American Journal of Operational Research

p-ISSN: 2324-6537    e-ISSN: 2324-6545

2019;  9(1): 8-11

doi:10.5923/j.ajor.20190901.02

 

Improved Scalarizing Techniques for Solving Multi-objective Optimization Problems

Chandra Sen

Professor (Rtd.), Department of Agricultural Economics, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India

Correspondence to: Chandra Sen, Professor (Rtd.), Department of Agricultural Economics, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.

Email:

Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Scientific & Academic Publishing.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Abstract

Several scalarizing techniques are used for solving multi-objective optimization (MOO) problems. Most of these scalarizing techniques were found inefficient in obtaining an appropriate solution of MOO problems. The study proposed improved scalarizing techniques for solving multi-objective optimization (MOO) problems. The improved scalarizing techniques using mean, harmonic mean and geometric mean have been applied for solving two MOO problems and generated satisfactory solutions.

Keywords: Improved Scalarizing Technique, Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO), Mean, Harmonic Mean, Geometric Mean

Cite this paper: Chandra Sen, Improved Scalarizing Techniques for Solving Multi-objective Optimization Problems, American Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, 2019, pp. 8-11. doi: 10.5923/j.ajor.20190901.02.

1. Introduction

The scalarizing technique was first introduced in year 1983 [1] for solving MOO problems. The technique has been successfully used for resource use planning in agriculture for increasing farm income, increasing farm employment with lesser use of fertilizer, irrigation etc. [2] [3]..[10]. Several new averaging techniques [11] [12]… [27] using mean, harmonic mean and geometric mean have been proposed during last three decades. Most of these scalarizing techniques have been found inefficient in generating the acceptable MOO solutions [28] [29]. The improved scalarizing techniques are proposed for generating compromising and acceptable solutions of MOO problems.

2. Multi-Objective Optimization Problem

For optimizing ‘n’ objective functions with maximization of ‘r’ objective functions and minimization of remaining ‘n-r’ objective functions. The MOO problem is formulated as described below:
Optimize Z = [Max.Z1,Z2…….Zr, Min. Zr+1,……..Zn]
Where,
Subject To:
AX = b and X ≥ 0

2.1. Existing Scalarizing Techniques

There are many scalarizing techniques for solving MOO problems. The scalarizing techniques using mean, geometric mean and harmonic mean have been explained with an example. The multi-objective function is constructed by scalarizing each objective function by the mean, geometric and harmonic mean of optimal values of objective functions as described below:
Where,
│θ1= Mean, Geometric Mean and Harmonic Mean of optimal values of maximization objective functions.
│θ2│= Mean, Geometric Mean and Harmonic Mean of optimal values of Minimization Objective functions.
Note: The estimation of θ1 and θ2 is not logical when objective functions are of different dimensions.

2.2. Improved Scalarizing Techniques

The multi-objective function is constructed as explained below:
Where,
│C1│ = Mean, Harmonic mean (Hm) or Geometric mean (Gm) of Cj values of Maximization objective functions
│C2│ = Mean, Harmonic mean (Hm) or Geometric mean (Gm) of Cj values of Minimization objective functions
Note: The multi-objective function is free from the problem of multi dimensions aggregation.

3. Solving MOO Problem

Example
The following example for achieving four objective functions has been solved using both existing and improved scalarizing techniques.
Max. Z1 = 12500X1 + 25100X2 + 16700X3 + 23300X4 + 20200X5
Max. Z2 = 21X1 + 15X2 +13X3 + 17X4 + 11X5
Min. Z3 = 370X1 + 280X2 + 350X3 +270X4 + 240X5
Min. Z4 = 1930X1 + 1790X2 + 1520X3 + 1690X4 + 1720X5
Subject to:
All the objective functions have been optimized individually and the solution is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Individual Optimization
     
It is very clear that all the four individual optimizations are all different and conflicting to each other. The value of first objective function is 1, 05,750 which is highest among other values of same objective function. Similarly the value of second objective function is also highest and values of third and fourth objective functions are lowest as desired. This conflicting scenario necessitates the need for multi-objective optimization.
The mean, geometric mean and harmonic mean have been used for scalarizing the multi-objective function. The mean, geometric mean and harmonic mean have been estimated for both existing and improved techniques of scalarizing as given in Table 2.
Table 2. Mean, Geometric Mean and Harmonic Mean
     
