Interactive Multi-Objective Programming and its Applications

  • H. Nakayama
Part of the CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 320)


Many practical problems often have several objectives conflicting with each other, and we need to make the balanced decision from the total view point. For these problems, the traditional mathematical programming is not valid, and instead the multi-objective programming have been developed. Among them, the aspiration level approach has been widely recognized to be effective in many practical fields.

In this paper, some of techniques based on aspiration levels are discussed along with a device for the automatic trade-off using parametric optimization techniques. Some practical examples show that the methods are user—friendly and ‘synayakana’ in Japanese (i.e., flexible and robust, in English) to the multiplicity of value judgement.


Decision Maker Aspiration Level Pareto Solution Multiobjective Programming Cable Tension 
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. Borde, J. and Crouzeix, J.P. (1987), Convergence of a Dinkelbach-type Algorithm in Generalized Fractional Programming, Zeitschrift fur Operations Research 31, 31–54.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Ferland, A. and Potvin, J. (1985), Generalized Fractional Programming: Algorithms and Numerical Experimentation, European J. Operational Research 20, 92–101.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Grauer, M., Lewandowski, A. and Wierzbicki A.P. (1984), DIDASS Theory, Implementation and Experiences, in M. Grauer and A.P. Wierzbicki (eds.) Interactive Decision Analysis, Proceedings of an International Workshop on Interactive Decision Analysis and Interpretative Computer Intelligence, Springer: 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ishido, K., Nakayama, H., Furukawa, K., Inoue, K. and Tanikawa, K. (1987). Management of Erection for Cable Stayed Bridge using Satisficing Trade-off method, in Y. Sawaragi, K. Inoue and H. Nakayama (eds.) Toward Interactive and Intelligent Decision Support Systems, Springer: 304–312.Google Scholar
  5. Kallio, M., Lewandowski, A. and Orchard-Hays, W. (1980), An Implementation of the Reference Point Approach of Multiobjective Optimization, WP-80–35, IIASAGoogle Scholar
  6. Kito, N. and Misumi, M. (1978), An Application of Goal Programming to Cement Production, Communications of the Operations Research Society of Japan 23, 177–181.Google Scholar
  7. Korhonen, P. and Wallenius, J. (1987). A Pareto Race, Working Paper F-180, Helsinki School of Economics, also Naval Research Logistics (1988)Google Scholar
  8. Korhonen, P. and Laakso, J.: Solving Generalized Goal Programming Problems using a Visual Interactive Approach, European J. of Opertional Res., 26, 355–363 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Nakayama, H. (1984), Proposal of Satisficing Trade-off Method for Multi- objective Programming, Transact. SICE, 20: 29–35Google Scholar
  10. Nakayama, H. and Sawaragi, Y. (1984). Satisficing Trade-off Method for Interactive Multiobjective Programming Methods, in M. Grauer and A.P. Wierzbicki (eds.) Interactive Decision Analysis, Proceedings of an International Workshop on Interactive Decision Analysis and Interpretative Computer Intelligence, Springer: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nakayama, H. (1985), On the Components in Interactive Multiobjective Programming Methods, in M. Grauer, M. Thompson and A.P. Wierzbicki (eds.) Plural Rationality and Interactive Decision Processes, Springer: 234–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nakayama, H. and Furukawa, K. (1985), Satisficing Trade-off Method with an Application to Multiobjective Structural Design, Large Scale Systems 8: 47–57.MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Nakayama, H., Nomura, J., Sawada, K. and Nakajima, R. (1986). An Application of Satisficing Trade—off Method to a Blending Problem of Industrial Materials, in G. Fandel et al. (Eds.), Large Scale Modelling and Interactive Decision Analysis. Springer, 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nakayama, H. (1988), Satisficing Trade—off Method for Problems with Multiple Linear Fractional Objectives and its Applications, presented at the International Conference on Multiobjective Problems in Mathematical Programming, Yalta/USSR, October 1988.Google Scholar
  15. Nakayama, H. (1989), An Interactive Support System for Bond Trading, in A. G. Lockett and G. Islei (eds.) Improving Decision Making in Organizations, Springer, 325–333Google Scholar
  16. Nakayama, H. (1990), Trade—off Analysis using Parametric Optimization Techniques, Research Report 90–1, Dept. Appl. Math., Konan UniversityGoogle Scholar
  17. Sawaragi, Y., Nakayama, H. and Tanino, T. (1985). Theory of Multiobje-ctive Optimization, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Steuer, R. E. (1986). Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation, and Application, WileyMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Ueno, N., Nakagawa, Y., Tokuyama, H., Nakayama, H. and Tamura, H., A Multi—objective Planning for String Selection in Steel Manufactureing, submitted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  20. Wierzbicki, A. P. (1981), A Mathematical Basis for Satisficing Decision Making, in J. Morse (ed.), Organizations: Multiple Agents with Multiple Criteria, Springer: 465–485.Google Scholar
  21. Wierzbicki, A. (1986), On the Completeness and Constructiveneess of Parametic, Characterization to Vector Optimization Problems. OR spectrum, 8: 73–87.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Nakayama
    • 1
  1. 1.Konan UniversityKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations