Multi-Objective Linear Programming

Part of the Applied Optimization book series (APOP, volume 29)


In Multi-Objective Linear Programming (MOLP) we are concerned with a continuum of alternatives demarcated by a finite number of linear constraints in a finite-dimensional space. Furthermore, there is a finite number of linear objective functions, and a single decision maker or a decision making body. First, we introduce some basic concepts such as efficient (non-dominated) solutions and the dominance cone, and we consider the geometric properties of the efficient set. Next, we discuss several classes of methods for solving the problem. Finally, concentrating on the ideal-point methods, we set the weights of the objective functions via pairwise-comparison methods in order to control the search of an appropriate compromise solution.


Objective Function Efficient Solution Dust Emission Compromise Solution Maximum Solution 
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.

References to Chapter 10

  1. 1.
    Benayoun, R., Montgolfier, J. de, Tergny, J., and Larichev, O., “Linear Programming with Multiple Objective Functions: STEP Method”. Mathematical Programming 1, 366–375, 1971.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chankong, V., and Haimes, Y.Y., “Multiobjective Decision Making”. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geoffrion, A.M., “Proper Efficiency and the Theory of Vector Maximization”. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 22, 618–630, 1968.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hwang, C.L., and Yoon, K., “Multiple Attribute Decision Making”. Springer, Berlin, 1981.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ignizio, J.P., “Goal Programming and Extensions”. Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1976.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kok, M., “Conflict Analysis via Multiple Objective Programming, with Experiences in Energy Planning”. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kok, M., and Lootsma, FA., “Pairwise-Comparison Methods in Multiple Objective Programming, with Applications in a Long-Term Energy-Planning Model”. European Journal of Operational Research 22, 44–55, 1985.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lewandowski, A., and Grauer, M., “The Reference Point Optimization Approach”. In M. Grauer, A. Lewandowski, and A.P. Wierzbicki (eds.), “Multiobjective and Stochastic Optimization”. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, 1982, pp. 353–376.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lootsma, FA., “Optimization with Multiple Objectives”. In M. Iri and K. Tanabe (eds.), “Mathematical Programming, Recent Developments and Applications”. KTK Scientific Publishers, Tokyo, 1989, pp. 333–364.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lootsma, F.A., “Fuzzy Logic for Planning and Decision Making”. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1997.MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lootsma, FA., Athan, T.W., and Papalambros, P.Y., “Controlling the Search for a Compromise Solution in Multi-Objective Optimization”. Engineering Optimization 25, 65–81, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osyczka, A., “Multicriterion Optimization in Engineering”. Wiley, New York, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rietveld, P., “Multiple Objective Decision Methods and Regional Planning”. Studies in Regional Science and Urban Economics 7, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steuer, R.E., “On Sampling the Efficient Set using Weighted Tchebycheff Metrics”. In M. Grauer, A. Lewandowski, and A.P. Wierzbicki (eds.), Multiobjective and Stochastic Optimization. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, 1982, pp. 335–352.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steuer, R.E., “Multiple Criteria Optimization Theory, Computation, and Application”. Wiley, New York, 1986.MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wierzbicki, A.P., “A Mathematical Basis for Satisficing Decision Making”. WP-80-90, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, 1980.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yu, P.L. and Zeleny, M., “The Set of All Nondominated Solutions in Linear Cases and a Multicriteria Simplex Method”. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 49, 430–468, 1975.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zeleny, M., “Multiple Criteria Decision Making”. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Personalised recommendations