The mean, geometric mean and harmonic mean of maximum values of objective functions Z1 and Z2 are 52921.25, 3127.59 and 184.83 respectively as given in Table 2. Similarly the mean, geometric mean and harmonic mean of minimum values of remaining objective functions 3 and 4 are 4145, 2875.89 and 1995.3 respectively for existing scalarizing techniques. On the other hand, for improved scalarizing techniques, the mean, geometric mean and harmonic mean have been estimated considering all the four (one optimal and three sub optimal) values of each objective function as mentioned in Table 2. The multi-objective function has been formulated by scalarizing the objective functions using mean, geometric mean and harmonic mean as explained in equations 2.1 and 2.2. The existing and improved scalarized multi-objective functions have been optimized and the results are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Multi-Objective Optimization
     
The Table 3 indicates that all the three scalarized multi-objective functions generated unique solution. These solutions are same as individual optimum of objective function Z1. The existing scalarizing techniques are unable to generate the compromising solution. However, the improved scalarizing techniques have optimized all the objective functions simultaneously. The value of each objective function is closer to its individual optimum as given in Table 1. The optimal solutions generated by improved scalarizing techniques are compromising and acceptable.

4. Conclusions

There are several scalarizing techniques used for solving MOO problems. The mean, geometric mean and harmonic mean have been frequently used for scalarizing the objective functions. The solutions of MOO problems generated using these techniques were not superior. However the improved scalarizing techniques using mean, harmonic mean and geometric mean are found superior and efficient in solving MOO problems for obtaining compromising solutions.

References

[1]  Sen, C. (1983). A new approach for multi-objective rural development planning. The Indian Economic Journal, 30(4), 91-96.
[2]  Gangwar, L. S. (1994). Technological Advancements and its Implications on Sustainable Agriculture- A Case Study of Nainital Tarai of Uttar Pradesh. PhD thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
[3]  Sen, Chandra, and P.P. Dubey (1994). Resource use planning in Agriculture with single and Multi-objective programming approaches (A comparative study). Journal of Scientific Research, 44, 75-81.
[4]  Kushwaha, S. and J.E. Ochi (1996). Economic Simulation to Alternative Resource Use for Sustainable Agriculture in Nigeria-Sen's MOP Approach. Journal of Scientific Research, Vol.46 (1), 105-114.
[5]  Singh, Vipin Kumar (2002). Agricultural Development and Environmental Pollution- A Case Study of District Varanasi. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
[6]  Sinha, Hanish Kumar (2002). Effect of Air Pollution on Peri-Urban Agriculture in Varanasi Ph.D. thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
[7]  Singh, P. K. (2005). Multilevel multi-objective planning for Agriculture for district Mau, U.P. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
[8]  Kumar, Hraday (2012). Economic Analysis of Fresh Water Aquaculture in Maharajganj district of Eastern Uttar Pradesh. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Agricultural Economics, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
[9]  Gautam, Kusumakar (2013). Natural and Human Resource Use Planning for Vindhyan Region of Eastern Uttar Pradesh, PhD thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
[10]  Kumari, Maina, O.P. Singh and Dinesh Chand Meena (2017). Optimizing Cropping Pattern in Eastern Uttar Pradesh Using Sen’s Multi-Objective Programming Approach, Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol. 30 (2), 285-291.
[11]  Sulaiman, N.A. and Hamadameen, Abdul-Qader O. (2008), Optimal Transformation Technique to Solve Multi-Objective Linear Programming Problem (MOLPP), Journal of Kirkuk University – Scientific Studies , Vol. 3 (2), 158-168.
[12]  Nejmaddin A. Suleiman and Abdul-Qader O. Hamadamin (2009). Solving Multi- Objective complementary programming problem (MOCPP) by using optimal average, Al-Rafidain Journal of computer Sciences & Matthematics, Vol.6 (3), 65-79.
[13]  Nejmaddin A. Suleiman, Maher A. Nawkhass (2013). Transforming and Solving Multi-objective Quadratic Fractional Programming Problems by Optimal Average of Maximin & Minimax Techniques, American Journal of Operational Research, 3(3), 92- 98.
[14]  Sulaiman, N. A. and Abdulrahim, B. K. (2013). Using Transformation Technique to Solve Multi-Objective Linear Fractional Programming Problem, International Journal of Research and Reviews in Applied Sciences, Vol.14 (3), 559-567.
[15]  Najmaddin A. Sulaiman, Basiya K. Abulrahim (2013). Arithmetic Average Transformation Technique to Solve Multi-Objective Quadratic Programming Problem, Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, 15(1), 57-69.
[16]  Nejmaddin A. Sulaiman, Gulnar W. Sadiq & Basiya K. Abdulrahim. (2014). New Arithmetic average technique to solve Multi-Objective Linear Fractional Programming: Problem and its comparison with other techniques, International Journal of Research and Reviews in Applied Sciences, Vol.18 (2), 122-131.
[17]  Nejmaddin A. Sulaiman, Rebaz B. Mustafa, (2016). Using harmonic mean to solve multi-objective linear programming problems, American Journal of Operations Research, 6, 25-30.
[18]  Nejmaddin A. Sulaiman, Ronak M. Abdullah and Snur O. Abdull (2016). Using Optimal Geometric Average Technique to Solve Extreme Point Multi-Objective Quadratic Programming Problems, Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, 18(3), 63-72.
[19]  Najmaddin, A. Sulaiman and Rebaz B. Mustafa (2016). Transform extreme point Multi-Objective Linear Programming problem to extreme point single objective Linear Programming Problem by Using Harmonic Mean, Applied Mathematics, Vol. 6(5) 95-99.
[20]  Nejmaddin A. Sulaiman, Maher A. Nawkhass (2016). Using standard division to solve Multi-Objective Quadratic fractional programming, Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, 18(3) 157-163.
[21]  Akhtar Huma, Modi Geeta and Duraphe Sushma, (2017), Transforming and Optimizing Multi-Objective Quadratic Fractional Programming Problem, International Journal of Statistics and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 2, (1) 01-05.
[22]  Samsun Nahar, Md. Abdul Alim (2017). A New Statistical Averaging Method to Solve Multi-Objective Linear Programming Problem, International Journal of Science and Research, Vol. 6(8), 623-629.
[23]  Akhtar, Huma, Geeta Modi and Sushma Duraphe (2017). An Appropriate Approach for Transforming and Optimizing Multi-Objective Quadratic Fractional Programming Problem, International Journal of Mathematics Trends and Technology, Vol. 50 (2), 80-83.
[24]  Maher A. Nawkhass, Hawkar Qasim Birdawod (2017). Transformed and Solving Multi-Objective Linear Programming Problems to Single-Objective by Using Correlation Technique, Cihan International Journal of Social Science Vol. 1, (1), 30-36.
[25]  Huma Akhtar and Geeta Modi (2017). An approach for solving Multi-Objective fractional programming problem and it’s comparison with other techniques, International Journal of Scientific and Innovative Mathematical Research, Vol. 5 (11), 1-5.
[26]  Samsun Nahar, Md. Abdul Alim (2017). A New Geometric Average Technique to Solve Multi-Objective Linear Fractional Programming Problem and Comparison with New Arithmetic Average Technique, IOSR Journal of Mathematics (IOSR-JM)Vol. 13, (3), 39-52.
[27]  Zahidul Islam Sohag, Md. Asadujjaman (2018). A Proposed New Average Method for Solving Multi-Objective Linear Programming Problem Using Various Kinds of Mean Techniques. Mathematics Letters, 4(2): 25-33.
[28]  Chandra Sen (2018). Multi Objective Optimization Techniques: Misconceptions and Clarifications, International Journal of Scientific and Innovative Mathematical Research Vol. 6, Issue 6, 29-33.
[29]  Chandra Sen (2018). Sen's Multi-Objective Programming Method and its Comparison with Other Techniques, American Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 8 (1): 10-13.