Effective implementation of the epsilon-constraint method in Multi-Objective Mathematical Programming problems

As indicated by the most widely accepted classification, the Multi-Objective Mathematical Programming (MOMP) methods can be classified as a priori, interactive and a posteriori, according to the decision stage in which the decision maker expresses his/her preferences. Although the a priori methods are the most popular, the interactive and the a posteriori methods convey much more information to the decision maker. Especially, the a posteriori (or generation) methods give the whole picture (i.e. the Pareto set) to the decision maker, before his/her final choice, reinforcing thus, his/her confidence to the final decision. However, the generation methods are the less popular due to their computational effort and the lack of widely available software. The present work is an effort to effectively implement the @e-constraint method for producing the Pareto optimal solutions in a MOMP. We propose a novel version of the method (augmented @e-constraint method - AUGMECON) that avoids the production of weakly Pareto optimal solutions and accelerates the whole process by avoiding redundant iterations. The method AUGMECON has been implemented in GAMS, a widely used modelling language, and has already been used in some applications. Finally, an interactive approach that is based on AUGMECON and eventually results in the most preferred Pareto optimal solution is also proposed in the paper.

[1]  G. R. Reeves,et al.  Minimum values over the efficient set in multiple objective decision making , 1988 .

[2]  George Mavrotas,et al.  Multi-criteria branch and bound: A vector maximization algorithm for Mixed 0-1 Multiple Objective Linear Programming , 2005, Appl. Math. Comput..

[3]  Jared L. Cohon,et al.  Multiobjective programming and planning , 2004 .

[4]  Ralph E. Steuer Non-Fully Resolved Questions about the Efficient/Nondominated Set , 1997 .

[5]  Horst W. Hamacher,et al.  Finding representative systems for discrete bicriterion optimization problems , 2007, Oper. Res. Lett..

[6]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis , 2001 .

[7]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  Nonlinear multiobjective optimization , 1998, International series in operations research and management science.

[8]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis - an integrated approach , 2001 .

[9]  R. S. Laundy,et al.  Multiple Criteria Optimisation: Theory, Computation and Application , 1989 .

[10]  Ralph E. Steuer,et al.  Computational experience concerning payoff tables and minimum criterion values over the efficient set , 1988 .

[11]  H. Kunzi,et al.  Lectu re Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems , 1975 .

[12]  George Mavrotas,et al.  An integrated approach for the selection of Best Available Techniques (BAT) for the industries in the greater Athens area using multi-objective combinatorial optimization , 2007 .

[13]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making - Methods and Applications , 1992, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems.

[14]  Heather Fry,et al.  A user’s guide , 2003 .

[15]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys , 2005 .

[16]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  An efficient, adaptive parameter variation scheme for metaheuristics based on the epsilon-constraint method , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[17]  Ralph E. Steuer Multiple criteria optimization , 1986 .

[18]  Yacov Y. Haimes,et al.  Multiobjective Decision Making: Theory and Methodology , 1983 .

[19]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Constructing robust crew schedules with bicriteria optimization , 2002 .

[20]  David Kendrick,et al.  GAMS, a user's guide , 1988, SGNM.

[21]  C. Hwang Multiple Objective Decision Making - Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-Art Survey , 1979 .

[22]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  Multiple Objective Decision Making , 1994 .

[23]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Saddle Points and Pareto Points in Multiple Objective Programming , 2005, J. Glob. Optim..