An Efficient Application of Goal Programming to Tackle Multiobjective Problems with Recurring Fitness Landscapes

  • Rodrigo Lankaites PinheiroEmail author
  • Dario Landa-Silva
  • Wasakorn Laesanklang
  • Ademir Aparecido Constantino
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 966)


Many real-world applications require decision-makers to assess the quality of solutions while considering multiple conflicting objectives. Obtaining good approximation sets for highly constrained many-objective problems is often a difficult task even for modern multiobjective algorithms. In some cases, multiple instances of the problem scenario present similarities in their fitness landscapes. That is, there are recurring features in the fitness landscapes when searching for solutions to different problem instances. We propose a methodology to exploit this characteristic by solving one instance of a given problem scenario using computationally expensive multiobjective algorithms to obtain a good approximation set and then using Goal Programming with efficient single-objective algorithms to solve other instances of the same problem scenario. We use three goal-based objective functions and show that on benchmark instances of the multiobjective vehicle routing problem with time windows, the methodology is able to produce good results in short computation time. The methodology allows to combine the effectiveness of state-of-the-art multiobjective algorithms with the efficiency of goal programming to find good compromise solutions in problem scenarios where instances have similar fitness landscapes.


Multi-criteria decision making Goal programming Pareto optimisation Multiobjective vehicle routing 


  1. 1.
    Giagkiozis, I., Fleming, P.: Methods for many-objective optimization: an analysis. Research Report No. 1030 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giagkiozis, I., Fleming, P.: Pareto front estimation for decision making. Evol. Comput. 22, 651–678 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feliot, P., Bect, J., Vazquez, E.: A Bayesian approach to constrained single- and multi-objective optimization. J. Glob. Optim. 67(1–2), 97–133 (2017). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Toth, P., Vigo, D.: The Vehicle Routing Problem. Monographs on Discrete Mathematics and Applications. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pinheiro, R.L., Landa-Silva, D., Atkin, J.: Analysis of objectives relationships in multiobjective problems using trade-off region maps. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO 2015, pp. 735–742. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pinheiro, R.L., Landa-Silva, D., Atkin, J.: A technique based on trade-off maps to visualise and analyse relationships between objectives in optimisation problems. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 24, 37–56 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pinheiro, R.L., Landa-Silva, D., Laesanklang, W., Constantino, A.A.: Using goal programming on estimated pareto fronts to solve multiobjective problems. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems - Volume 1: ICORES, INSTICC, pp. 132–143. SciTePress (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Castro-Gutierrez, J., Landa-Silva, D., Moreno, P.J.: Nature of real-world multi-objective vehicle routing with evolutionary algorithms. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), pp. 257–264 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Castro-Gutierrez, J., Landa-Silva, D., Moreno Perez, J.: Movrptw dataset (2015). Accessed 24 Apr 2018
  10. 10.
    Charnes, A., Cooper, W.: Goal programming and multiple objective optimizations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1, 39–54 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kornbluth, J.: A survey of goal programming. Omega 1, 193–205 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones, D., Tamiz, M.: A review of goal programming. In: Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., Figueira, J. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, pp. 903–926. Springer, New York (2016). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Romero, C.: Titles of related interest. In: Handbook of Critical Issues in Goal Programming. Pergamon, Amsterdam (1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tamiz, M., Jones, D.F., El-Darzi, E.: A review of goal programming and its applications. Ann. Oper. Res. 58, 39–53 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flavell, R.B.: A new goal programming formulation. Omega 4, 731–732 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones, D., Tamiz, M.: Goal programming variants. In: Practical Goal Programming, pp. 11–22. Springer, Boston (2010).
  17. 17.
    Tamiz, M., Mirrazavi, S., Jones, D.: Extensions of pareto efficiency analysis to integer goal programming. Omega 27, 179–188 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hannan, E.: Nondominance in goal programming. INFOR Inf. Syst. Oper. Res. 18, 300–309 (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baykasoglu, A.: Preemptive goal programming using simulated annealing. Eng. Optim. 37, 49–63 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mishra, S., Prakash, Tiwari, M.K., Lashkari, R.S.: A fuzzy goal-programming model of machine-tool selection and operation allocation problem in FMS: a quick converging simulated annealing-based approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 44, 43–76 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ghoseiri, K., Ghannadpour, S.F.: Multi-objective vehicle routing problem with time windows using goal programming and genetic algorithm. Appl. Soft Comput. 10, 1096–1107 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leung, S.C.H.: A non-linear goal programming model and solution method for the multi-objective trip distribution problem in transportation engineering. Optim. Eng. 8, 277–298 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Azaiez, M.N., Al Sharif, S.S.: A 0-1 goal programming model for nurse scheduling. Comput. Oper. Res. 32, 491–507 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Musa, A.A., Saxena, U.: Scheduling nurses using goal-programming techniques. IIE Trans. 16, 216–221 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Calvete, H.I., Galé, C., Oliveros, M.J., Sánchez-Valverde, B.: A goal programming approach to vehicle routing problems with soft time windows. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 177, 1720–1733 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6, 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang, Q., Li, H.: MOEA/D: a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 11, 712–731 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bräysy, O., Gendreau, M.: Vehicle routing problem with time windows, Part II: metaheuristics. Transp. Sci. 39, 119–139 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodrigo Lankaites Pinheiro
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Dario Landa-Silva
    • 2
  • Wasakorn Laesanklang
    • 3
  • Ademir Aparecido Constantino
    • 4
  1. 1.Webroster Ltd.PeterboroughUK
  2. 2.ASAP Research Group, School of Computer ScienceUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics, Faculty of ScienceMahidol UniversityNakhon PathomThailand
  4. 4.Departamento de InformáticaUniversidade Estadual de MaringáMaringáBrazil

Personalised recommendations