Part of the Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences book series (LNCIS, volume 22)


During the last few years, multiobjective optimization has received growing attention: the number of publications related to this subject between 1974 and 1979 exceeds 120. There are many approaches, techniques and tools related to multiobjective decision making and optimization; however, not all approaches are equally developed, and the resulting tools are often applied because of certain traditions rather than their suitability for solving a given problem. Therefore, this paper is devoted to a comparative evaluation of various approaches and tools. This evaluation is based, however, first on a classification of problems of multiobjective decision making and optimization. Thereafter, the available approaches, methods, techniques and tools are shortly presented and evaluated in terms of suitability for various classes of problems.

The final part of the paper presents a broader description of a relatively new approach based on reference objective levels, not fully developed yet but applicable in many classes of problems. A new notion of extended threshold utility functions, other basic theoretical results, applicational examples and directions of further research related to this approach are presented.


Utility Function Multiobjective Optimization Weighting Coefficient Reference Objective Alternative Decision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Ackoff, R.L., The Future of Operation Research is Past, Operational Research Society, Vol.30, 93–104, 1979.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bell, D.E., R.L. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Conflicting Objectives in Decisions, Wiley/IIASA International Series on Applied Systems Analysis, New York.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    O'Neill, V.R. and B. Rust, Aggregation error in Ecological Models, Journal of Ecological Modelling, Vol. 7, 90–105, 1979.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Cohn, J.L. and D.H. Marks, A Review and Evaluation of Multiobjective Programming Techniques, Water Resources Research, Vol.11, 208–220, April 1975.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Da Cunha, N.O. and E. Polak, Constrained Minimisation under Vector-Valued Criteria in Finite Dimensional Space, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, Vol. 19, 103–124, 1967.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Debreu, G., Theory of Value, Wiley, New York, 1959.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Dyer, J.S., Interactive Goal Programming, Management Science, Vol. 19(1), 62–70, March 1972.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Elster, K.H. and R. Nehse, Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Order Completeness of Partially Ordered Vector Space, Mathematische Nachrichten, Vol. 81, 301–311, 1978.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Evans, J.P. and R.E. Steuer, A Revised Simplex Method for Linear Multiple Objective Programs, Mathematical Programming, Vol.5, 54–72, 1973.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Fishburn, P.C., Utility Theory for Decision Making, Wiley, New York, 1970.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Geoffrion, A.M. Proper Efficiency and the Theory of Vector Maximization, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, Vol.22, 816–630, 1968.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Haimes, Y.Y., W.A. Hall and H.T. Freedman, Multiobjective Optimization in Water Resources Systems: The Surrogate Worth Trade-off Method, Elsevier, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Hogarth, R., Cognitive Process and the Assessment of Subjective Probability Distributions, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol.70, 271–289, 1975.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Keeney, R.L. and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs, Wiley, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Kornbluth, J.H.S., A Survey of Goal Programming, Omega, Vol.1, 193–205, 1973.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Kallio, M. and A. Lewandowski, Reference point optimization for compromise finding in the development of the Finnish forestry industrial sector, IIASA WP, 1979, in preparation.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Leitmann, G., and W. Schmitendorf, Some Sufficient Conditions for Pareto-Optimal Control, Journal of Dynamical Systems, Measurement and Control, Vol.95(3), 1973.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Pareto, V. Cours d'Economie Politiqe, Rouge, Lausanne, 1896.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Peschel, M. and C. Riedel, Polyoptimization — a Decision Making Aid for Technical Engineering Compromise Solutions, (in German), VEB Verlag Technik, Berlin.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Sakluvadze, M.E., Optimization of Vector Functionals. Part I: Programming of Optimal Trajectories, Automatika i Telemekjanika, No.8, 5–15, Part III: The Analytic Construction of Optimal Controls, Ibidem, No.9, 5. 15, (in Russian) 1971.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Sakluvadze, M.E., On the Existence of Solutions in Problems of Optimization under Vector-Valued Criteria, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol.13(2), 1974.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Wierzbicki, A.P., Penalty Methods in Solving Optimization Problems with Vector Performance Criteria, Proceedings of VI-th IFAC World Congress, Cambridge, Boston, 1975.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Wierzbicki, A.P., Basic Properties of Scalarizing Functionals for Multiobjective Optimization, Mathematische Operationsforschung and Statistik, Ser. Optimization, Vol.8(1), 55–60, 1977.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Wierzbicki, A.P. and St. Kurcyusz, Projection on a Cone, Penalty Functional and Duality Theory for Problems with Inequality Constraints in Hilbert Space, SIAM Journal Control and Optimization, Vol. 15, 25–26, 1977.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Wierzbicki, A.P., On the Use of Penlty Functions in Multiobjective Optimization, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Operations Research, Mannheim, 1978.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Wierzbicki, A.P., Reference Objective Levels in Multiobjective Decision Theory and Optimization, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, WP-66-1979.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Yu, P.L. and G. Leitmann, Compromise Solutions, Domination Structures and Savlukadze's Solution, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol.13, 362–378, 1974.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Zeleny, M., Linear Multiobjective Programming, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1974.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Zeleny, M., Multicriterion Decision-Making Bibliography, in Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Kyoto, 1975, ed. M. Zeleny, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1976.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Zionts, Z., ed., Multiple Criteria Problem Solving, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1978.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Zowe, J., A Quality Theorem for Convex Programming Problem in Order Complete Vector Lattices, J. Math, Analysis Appl., Vol.50, 273–287, 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrzej P. Wierzbicki
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria
  2. 2.Institute of Automatic ControlTechnical University of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations