Skip to main content

Reference Point Theory as a Solution for Multiobjective Utility

  • Chapter
  • 394 Accesses

Part of the book series: Nonconvex Optimization and Its Applications ((NOIA,volume 73))

Abstract

Distinction has to be made between the continuous and the discrete cases. All continuous cases will provide at least one solution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes Part 4 Chapter 1

  1. Efficiency in MOUT should not be confused with efficiency in cost-effectiveness analysis, where it means “with a minimum of costs” (see therefore: Part III, 2.2).

    Google Scholar 

  2. R. Benayoun, J. De Montgolfier, J. Tergny and O. Larichev, Linear Programming with Multiple Objective Functions: Step Method (STEM), Mathematical Programming, 1971 1, No3, 366–375. J.S.Dyer, Interactive Goal Programming, Management Science, 1972,19 No1, 62–70. A.P. Wierzbicki, Basic Properties of Scalarizing Functionals for Multiobjective Optimization, Mathematische Operationsforschung und Statistik — Series Optimization, 1977, vol. 8, No1, 55–60. A.P. Wierzbicki, The Use of Reference Objectives in Multiobjective Optimization, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 177,1980.Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 468–486. A.P. Wierzbicki, A Mathematical Basis for Satisficing Decision Making, Mathematical Modelling, vol. 3No 5, 1982, 391–405. R.E.Steuer, E.Choo, An interactive weighed Tcebycheff procedure for multiple objective programming, Mathematical Programming, 26, 1983, 326–344. H.Nakayama, Y.Sawaragi, Satisficing Trade-off Method for Multiobjective Programming, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 229, 1984, 114–122. R.E. Steuer, Interactive Multiple Objective Programming: Concepts, Current Status and Future Directions, International Conference on M.C.D.M.: Applications in Industry and Service, December 1989, AIT. Bangkok. R.E. Steuer, Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation and Application, Krieger Riblishing Cy, Malabar (Fl.-U.S.), 1989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. A.P. Wierzbicki, A Mathematical Basis for Satisficing Decision Making, op. cit. N.Aliituv, Y. Spector, Evaluating Information under two Criteria: Expected Payoff and Risk, Working Paper Nr 70/90,1990,I.I.B.R., Tel Aviv University, Israel,5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. R.E. Steuer, E. Choo, op.cit

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. A. Van Delft, P. Nijkamp, Multi-criteria Analysis and Regional Decision-making, M. Nijhoff, Leiden, Nl, 1977, 37–38.

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. Schlaifer., Probability and Statistics for Business Decisions, Mc Graw Hill, New York, 1959, 8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  7. H. Minkowsky, Geometrie der Zahlen, Teubner, Leipzig, 1896. H. Minkowsky, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Teubner, Leipzig,1911. D. Hilbert, Gesammelte Abhandlungen von Hermann Minkowski,1911, Teubner, Leipzig, reprinted by Chelsea publishing company, New York, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Some, however, will also call it goal programming if the Lexicographic Method is deternined as a function of the deviations of a goal. E.g., D. Giokas, M. Vassiloglou, A goal programming model for bank assets and liabilities management, European Journal of Operational Research, vol.50, No1, 1991, 48–60. Steuer develops a similar approach and calls it “preemptive goal programming”. R.E.Steuer, Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation and Application, Krieger, Malabar (Fla., U.S.), 1989,292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. M. Tamiz, D.F. Jones, Goal Programming and Pareto efficiency, Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences, vol. 17 No2, 1996, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. The notion of Proper Efficiency comes from M. Geoffrion, Proper Efficient and the Theory of Vector Maximization, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, Vol.22,1968,.618–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. K.J. Arrow, Social Choice and Individual Values, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2nd. edit., 1963 (first ed. Wiley, New York,1951).

    Google Scholar 

  12. C-L. Hwang, A.S. Masud, Multiple Objective Decision Making, Methods and Applications, Springer,, Lecture Notes in Mathematical Systems, Berlin, 1979, 6–7.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brauers, W.K. (2004). Reference Point Theory as a Solution for Multiobjective Utility. In: Optimization Methods for a Stakeholder Society. Nonconvex Optimization and Its Applications, vol 73. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9178-2_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9178-2_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-4824-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-9178-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics