Citation
Multiplicative programming

Material Information

Title:
Multiplicative programming theory and algorithms
Creator:
Boger, George
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vii, 137 leaves : ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Algorithms ( jstor )
Approximation ( jstor )
Efficiency objectives ( jstor )
Heuristics ( jstor )
Linear programming ( jstor )
Mathematics ( jstor )
Objective functions ( jstor )
Optimal solutions ( jstor )
Polyhedrons ( jstor )
Polytopes ( jstor )
Decision and Information Sciences thesis, Ph. D ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Decision and Information Sciences -- UF ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1999.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 131-136).
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by George Boger.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
021549200 ( ALEPH )
43702775 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










MULTIPLICATIVE PROGRAMMING: THEORY AND ALGORITHMS


By

GEORGE BOGER













A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA




MULTIPLICATIVE PROGRAMMING: THEORY AND ALGORITHMS
By
GEORGE BOGER
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1999


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my entire supervisory committee Dr. Harold Benson, Dr.
Selcuk Erenguc, Dr. Asoo Vakharia, and Dr. Richard Francis for their time and helpful
feedback on my dissertation. I am especially grateful to my committee chairman, Dr.
Benson, for suggesting the topic of multiplicative programming problems and for his
tremendous assistance and unending support. Without his help, this dissertation would
not have been completed. I would also like to thank Mr. Erijang Sun for proving some
theoretical results needed to support my dissertation topic.
I am also grateful to the DIS department chairman, Dr. Erenguc, for providing an
assistantship and for allowing me to teach undergraduate courses during my time at the
University of Florida. The teaching experience was an enjoyable and rewarding
experience.
I would like to thank my family for their encouragement and emotional support. I
would also like to thank my colleagues in the Ph.D. program for their friendship and their
support.
Finally, I am in debt to my master's degree advisor, Dr. Frederick Buoni, at the
Florida Institute of Technology, for his guidance. He suggested multiple objective linear
programming as a topic for my thesis. While working on the thesis, I met Dr. Benson
during a visit to FIT to present a talk related to multiple objective linear programming.
ii


Dr. Benson agreed to serve on my master's degree committee and later recruited me for
the DIS Ph.D. program.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Eage
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. The Multiplicative Programming Problem 1
1.2. Reformulations of the Multiplicative Programming Problem 4
1.3. Purpose and Organization of the Dissertation 6
2 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON MULTIPLICATIVE
PROGRAMMING PROBLEMS 9
2.1. Organization of the Literature Review 9
2.2. Methods to Solve Problems (LMP2), (GLMP), and (CLMP) 13
2.2.1. Methods Based on Quadratic Programming 15
2.2.2. Methods Based on Searching the Outcome Set 17
2.2.3. Methods Based on Solving a Parametric Master Problem 22
2.2.4. Methods Based on Polyhedral Annexation 28
2.3. Extensions of Algorithms for Problem (LMP2) to Solve Problem
(LMP) when p g 3 32
2.4. Methods to Solve Problems (CMP), (GCMP) and (CCMP) 32
2.4.1. Methods Based on Solving a Reformulated Problem 33
2.4.2. A Method Based on Outer Approximation 37
2.5. Methods to Solve Problem (LMP) as a Concave Minimization
Problem 38
3 CONCAVE MULTIPLICATIVE PROGRAMMING PROBLEMS:
ANALYSIS AND AN EFFICIENT POINT SEARCH HEURISTIC
FOR THE LINEAR CASE 40
3.1. Introduction 40
3.2. Analysis 41
3.3. Efficient Point Search Heuristic 52
3.4. Computational Results 62
3.5. Discussion 69
iv


4 A GENERAL MULTIPLICATIVE PROGRAMMING PROBLEM IN
OUTCOME-SPACE 71
4.1. Introduction 71
4.2. Results for the General Case of Problem (Pyf) 73
4.3. Results for Convex and Polyhedral Cases of Problem (Pyi) 78
4.4. Discussion 96
5 AN OUTCOME-SPACE CUTTING-PLANE ALGORITHM FOR
LINEAR MULTIPLICATIVE PROGRAMMING 98
5.1. Introduction 98
5.2. Theoretical Prerequisites 100
5.3. Outcome-Space, Cutting-Plane Algorithm 104
5.3.1. Strict Local Optimal Solution Search 105
5.3.2. Cutting Plane Construction 107
5.3.3. Termination Test 109
5.3.4. Outcome-Space, Cutting-Plane Algorithm 110
5.4. Implementation 114
5.5. Example 119
5.6. Concluding Remarks 124
6 SUMMARY AND FUTURE RESEARCH 125
6.1. Introduction 125
6.2. Future Research on the Heuristic Algorithm 125
6.3. Future Research on an Global Solution Algorithms 127
REFERENCES 131
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 137
v


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
MULTIPLICATIVE PROGRAMMING: THEORY AND ALGORITHMS
By
George Boger
December 1999
Chairman: Harold P. Benson
Major Department: Decision and Information Sciences
Multiplicative programming problems are mathematical optimization problems in
which the objective function contains a product of several real valued functions defined
over a common domain and the feasible decisions are described by a nonempty set. These
optimization problems have some important applications in engineering, finance,
economics, and other fields. Multiplicative programming problems, however, are difficult
global optimization problems that are known to be NP-hard.
This dissertation has two purposes. The first is to develop and test a heuristic
algorithm that finds a good solution, though not necessarily a globally optimal solution,
for the linear multiplicative programming problem. The second purpose is to develop a
global solution algorithm for the linear multiplicative programming problem that is
potentially more efficient than existing algorithms for this problem.
vi


To evaluate the effectiveness in practice of the heuristic algorithm, we have
written a FORTRAN computer program and used it to solve 260 randomly generated
linear multiplicative programming problems of various sizes. Our experimental results
show that the computational requirements of the heuristic algorithm are not overly
burdensome when compared to the effort required to solve a linear multiplicative
programming problem.
The framework of the outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm is taken from a
pure cutting plane, decision set-based method developed by Horst and Tuy for solving
concave minimization problems. By adapting the approach of this method to an outcome-
space reformulation of the linear multiplicative programming problem, rather than
directly applying the method to the original decision set formulation, it is expected that
considerable computational savings can potentially be obtained. We also show how
additional computational benefits might be obtained by implementing the new algorithm
appropriately. To illustrate the new algorithm, we apply it to the solution of a sample
problem.
vii


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Multiplicative Programming Problem
Multiplicative programming problems are mathematical optimization problems in
which the objective function contains a product of several real valued functions defined
over a common domain and the feasible decisions are describe by a nonempty set. These
problems occur is a wide variety of application areas.
For example, Konno and Inori (1989) studied a bond portfolio optimization
problem in which the portfolios performance is measured by a number of indices such as
the average coupon rate, the average terminal yield, and the average length to maturity.
The goal of the portfolio manager is to improve the performance of the portfolio by
purchasing or selling bonds in the marketplace subject to some limiting constraints. The
manager must consider multiple incomparable objectives such as maximizing the average
terminal yield and minimizing the average maturity time. Konno and Inori choose to
optimize several objectives simultaneously by multiplying them together since the
objectives do not share a common scale.
Another example of a multiplicative programming problem, given in Maling,
Mueller and Heller (1982), is a packaging problem encountered in designing very large-
scale integrated circuit (VLSI) chips and laying out building floor plans or manufacturing
plant facilities. In the problem, the overall rectangular dimensions of the feasible layout
1


2
plans are constrained rather than fixed. Different layout plans with differing overall
rectangular dimensions are obtained according to how the components of a system are
arranged within each plan. The objective is to find the arrangement of components that
minimizes the overall layout area subject to certain constraints on the area and the
perimeter of the layout.
Henderson and Quandt (1971, p. 15) also give an application of multiplicative
programming problems. Their example is from microeconomics. In their example, a
rational consumer wishes to find a combination of two commodities to purchase from
which he will derive the highest possible level of satisfaction. Budgetary constraints and
the availability of the commodities limit the quantities the consumer may purchase. The
consumers level of satisfaction is captured by his utility function, which is assumed to be
the product of the quantities of the two commodities. The rational consumers problem is
then formulated as maximizing his utility function subject to the budgetary and
commodity availability constraints.
The multiplicative programming problem or, more briefly, the multiplicative
program, may be formulated mathematically as
where pg 2 is an integer, X c R", and,foreach j = 1,2,..., p, f¡:X > R satisfies
/;(x)s 0 for all xe X. For simplicity we will assume throughout this proposal that the
minimum of problem (Px) is achieved at some point x' e X. In addition we will assume
that p is significantly less than n since this holds for virtually all applications of


3
multiplicative programming problems. If f¡(x) = 0 for some je {l, 2,...,p} and some
x e X, then clearly x is a global optimal solution. This condition can be checked by
solving p minimization problems min \f] (x)|x si], j = 1,2,..., p. Therefore, we may
assume without loss of generality that, for each j = 1,2,..., p, f¡ (x)> 0 holds for all
xe X.
The objective function h of problem (Px) is generally not a convex function. As
a result, problem (Px) belongs to a class of nonconvex programming problems called
global optimization problems. In contrast to convex programming problems, there may be
many local minima for problem (Px) that are not globally optimal. Conventional local
optimization methods based on gradients, subgradients, conjugate directions, or the
Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions, for instance, are at best guaranteed only to find a local
minimum. These methods must then terminate, since there is neither a local criterion for
certifying the global optimality of a given solution nor a way to determine how to proceed
to a better solution if the solution is not globally optimal. From the perspective of
computational complexity, problem (Px) is a difficult problem that is known to be NP-
hard even when the objective function is simply h(x)= x, x2 and the feasible region X
is a polyhedron (Matsui 1996).
When in addition to the assumptions given previously for problem (Px), X is a
convex set and, for each j = 1, 2,.... p, f¡:X*R isa concave function, we obtain the
concave case of problem (Px), called the concave multiplicative programming problem.
The convex case of problem (Px), called the convex multiplicative programming


4
problem, is obtained when, in addition to the assumptions made previously for problem
(Px), X is a convex set and, for each j = 1,2,..., p, f¡-.X-*R is a convex function.
A special linear case of problem (Px), called the linear multiplicative programming
problem, is obtained when, in addition to the assumptions make previously for problem
(Px), X is a compact polyhedron and, for each j = 1,2,..., p, fr.X-^R is a linear
function (Konno and Kuno 1992).
1.2. Reformulations of the Multiplicative Programming Problem
During the 1990s there has been a resurgence of interest in problem (Px).
Encouraged by the rapid advances in high speed computing, researchers began developing
and testing new methods for solving global optimization problems that arise in practical
applications, including problem (Px).
Included among the global optimization methods used to solve problem (Px) for
the special case when p = 2 are various parametric simplex method-based algorithms
(e.g., Konno and Kuno 1992, Konno and Kuno 1995, Konno, Yajima, and Matsui 1991,
and Schaible and Sodini 1995), branch and bound procedures (e.g., Kuno 1996 and Muu
and Tam 1992), and various other types of algorithms (e.g., Konno and Kuno 1990,
Pardalos 1990, and Tuy and Tam 1992).
When p > 2, globally solving problem (Px) has been shown empirically to
require considerably more computational effort than when p = 2 (see, e.g., Ryoo and
Sahinidis 1996). A smaller number of the algorithms for solving problem (Px) when


5
p > 2 solve the problem directly without reformulating it as an outcome-space problem.
Included among these, for instance, is the polyhedral annexation algorithm of Tuy (1991).
Most of the algorithms for solving problem (Px) when p > 2, however, solve the
problem indirectly by globally solving an outcome-space reformulation of the problem
instead. This is because in practical applications p is routinely much smaller than n,
often by two or more orders of magnitude. As a result, working in /?'' is computationally
less challenging than working in if".
Let ye R1 denote the p-vector with yth entry equal to yjt j = 1,2,..., p. For
each j = 1,2,...,p, let y¡e R satisfy
y¡ ^sup f¡{x\ s.t.xe X,
where y. = + is possible, and let yeR denote the vector withyth entry equal to y
j = 1,2,..., p. Let f(x) denote the vector f(x)=[f¡(x\f2(x\...,fp(x)]T, where
fj.X-tR, j = 1,2,..., p, are the functions used in defining problem (Px). Thoai
(1991) and later Konno and Kuno (1995) based their outer approximation algorithms for
respectively solving the convex and linear cases of problem (Px) on one of the more
direct reformulations of problem (Px) as an outcome-space problem. Their reformulation
is given by
(PYi) min s-t.y Y-,
7=1
where
Ys = {ys R',|/(x)gygy for somex6 X ).


6
Falk and Palocsay (1994) based their branch and bound, image space algorithm
for the linear case of problem (Px) on another outcome-space reformulation that is
closely related to problem (Pyi). Their reformulation is given by
(Pr) nnj^y,, s.t. yeY,
where
Y = {ye Rp\y = Cx forsomexe X}
and C is a (pxn) matrix whose rows are cj, j = 1, 2,..., p.
1.3. Purpose and Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation has two main purposes. The first is to develop and test a heuristic
algorithm that finds a good solution, though not necessarily a globally optimal solution,
for the linear case of problem (Px). The second purpose is to develop an exact global
solution algorithm for the linear case of problem (Px) that is potentially more efficient
than existing algorithms for this problem.
Since the linear multiplicative programming problem is known to be an NP-hard,
multiextremal global optimization problem, it is inherently more difficult to globally
solve than a convex programming problem of the same size. In some application cases, a
solution will adequately meet the requirements of a user; see, e.g., Konno and Inori
(1989). In these cases, the use of a heuristic algorithm seems to be appropriate for finding
a satisfactory solution. To date, however, there is no known heuristic algorithm tailored to
finding a good solution for the linear multiplicative programming problem. In their
review of algorithms for solving problem (Px), Konno and Kuno (1995) do not mention


7
any heuristic algorithms for problem (Px), and our survey of the literature has revealed
none.
To develop the heuristic algorithm, we first analyze the concave multiplicative
programming problem. The analysis yields a new way to write a concave multiplicative
programming problem as a concave minimization problem. As a result, a concave
multiplicative programming problem can be solved by using any existing concave
minimization algorithm without resorting to a reformulation of the problem. We also
show that some relationships exist between concave multiplicative programming
problems and certain multiple-objective mathematical programs. These relationships are
exploited to develop the heuristic algorithm for the linear case of problem (Px).
For cases where a linear multiplicative program must be solved for an exact global
optimal solution, we expect that globally solving the outcome-space reformulation (PyS)
instead will result in a significant decrease in the computational effort over that required
to directly solve the problem. This is because in typical applications of linear
multiplicative programs, p is several orders of magnitude smaller than n. As a result,
working in Rp should be computationally less challenging than working in R".
To globally solve the outcome-space reformulation (PyS) of a linear multiplicative
program, we develop an outcome-space, pure cutting plane algorithm that works in Rp.
The framework for the algorithm is taken from a pure cutting plane, decision set-based
concave minimization method developed by Horst and Tuy (1993). We show how to
adapt this method to solving the reformulation (P,,) of a linear multiplicative program
for a global extreme point optimal solution. Once this global solution is found, we can


8
recover a globally optimal solution for the linear multiplicative program in decision
space. As a further computational enhancement, we also show that for purposes of
implementation, the mechanics of the outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm can be
applied to the smaller problem (Pr) instead of problem (Pyi).
The organization of the proposal is as follows. In Chapter 2 we present a review
of the literature on multiplicative programming problems. In Chapter 3 we analyze the
concave multiplicative programming problem, apply the results to develop a heuristic
algorithm for the linear multiplicative programming problem, and report test results using
the heuristic algorithm on some randomly-generated problems. In Chapter 4 we analyze
the reformulation problem (Pyi) and show that, under certain convexity assumptions on
Y-, problem (Pyi) has a global extreme point optimal solution y" e Y-. We then present
a procedure that is guaranteed to find a strict local optimal extreme point solution for the
reformulation problem (Pyi) of the linear multiplicative program. In Chapter 5 we
present an outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm for globally solving a linear
multiplicative program. The algorithm employs the strict local optimal search procedure
presented in Chapter 4. We also illustrate the algorithm by applying it to the solution of a
sample problem. Finally, in Chapter 6, we give an overall summary and conclusions, and
we discuss directions for further research.


CHAPTER 2
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON MULTIPLICATIVE PROGRAMMING
PROBLEMS
2.1. Organization of the Literature Review
In this chapter we present a review of the literature on methods proposed for
solving multiplicative programming problems. The only known literature review on
multiplicative programming problems appears in Konno and Kuno (1995). In their
literature review Konno and Kuno defined multiplicative programming problems as a
class of minimization problems containing a product of several convex functions either in
its objective function or in its constraints. They included problems in which the
objective function contained the summation of a convex function and the product of
convex functions.
Konno and Kuno (1995) organized their literature review based on whether the
problem data are linear or nonlinear and on the number of functions that appear in the
objective function. They considered solution methods for the following multiplicative
programming problems.
The first multiplicative programming problem considered by Konno and Kuno is
the special case of quadratic programming
(LMP2) min/(x) = (^c1,x^ + di)((Jc2,x^ + 2). s.t. xeD,
where D \= {xs Rn\Ax S b, x g o} is a non-empty polytope (bounded polyhedron) in
9


10
which A is an mxn matrix, be Rm, and, for each i = 1,2, c' e R \{0} and d¡e R. In
addition, it is assumed that, for each xe D, (c' ,x'j + di> 0, i = 1,2.
The second multiplicative programming problem that they considered is the
convex multiplicative programming problem
(CMP) min/(x) = ¡(x\ s.t.xs X,
M
where X c R" is a nonempty, compact, convex set and, for each j = 1,2,..., p,
fj-.R^R is a convex function that satisfies f¡(x)> 0 for all xe X.
Konno and Kuno (1995) considered two special cases of problem (CMP): (1) the
case where p = 2 and (2) the case where p S 2 and the problem data are linear. The
second case may be defined as the following extension of problem (LMP2):
(LMP) min f(x) = + s.t.xe D,
i=i
where p S 2 is an integer and, for each / = 1,2,..., p, (c',x'j + d¡ > 0 holds for all xe D.
Finally, Konno and Kuno (1995) considered three classes of problems related to
problem (CMP). In the first class is the following problem:
(GCMP) min/(x) = f0(x) + /2h¡{x)f2J(x), s.t.xe X,
where, for each j = 0,1 2q, fj :"->/< is a convex function that satisfies (x) > 0
for all xe X.
The second class is a special case of (GCMP) in which q = 1 and the problem
data are linear. This class may be defined as the following extension of problem (LMP2):


11
(GLMP) min/W = (c,A:) + ((c',^:} + ,)((c2,j:) + 2), s.t.xe D,
where c e Rn and c,dt, i = 1,2, and D are defined as in problem (LMP2).
The third class of problems considered by Konno and Kuno (1995) is the
minimization of a convex function over a feasible region that includes a product of
convex functions in its constraint set.
Konno and Kunos coverage of the literature is not exhaustive. They focused on
algorithms that have been demonstrated by computational experiments to be practical for
reasonably large problems (Konno and Kuno 1995, p. 370). Algorithms proposed by
Konno, Kuno, and their associates have been tested on randomly generated problems and
the results reported. However, computational results have not been reported by most of
the other researchers and therefore their methods were not included in the review.
Since the publication of the review by Konno and Kuno, two more multiplicative
programming problems have been discussed in the literature. The first problem adds a
convex function to the objective of problem (LMP2) to obtain the problem:
(CLMP) min/(x) = g(x)+(^c',^ + d,X(c2,^ + £i2), s.t.xeD,
where g : R" > R is a twice differentiable convex function and c,d¡, i = 1,2, and D
are defined as in problem (LMP2). The second problem adds a convex function to
problem (CMP) to obtain the problem:
(CCMP) min/(*) = /(*)+ft/,(*), s.t.xe X,
;'=i
where / : R" > R is a convex function that satisfies f0(x)> 0 for all xe X and
j = 1,2,..., p, and X are defined as in problem (CMP).


12
The emphasis of this review will be on optimization problems in which a product
of functions appears in the objective function. Optimization problems with objective
functions that are comprised of a summation of a function and the product of functions
are also included in the review. Methods proposed for solving these problems may be
adapted to solve a problem whose objective function is strictly a product of functions by
setting the added function to the null function. The functions that appear in the objective
function will be either convex or linear functions since to date these are the only
multiplicative programming problems to appear in the literature. In this review we will
not consider optimization problems in which a product of functions appears in the
constraint set.
Like the review of Konno and Kuno (1995), this literature review is organized
based on whether the problem data are linear or nonlinear and on the number of functions
that appear in the objective function. It is divided into the following four sections. Section
2.2 reviews the methods proposed to solve problems (LMP2), (GLMP), and (CLMP).
Section 2.3 reviews the methods to solve problem (LMP) that are extensions of methods
for problem (LMP2). Section 2.4 reviews the methods to solve problems (CMP),
(GCMP), and (CCMP). Section 2.5 reviews the methods to solve problem (LMP) as a
concave minimization problem.
The rationale for organizing the literature review in this way is as follows.
Historically, the first algorithms for solving multiplicative programming problems were
specifically proposed for solving problem (LMP2). Problems (GLMP) and (CLMP) are
grouped with problem (LMP2) since they were conceived as extensions of that problem.
Several of the algorithms proposed for solving problem (LMP2) can be extended to solve


13
the problem (LMP), since they do not depend upon having only two functions in the
product term of the objective function. Problems (LMP2), (LMP), (GLMP), and (CLMP)
contain linear functions and polyhedral feasible regions. Algorithms for solving these
problems are implemented with the aid of the simplex method, which is used to solve
linear programming subproblems. The problems (CMP), (GCMP), and (CCMP) contain
nonlinear data and must rely on other optimization methods to solve nonlinear convex
programming problems. The latter three problems are therefore placed in a separate
group. Problems (GCMP) and (CCMP) are included in the group with problem (CMP)
because only one article addresses each problem, and they were conceived as extensions
of problem (CMP). Finally, two articles appeared in the literature that proposed solving
problem (LMP) as a concave minimization problem using techniques that the authors had
previously developed.
Table 2.1 gives a summary of the multiplicative programming problems
considered in this literature review along with the assumptions placed on the feasible
region and the objective function of each problem.
2.2. Methods to Solve Problems (LMP2), (GLMP), and (CLMP)
The methods for solving problem (LMP2), (GLMP), and (CLMP) are further
divided into four categories. In the first category are those methods that analyze problem
(LMP2) as a special case of quadratic programming. In the second category are
algorithms that analyze problem (LMP2) by searching the outcome set. In the third
category are the algorithms that solve an easier parametric programming problem rather
than directly solving problems (LMP2), (GLMP), and (CLMP). In the last category are


Table 2.1. Summary of Multiplicative Program Types and Assumptions on Problems
Problem
Assumptions on the
Feasible Region
Objective Function
Assumptions on the Objective Function
LMP2
D is a bounded polyhedron.
((c1,jc) + i)((c2,x) + 2)
(c,x'j + dt >0, i = l,2, for all xeD.
GLMP
D is a bounded polyhedron.
(c,x) + ((c',x) + d<){(c\x) + d2)
(c,x^>0 and (c' ,xj + d¡>0, i = l,2,forall
16 D.
CLMP
D is a bounded polyhedron.
g(x)+{(c',x) + dll(c\x) + d2)
g : R" > R is a twice differentiable convex
function and (c, + d, >0, i = 1, 2, for all
xe D.
LMP
D is a bounded polyhedron.
1=1
(c ,x^) + d¡ >0, i = 1, 2,...,p, for all leD.
CMP
X is a compact convex set.
fi/,M
7=1
Foreach 7 = 1,2, f¡:R"-^>R isa
convex function that satisfies fj (x) > 0 for all
xe X.
GCMP
X is a compact convex set.
/oW+i/jy-iW/yW
7=1
Foreach 7 = 0,1, /j.:/?"/? isa
convex function that satisfies f¡(x)>0 for all
xe X.
CCMP
X is a compact convex set.
/w+rt/jW
7=1
Foreach 7 = 0,1, ...,p, isa
convex function that satisfies /j (x) > 0 for all
xe X.


15
two algorithms that solve problem (LMP2) based on the method of polyhedral
annexation.
2.2.1. Methods Based on Quadratic Programming
Since the objective function of problem (LMP2) can be expressed as
f(x) = {{c', xj + d,)((cJ, x) + di)= ^ xTQx + rTx + d,d2,
where re R", and Q is a real symmetric nxn matrix, problem (LMP2) is a special class
of quadratic programming. Swamp (1966a and 1966b) was the first researcher to analyze
problem (LMP2) in this way, but he did not propose any exact solution algorithms. His
two articles are included in the literature review for completeness. Pardalos (1990) also
analyzed problem (LMP2) in this way, and he proposed an exact global solution
algorithm.
Swamp (1966a) showed that if both linear functions (c ,xj + d¡,i = 1,2 are
positive over the feasible region D, the objective function / is quasiconcave over D, It
is well known that generally for any local minimizer of a quasiconcave function over a
polytope, there exists an extreme point local minimizer over the polytope that has the
same function value. Swamp proposed a simplex based method for finding such a local
optimal solution. The key to the algorithm is a test that determines if entering a given
nonbasic variable into the current simplex basis will lower the objective function value. A
simplex basis of a local optimal solution can be reached by beginning at any feasible
basis and moving through a sequence of simplex tableaux by pivoting in qualifying
nonbasic variables until none remain. Once a local optimal solution is found, the


16
algorithm stops. No information is available to either certify the global optimality of the
solution or to determine how to proceed to an improved solution.
In another work, Swarup (1966b) formulated the following parametric linear
program by introducing an auxiliary variable t, and moving one of the linear functions
into the constraint set:
(MP1) minF(x;i*) = (c',x') + d¡,
s.t. xe D,
(c\x) + d2=£, | SO.
Since (c2 ,xj + d2 appears in the constraint set, dual pricing information is
available to determine the value of (c' + d¡ as £ is set to achievable values of
(c2 ,x'j + d1 over D. Swarup derived a test that uses this information to determine when
q is set to a level that corresponds to a local optimal solution. All local optimal solutions
can then theoretically be found by parametrically solving problem (MP1) over all
achievable values of A global optimal solution x of problem (LMP2) can then be
found by identifying a global solution (x\ £') of problem (MP1).
Pardalos (1990) observed that if c' and c2 are linearly independent, then the
Hessian matrix Q of the objective function of problem (LMP2) has one positive
eigenvalue and one negative eigenvalue, and the remaining eigenvalues are equal to zero.
By applying the spectral decomposition theorem of linear algebra, the objective function
can be rewritten in terms of two variables. The problem can then be solved by examining
the vertices of an orthogonal projection of the feasible region D into a two-dimensional


17
polytope in the space of the two variables used in the rewritten objective function.
Pardalos (1990) proposed an algorithm that enumerates all vertices of the two-
dimensional polytope until an optimal vertex is found. The algorithm may require an
exponential number of steps, but its average computational time complexity is bounded
by a polynomial.
2.2.2. Methods Based on Searching the Outcome Set
The objective function of problem (LMP2) can be expressed as the composite
lp( each ye R2, i//(y) = y, y2 The mapping

y = (yp y2) where y,:= (c',x^ + d¡ andy2 .= (c2,x'j + d2. Since y, and y2 are linear
functions, (p is a linear transformation and hence the linear structure of D is preserved
(Rockafellar 1970). The image of D under (p is then the compact, convex polyhedron
Y := {ys /f 2|jy, = ^c',x^ + dpy, = (c2,x'j + d2 for some xe d\
called the outcome polyhedron. A global optimal solution of problem (LMP2) can be
found by finding a point of Y that globally minimizes the product y, y2. Since the
search is conducted in Y c R2 rather than R", it may be possible to economize on the
computational effort required to solve problem (LMP2).
Three articles, Aneja, Aggarwal, and Nair (1984), Falk and Palocsay (1994), and
Thoai (1991) proposed algorithms for solving problem (LMP2) based on searching the
outcome set using outer approximation techniques. Outer approximation is a global
optimization technique that uses a decreasing sequence of simple sets to approximate the


18
feasible region. The approximations are used in a series of optimization problems that are
easier to solve than the original problem. These optimization problems are sequentially
solved until a global optimal solution to the original problem is found. The technique has
been very useful in solving global optimization problems in which the feasible region Z
is a polytope and the global optimal solution is known to be an extreme point of Z. In
this form of outer approximation, the algorithm begins by finding a simple polytope
P0 3 Z with an easily defined inequality representation and an easily calculated set of
vertices. A series of algorithmic iterations follows that builds a sequence of decreasing
polytopes P0 r> T¡ z> z> Z in which one polytope is generated in each iteration. In an
iteration k of the algorithm, the original objective function is evaluated at the extreme
points of Pk to find an optimal solution v. If v* is an extreme point of Z, then v* is a
global optimal solution to the original problem. Otherwise, a portion of Pk \ Z is cut off
to form The point v* is part of the region cut off; i.e., v is not included in the
polytope The cut is made by adding a constraint called a cutting plane constraint to
the constraint set that defines Pk. The cutting plane constraint adds additional vertices to
PM that were not present in Pt and therefore they must be calculated.
Aneja, Aggarwal, and Nair (1984) proposed an algorithm that examines the
solutions associated with the bicriterion programming problem:
(BCP) VMIN (y, = (c', x) + d,, y2 = (c\x) + d2),
s. t. xe D.


19
The intent of problem (BCP) is to simultaneously minimize the two criterion
functions y, and y2. Conflicts usually exist between the two criterion functions that
prevent a single point of D from simultaneously minimizing both functions. The usual
notion of an optimal solution used in single objective linear programming is replaced by
the concept of efficient solutions when discussing the solutions of problem (BCP). A
solution x is an efficient solution of problem (BCP) if i 6 D and, whenever for each
i = l,2, (c ,x^ + dii{c ,x^j + d. for some re O, then (c1, x'j + d¡ = (c1, x^j + di, ¡' = 1,2.
The set of efficient points of D is mapped by (p into a set of points on the surface of Y
called the efficient frontier.
Aneja, Aggarwal, and Nair (1984) showed that a global optimal solution of
problem (LMP2) is attained at an efficient extreme point x of D that is mapped by (p
into an extreme point (y, y2) >n the efficient frontier of Y. Their algorithm searches the
efficient frontier for an extreme point that minimizes y,-y2 by using a modified outer
approximation technique. Initially the legs of a right-angle triangle form the first
approximation of the efficient frontier. The rise and the run values of the slope of the
hypotenuse are two positive scalar values. The functions y, =(c' ,x^ + dt and
y2 =(c2,x'j + d2 are multiplied by these values and then summed to form a single linear
objective function. This objective function is then minimized over the feasible region D.
It is well known that the minimizer Jc of such a linear program is an efficient extreme
point of D (Steuer 1986). The solution to the linear program finds another point (y,, y2)
on the efficient frontier that is used to subdivide the initial triangle into two triangles. The


20
algorithm is then repeated using each of the smaller triangles. The algorithm terminates
when there are no more extreme points of the efficient frontier that need to be searched.
In the algorithm of Aneja, Aggarwal, and Nair (1984), a new vertex must be
calculated for each triangle. This is easily done by solving two systems of two equations
in the unknowns y, and y2. This special technique however, can not be easily extended
to handle cases where p > 2.
Falk and Palocsay (1994) also proposed a solution algorithm that searches among
the extreme points of Y using a modified outer approximation technique. In the first
phase of the algorithm, the two linear programs
/, = min^c'.x^ + d, and l2 = m'm(c2, xj + d2
are solved for optimal solutions x' and x2 respectively. Two initial vertices y1 and y2
of Y are then
y' = [(cl,x') + dv(c2,x') + d2) and y2 = {(c',x2) + d (c2,x2) + d2).
An initial polytope in outcome-space containing an optimal solution for the problem
(YP) min fj y,
^ ¡i 1
is y, S /, and y2 2; l2 and an inequality a¡y, + a2y2 S1, where a, and a2 are determined
such that a,y, + a2y2 = 1 passes through the point
yk = argmin {y'|(y¡, yj), (yy22)}
In each iteration of the algorithm, values for a, and a2 are updated and a linear program
of the form


21
(YLP) min a.y, + a1y1
yeY
is solved to remove portions of the initial polytope from the search for an optimal
solution for problem (YP). The new vertices generated at each iteration are easily
calculated since the isovalue contours of problem (YLP) are linear. The algorithm
terminates when the optimal value of problem (YLP) is one.
The algorithm proposed by Thoai (1991) for solving problem (LMP2) uses an
outer approximation technique that begins by enclosing the outcome set Y in a rectangle
Pa. In an iteration k of the algorithm, the extreme point (v,,v2) of the outer
approximation that yields the lowest value of the product y, y2 is found. A linear
program is then used to determine if the extreme point (v,,v2) maps to a feasible point x
of D. If not, information is obtained from the linear program to generate a cutting plane
constraint that slices off the extreme point (v,,v2) from the polytope Pk. The new
vertices generated by the cut are then calculated using a conventional approach (see
Horst, Pardalos, and Thoai 1995 or Horst and Tuy 1993). Since the method of
determining these new vertices is not dependent on the fact that the dimension of the
outcome set is two, Thoais algorithm can be extended to handle cases where p> 2.
In the algorithms of Aneja, Aggarwal, and Nair (1984) and Thoai (1991), the only
variations in the linear programs used in successive iterations involve changes in
objective function coefficients. The authors gain some computational efficiency by
restarting the simplex method at the optimal solution of the previous iteration. Only a few
simplex pivots are then generally needed to produce a new optimal solution.


22
2.2.3. Methods Based on Solving a Parametric Master Problem
The difficulty in solving problem (LMP2) is caused by the product form of the
objective function. Konno and Kuno (1992) added a parameter £ and formed the
following problem that they called the master problem:
(MP2) min F{x\!;) = |((c1,x) + rf,)+ j((c2,xj + d2),
s.t. xe D, £ >0.
Notice that for a fixed value of problem (MP2) is a linear programming
problem. To solve problem (MP2), Konno and Kuno proposed using a parametric
objective function simplex method to the find critical values of at which new bases
become optimal. The values of the objective function F are then evaluated at these
bases. A global optimal solution (r*, £*) of problem (MP2) is found by choosing the
basis that minimizes F over these values. Konno and Kuno (1992) showed that if
(je*, j') is an optimal solution of problem (MP2), then x is a global optimal solution of
problem (LMP2).
Konno and Kuno tested this algorithm on randomly generated problems (LMP2)
with nonnegative problem data that ranged in size from (m, n) = (30, 50) to (220, 200).
Their computational experiments showed that the amount of computational time needed
to solve problem (LMP2) is not much different from that required to solve linear
programs of the same size.
In Konno and Kuno (1995) the authors slightly simplified the above parametric
method by redefining the auxiliary parameter so that convex combinations of the two
linear functions are used in the objective function of problem (MP2). This modification


23
makes it easier to find critical parameter values, since the interval [O, l] over which the
auxiliary parameter ranges is bounded. The rest of the method remained the same.
Although Konno and Kuno (1992) did not explicitly say it, their algorithm can be
viewed as searching the efficient extreme points of problem (BCP) for one that is a global
optimal solution of problem (LMP2). Notice that for a sufficiently small value an
extreme point optimal solution (x, §') to problem (MP2) coincides with an optimal
solution x of the linear program nn{lc2,x'j + dj¡xe d\ Similarly, for a sufficiently
large value J", an extreme point optimal solution (x", £') coincides with an optimal
solution x" of the linear program min{^c',j^ + d,|jce £>} For any fixed value |>0,the
objective function f(x,|J is a composite objective function formed by multiplying the
two linear functions by positive values and summing the result. It is well known that any
extreme point minimizer of such a composite objective function over the feasible region
D is an efficient extreme point of the problem (BCP) (Steuer 1986). The efficient
extreme points of problem (BCP) are found by solving linear programs for parameter
values between and As Aneja, Aggarwal, and Nair (1984) have shown, the global
solution lies at an efficient extreme point of D in problem (BCP).
A disadvantage of the algorithm of Konno and Kuno is that it may require many
pivots to solve problem (MP2) for all possible parameter values. This will especially be
true if there is a great conflict between the two linear functions of the objective function.
If for example c2 = -c,, then every extreme point of D is an efficient extreme point of
problem (BCP). Since the size of the set of extreme points of the polytope D grows


24
exponentially with D, the number of optimal solutions to problem (MP2) over the entire
range of parameter values grows exponentially with D and is not bounded by a
polynomial. Konno and Kuno in fact observed that the computational time increased as
the number of local minima increased. An additional disadvantage of the Konno and
Kuno algorithm is that many of the pivots performed will be unnecessary when they are
to bases that do not improve on a previously found solution.
In another paper, Konno and Kuno (1990) added a convex function to the
objective function of problem (LMP2) to obtain the problem (CLMP). With this addition,
the objective function may no longer be quasiconcave and therefore, the global minimum
may not necessarily be attained at an extreme point of the feasible region D.
To solve problem (CLMP), Konno and Kuno (1990) proposed an algorithm that
solves a parametric master problem which, for a fixed parameter value, is a nonlinear
convex programming problem. The algorithm involves solving this master problem a
finite number of times, once for each of a finite number of prechosen values for the
parameter. A troublesome aspect of the algorithm is that it is difficult to determine the
proper parameter values to choose. The authors suggested choosing values for the
parameter that are equally spaced in the interval of possible parameter values and solving
the resulting master problems to determine a neighborhood containing a globally optimal
solution to problem (CLMP). A local search is then done in that neighborhood for a
globally optimal solution using the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions. Care must be taken
however, to attempt to define the spacing between the points to be small enough so that a
global optimal solution is not missed.


25
The difficulty that Konno and Kuno (1990) encountered in their method in
determining parameter values can be eliminated if we assume that the convex function g
in the objective function of problem (CLMP) is a linear function. Problem (GLMP) is
obtained by making this replacement. Konno, Yajima, and Matsui (1991) considered
problem (GLMP), but they assumed that d, and d2 are zero. To solve problem (GLMP),
Konno, Yajima, and Matsui formulated the master problem
(MP3) min F(x\^) = {c ,3cj+^[c2 ,x^,
s.t. xe D,
(*'.*)=. no.
Notice that the parameter ^ appears in both the objective function and in a right-hand
side of a constraint.
Konno, Yajima, and Matsui (1991) showed that x' is a global solution of problem
(GLMP) if (x,£) is an optimal solution of problem (MP3). Schaible and Sodini (1995)
used problem (MP3) to show that a global optimal solution of problem (GLMP) lies on
an edge of D.
Konno, Yajima, and Matsui (1991) proposed a parametric simplex algorithm that
includes a right-hand side analysis and an objective function analysis to determine
intervals of parameter values for which bases remain both feasible and optimal. The
parametric analysis sweeps through parameter values from = minj^c1, x)\x e Dj to
=max^c',x)|Are d\ The objective function F is then minimized over each of the
intervals.


26
Konno, Yajima, and Matsui (1991) tested their algorithm on randomly generated
problems of up to 350 constraints and 300 variables. They found that the problems can be
solved in much the same computational time as that of solving linear programs of equal
size.
The algorithm of Konno, Yajima, and Matsui (1991) suffers from the same
disadvantages as the algorithm of Konno and Kuno (1992). In particular, its efficiency
depends on the number of pivots performed to solve problem (MP3) for all possible
parameter values. Also many of the pivots performed will be unnecessary when they yield
bases that do not improve on a previously found solution.
Schaible and Sodini (1995) improved the algorithm of Konno, Yajima, and
Matsui (1991). From a given simplex tableau for problem (MP3), Schaible and Sodini
used parametric analysis to derive a formula that calculates the value of the objective
function F as the constraint (c',xj = X is set to increasing values of As X increases,
parametric right-hand-side analysis calculates new values for the basic variables. Schaible
and Sodini then derived some optimality conditions that detect when the parameter X is
set to a value such that from an optimal solution (x X) of problem (MP3), one obtains a
local minimum x of problem (GLMP). By applying these optimality conditions,
Schaible and Sodini were able to develop a simplex-based algorithm that solves problem
(MP3) in a finite number of primal and/or dual simplex iterations.
The algorithm proposed by Schaible and Sodini (1995) has three advantages over
the algorithm of Konno, Yajima, and Matsui (1991): (1) It may terminate before the
maximum possible parameter value ;max has been reached. (2) It is more efficient in that


27
it may skip over local optimal solutions that do not improve the objective function value.
(3) It can be used even when the feasible region is unbounded, and it can detect when
problem (GLMP) is unbounded from below.
Muu and Tam (1992) also considered problem (CLMP), but in their work, the
feasible region D is relaxed to a compact convex set. They seem to be the only
researchers to have considered this generalization of problem (CLMP). The authors
however tested their algorithm using a polytope for the feasible region.
Muu and Tam (1992) formulated the parametric master problem
(MP3') min F(x\£) = g(x)+^][c:'1 ,xSj + d2 j,
s.t. xe D,
(c',x^ + d¡ = £, ? SO.
They proposed a branch and bound algorithm to solve problem (MP3'). Branch and
bound is a technique commonly used by algorithms in global optimization. Branching
refers to the successive partitioning of the feasible region and bounding refers to the
computation of lower and upper bounds on the global optimum over the partitions.
Partitions of the feasible region that produce a lower bound on the objective function that
exceeds the best upper bound found so far by the algorithm are eliminated from further
consideration. Such partitions are said to be fathomed. A branch and bound algorithm
terminates when all of the partitions have been fathomed.
In the algorithm of Muu and Tam (1992), partitions of the feasible region are
constructed by restricting the value of (c' ,x'j + d¡ to values within an interval. The
algorithm begins by finding an interval / := [^,, £2 ] of achievable values of ^c1, x'j + d¡


28
by solving the two convex programs := min {^c1, xj + d\x e d\ and
£2 := max {^c1 ,x) + di\xe d\. Optimal solutions u and v are then obtained for the two
convex programs
P(&):= min \c2,x) + d^+ g-(-c)|j:e D, £, + = 1,2.
A lower bound /}(/) over the interval /0 of the objective function F of problem
(MP3') is found by selecting P(/):= min {j8(£,), /)(§2)}. An upper bound a0 on F is
obtained by selecting a0 :=min {/(), /(v0)}. The interval /0 is next bisected and the
procedure repeated using the two subintervals. A subinterval that produces a lower bound
that exceeds the current upper bound is eliminated from further consideration; i.e. that
subinterval is considered to be fathomed. The procedure continues bisecting intervals Ik
to generating a sequence of solutions {** Jl, that converge to a limit point x" that is a
global optimal solution. Computational experiments on problems up to (m, n) = (30, 200)
showed that the algorithm is very efficient when both vectors c and d are positive.
2.2.4. Methods Based on Polyhedral Annexation
A limitation of conventional optimization methods is that they can become
trapped at a local minimum, or even a stationary point, if they are applied to a global
optimization problem, e.g. see the algorithms proposed by Swarup (1966a, 1966b). The
central problem of a global optimization method then is to overcome this limitation by
providing a certification test for global optimality, and if a point is not globally optimal,
determining how to move to a better solution. Tuy (1991) called this the subproblem of


29
transcending the incumbent where the incumbent is the best feasible solution found so
far by an algorithm.
Let / be the objective function for problem (LMP2), and let x be a vertex of D
that represents the incumbent solution for this problem. Then, from Tuy (1991), to
transcend the incumbent, one must find a point in x e D such that f(x) < f(x) or else
establish that no such point exists, i.e. that x is a global optimal solution for problem
(LMP2).
Let G := {x e £|/(x) /(?)}, where £2 is a convex set containing D. The
problem of transcending the incumbent can then be restated as the following problem.
(GCP) Check if DczG and if not, find a point xe D\G.
Problem (GCP) is known as the Geometric Complementary Problem.
Tuy (1990) developed the method of polyhedral annexation to solve problem
(GCP). In polyhedral annexation a sequence of polytopes P¡ c P2 by adding a vertex to the polytope Pk_t of the previous iteration in such a way that a
vertex of D is annexed into the new polytope Pk. The sequence P, nD, P2n D,... forms
an expanding inner approximation of D. When a polytope Ph 2 D is found, all of the
extreme points of D have been searched and the algorithm terminates. Associated with
the sequence of polytopes P, cP, c-cP, c is the sequence of their polars
P¡ z> P2 z> z> Pk z> where a polar £* of a convex set E in R" is defined as
E' := {y s R|(y,x) lfor allxe £j\ A dual correspondence exists between the facets of
a polytope Pk and the vertices of its polar Pk The subproblem of determining the


30
inequality representation of Pk, after a new vertex has been added can then be solved by
solving the easier problem of computing the vertices of Pk The termination condition
Ph 2 D has the corresponding condition Pk c D*. For a more detailed description of
polyhedral annexation, see the chapters on inner approximation in Horst, Pardalos, and
Thoai (1995) or in Horst and Tuy (1993).
Tuy and Tam (1992) proposed two algorithms that are derived using the
polyhedral annexation method with a dualization and dimension reduction technique
developed by Tuy (1991). Dualization refers to solving the original problem by solving
the dual problem of generating a sequence of polars until a polar Pk c D' is found. The
key to the dimension reduction technique is the introduction of a cone into problem
(GCP). Tuy and Tam (1992) assumed that c1 and c2 are linearly independent vectors and
then formed the cone K := [re R"|^c\a^ SO, f = 1, 2}. Cone K is of interest since if
Te D is an incumbent solution, then, for any xe (x + K), /(i)S f(x). In other words,
cone K identifies points in R" that can do no better than the incumbent solution 3c.
Computational effort might be saved using cone K since a part of the feasible region D
can be eliminated from further consideration and the search narrowed to the remaining
portion of D.
The first algorithm proposed by Tuy and Tam (1992) solves problem (LMP2) by
solving problem (GCP) through the dualization process of generating a sequence of
polars until a polar Pt c D" is found. Tuy and Tam (1992) showed that the polar K of
cone K is explicitly given as K' = {ye Rn\y = -t{c' f2c2 for some tl S 0, f, S o}. Any


31
vertex y in a polar P¡ lies in the polar cone K', and the multipliers r, and f2 used to
express y are unique, since c1 and c2 are linearly independent vectors. Polar cone K' is
used to solve the dual problem by building a collapsing sequence of polars
P' dP¡ D'OP,' z> with each polar being an improved approximation of D'. The
search is conducted in the two-dimensional space generated by c1 and c2 rather than in
the original -dimensional space. Solving the linear program
(LP(f)) max {-¡¡(c1 ,x'j-t2(c2,x^|jce D j,
where t, and f2 are the multipliers used to express some vertex x = -f,c' -r2c2 of P'h,
tests for the termination condition P'k c D.
The second algorithm proposed by Tuy and Tam (1992) is motivated by the
observation that for a fixed value of t = (t,, i2), problem (LP(r)) is equivalent to the linear
program
(LP(a)) max {(-c1 -a(c2-c',x^|xs £>}
where a = i2/(<2 + h )e [0, l] The first algorithm thus reduces to solving a sequence of
linear programs (LP(a)) for different values of the parameter a. The second algorithm
proposed by Tuy and Tam (1992) is to parametrically solve problem (LP(a)) for all of
the critical values of a at which new bases become optimal. The objective function/of
problem (LMP2) is evaluated at each basis and a global optimal solution chosen from
those bases. The second algorithm of Tuy and Tam (1992) is essentially the same
parametric problem (MP2) used by Konno and Kuno (1992).


32
Tuy and Tam (1992) ran computational experiments using both the first
polyhedral annexation algorithm and the second parametric algorithm. Their results
showed that for solving problem (LMP2), the parametric algorithm performed better than
the polyhedral annexation algorithm. The polyhedral annexation algorithm is not as
efficient because more simplex pivots were required than for the parametric algorithm.
Tuy and Tam (1992) proposed an improved variant of the polyhedral annexation
algorithm that reduces the number of pivots and the number of objective function
evaluations. The authors observed that the improved algorithm may potentially be more
useful for a problem with an objective function that is difficult to evaluate. The
computational experiments run using the parametric algorithm on problems of up to (m,
n) = (30, 200) and positive problem data were in line with the results reported in Konno
and Kuno (1992).
2.3. Extensions of Algorithms for Problem (LMP2) to Solve Problem (LMP)
when p S 3
The polyhedral annexation method of Tuy and Tam (1992) and the outcome-space
algorithms of Thoai (1991) and Falk and Palocsay (1994) can be extended to the more
general problem (LMP) where p g 3. Although the algorithms remain unchanged, the
subproblem of determining the new vertices becomes more difficult as the number of
function terms in the objective function increases.
2.4. Methods to Solve Problems (CMP), (GCMP), and (CCMP)
Relatively little work has been done in designing exact global solution algorithms
that address problems (CMP), (GCMP), and (CCMP). The algorithms that have been


33
proposed fall into two categories: (1) methods based on solving a reformulated problem
and (2) a method based on outer approximation.
2.4.1. Methods Based on Solving a Reformulated Problem
Konno and Kuno (1992) introduced problem (CMP) where p = 2 and formulated
a master problem by introducing a parameter into the original problem to separate the two
functions of the objective function into a summation. This technique of embedding the
original problem into a problem in a higher dimensional space is similar to the one used
by the authors in the same paper to solve problem (LMP2). At the time, Konno and Kuno
were not able to give an algorithm for solving the master problem. In Kuno and Konno
(1991) the authors proposed a branch and bound algorithm along with an underestimation
function to solve it. Computational results for problems of up to (m, n) = (200, 180)
indicated that the algorithm is efficient when the objective function is the product of a
linear function and a quadratic function and the feasible region is a polytope.
Kuno, Yajima, and Konno (1993) extended the paramaterization technique of
Kuno and Konno (1991) for problem (CMP) to handle cases where p S 2. They showed
that a global optimal solution to problem (CMP) can be obtained by solving the
equivalent problem
(MP4)
where
£e Rp R* 1, Si 0 >. For a fixed £ e E let x ( solution of min
G(x;£ )= ly/yOc). Let h : E -> R be defined by h{^)~ for


34
any £ e E. Solving problem (MP4) then reduces to solving the problem in Rp given by
(MP4') min
5<¡=
Kuno, Yajima, and Konno (1993) showed that h is a concave function over S and
therefore a global optimal solution of problem (MP4') exists on the boundary of 5 They
proposed an outer approximation method for solving problem (MP4') and tested their
algorithm against two subclasses of problem (CMP): (1) problem (LMP) and (2)
problems similar those tested in Kuno and Konno (1991) in which the objective function
is the product of a linear and a quadratic function and the constraints are linear
inequalities. Computational experiments showed that the total computational time is
dominated by that needed for solving the convex minimization master problems for each
parameter value. The results also showed that the number of cuts and vertices generated
increases rapidly as p increased from 2 to 5. The authors asserted that this was due to
inefficiencies in computing new vertices, especially when p exceeds 5. However, if p is
held constant, these numbers increased very slowly as the number of constraints and
variables increased. The authors concluded that their algorithm is reasonably efficient
when p is less than 4.
Jaumard, Meyer, and Tuy (1997) added a convex function to the objective
function of problem (CMP) to form problem (CCMP). The authors showed that problem
(CCMP) can be reduced to a quasiconcave minimization problem in R'} that is a
generalization of problem (MP4') used by Kuno, Yajima, and Konno (1993). In the
special case where /0 = 0 in problem (CCMP), the reduced quasiconcave minimization
problem in Jaumard, Meyer, and Tuy (1997) can be shown to be equivalent to the one


35
used by Kuno, Yajima, and Konno (1993). Jaumard, Meyer, and Tuy (1997) find a global
solution of problem (CCMP) by finding an optimal solution to the quasiconcave
minimization problem in Rp using a conical branch and bound method. They ran
computational experiments using their algorithm on test problems similar to those used
by Kuno, Yajima, and Konno (1993) and Thoai (1991). The authors report that their
results are very sensitive to the magnitude of p and not as sensitive to the size (m, n) of
the constraint matrix.
Sniedovich and Findlay (1995) analyzed problem (CMP) from the perspective of
c-programming but did not give a complete algorithm for solving it. C-programming is a
technique developed by Sniedovich (1984) for solving an optimization problem of the
form
(CP) q:=mmy/{(p(x)),
where X is some nonempty set, (p is a mapping on X with values in Rp, and y/ is a
differentiable and pseudo-concave function on some open set containing the set
(p(X): = [ transform the original optimization problem into the parametric programming problem
(MP5) ?(£).- min£, Sniedovich showed that if x* is a globally optimal solution for problem (CP), then an
optimal solution for problem (MP5) is t;' = V y/( of ip.


36
For problem (CMP), the objective function can be expressed as the composite
of two functions, where, for each x s R", each yeRr, yz(y)= f~[ 1>¡- Sniedovich and Findlay claimed without proof that i// isa
i=i
differentiable and pseudo-concave function on the open convex set e R > o}. Since
problem (CMP) satisfies the requirements of c-programming, it can be solved by solving
the parametric problem
(MP 5') where S is any subset of Rr such that Vl//(ip(x))e H for all xe X. In problem (MP5'),
the parameter ^ appears only in the objective function, whereas in problem (MP4) the
parameter £ appears in both the objective function and in the constraints. Standard
Lagrangian methods can be employed to solve problem (MP5') for all ^ e E, while
specialized methods are required to optimize the objective function of problem (MP4)
with respect to the original variable x and the parameter j.
Kuno and Konno (1991) and Konno, Kuno, and Yajima (1994) considered
problem (GCMP) for cases where q = 1 and q S1 respectively. For q = 1, the master
problem and solution algorithm are similar to the one used by Kuno and Konno (1991) to
solve problem (CMP) when p = 2. Computational experiments showed that the
underestimation function does not perform as well as it does for problem (CMP).
For q ^ 1, the master problem in Konno, Kuno, and Yajima (1994) is formulated
by introducing a pair of parameters for each pair of convex functions that appear in the


37
objective function of problem (GCMP). The master problem is a convex minimization
problem in the space and is solved using an outer approximation algorithm.
Computational experiments conducted using a polyhedron for the feasible region showed
that for q = 1, this algorithm required less than half the computational time required by
the branch and bound with underestimation function algorithm proposed in Konno and
Kuno (1992) to solve problem (CMP).
Tuy (1992) gave problem (CMP) as an example of an optimization problem that
can be formulated as a Geometric Complementary Problem and solved it using a
parametric programming problem. The parametric programming problem is a convex
minimization problem in which a positive parameter vector is used to build a composite
objective function from the convex functions in the objective function of problem (CMP).
A complete algorithm that includes solving the parametric program was not given.
2.4.2. A Method Based on Outer Approximation
Thoai (1991) extended the algorithm based on the outer approximation technique
that he proposed for solving problem (LMP2) to address the solution of problem (CMP)
when p = 2. The main idea is to build a sequence of decreasing polytopes
of the convex feasible region X and a sequence of decreasing
polytopes S0 o 5, z> 3 Y of the outcome set Y, where
Y = {ye R2|y, = f¡(x), y2 = f2 (x) for some x e X\.
Problem (CMP) is then solved by applying a modified version of the algorithm for
problem (LMP2). In any iteration k, up to two cuts are introduced, one for Pk and one
for Sk, to obtain tighter approximating sets.


38
Since the algorithm does not depend on the actual value of p, it can be extended
to handle cases where p 2 3.
2.5. Methods to Solve Problem (LMP) as a Concave Minimization Problem
Konno and Kuno (1992) showed that the objective function of problem (LMP) is
not a convex function over the feasible set D. Therefore, problem (LMP) is not a convex
programming problem. However, since the natural logarithm function In is a strictly
increasing concave function on (0, <*>), it is easy to show that the function
defined for all xe D is a concave function. In addition, the optimal solution set of the
concave minimization problem
min F(x\ s.t.xe D,
(CMIN)
is identical to the optimal solution set of problem (LMP). Therefore, any concave
minimization method may be applied to problem (LMP) if the objective function is
replaced by its logarithmic equivalent.
Using the above transformation modification, Tuy (1991) showed that problem
(LMP) could be solved in a reduced dimension space using polyhedral annexation and the
dualization and dimension reduction technique. The algorithm presented in Tuy and Tam
(1992) is essentially an improvement of the one in Tuy (1991).
Ryoo and Sahinidis (1996) also converted problem (LMP) into the problem
(CMIN). To solve problem (CMIN), they employed a branch and bound algorithm that
incorporates the use of valid inequalities to accelerate convergence. Branch and bound


39
algorithms may slowly converge to an optimal solution when the gap between the initial
upper and lower bounds is large. A valid inequality is a inequality constraint that does not
exclude any solution that yields an objective function value lower than the current best
upper bound. By introducing valid inequalities into the constraint set, inferior parts of the
feasible region may be removed from further consideration without eliminating possible
global optimal solutions. A second use of valid inequalities is to reduce the range of
values that the variables in the problem can assume. Ryoo and Sahinidis referred to these
two uses of valid inequalities as range reduction mechanisms. The performance of the
bounding procedure in the branch and bound algorithm is improved by using these range
reduction mechanisms, since smaller-sized partitions of the feasible region are used and
the variables are restricted to reduced ranges of values.
Ryoo and Sahinidis implemented the branch and bound algorithm along with the
range reduction mechanisms in a computer program called BARON (Branch-And-Reduce
Optimization Navigator). To more easily calculate lower bounds on the objective function
F of problem (CMIN) over a partition of the feasible region, the authors replaced F by a
linear underestimating function. Lower bounds were then calculated by solving linear
programs. The authors tested randomly-generated problems in sizes from (m, n) = (50,
50) to (200, 200), with p ranging from 2 to 5. They reported that only a small fraction of
the total CPU time is consumed in the range reduction mechanisms and that there seemed
to be a low-order polynomial relationship between the CPU time and the value of p .


CHAPTER 3
CONCAVE MULTIPLICATIVE PROGRAMMING PROBLEMS: ANALYSIS AND
AN EFFICIENT POINT SEARCH HEURISTIC FOR THE LINEAR CASE
3.1. Introduction
An important, but little researched area that deserves more attention, is the
development of heuristic algorithms for finding a good solution for multiplicative
programming problems. In some applications, a good, though not necessarily globally
optimal solution, may adequately meet the requirements of a user (Konno and Inori
1989). In these cases, since multiplicative programming problems are known to be NP-
hard, the expenditure of computational effort required to globally solve them may not be
needed.
This chapter has two purposes. The first is to present an analysis of problem (Px)
when problem (Px) is a concave multiplicative programming problem. The second
purpose is to propose a heuristic algorithm designed for the case where problem (Px) is a
linear multiplicative programming problem.
The analysis of the concave multiplicative programming problem is presented in
Section 3.2. This analysis shows a new way to write a concave multiplicative
programming problem as a concave minimization problem and some theoretical
consequences of this. It also shows some relationships between concave multiplicative
programs and certain multiple-objective mathematical programs. In Section 3.3, by using
some of the results of Section 3.2, we present and explain the workings of an efficient-
40


41
point search heuristic algorithm that we have developed for the linear multiplicative
programming problem. Section 3.4 reports and analyzes some statistics summarizing the
computational results that we obtained by coding the heuristic algorithm and applying it
to 260 randomly-generated linear multiplicative programs. In Section 3.4 we also report
the results of applying the heuristic algorithm to a multiplicative programming problem
formed from a decision situation using real data. In Section 3.5, we discuss the major
results of this chapter.
3.2. Analysis
Assume in problem (Px) that A is a convex set and that, for each j = 1,2,..., p,
fj'.X-^R is a concave function; i.e., assume that problem (Px) is a concave
multiplicative programming problem. Consider the function g : X R defined for each
re X by
|(x)=logg(x).
Then, it is a simple matter to show that g.X^>R is a concave function and that the
optimal solution set to the concave minimization problem
min g(jt), s.t.xs X, (3.1)
is identical to the optimal solution set of problem (Px). Thus, any concave multiplicative
programming problem of the form of problem (Px), if rewritten in the form (3.1), can be
solved by applying any appropriate general-purpose concave minimization algorithm to
(3.1). For discussions and reviews of concave minimization algorithms, see, for instance,
Benson (1995), Benson (1996), Horst and Tuy (1993), and Pardalos and Rosen (1987).


42
It is interesting and useful in both practice and theory to observe that, in addition
to (3.1), there is at least one other way to rewrite a concave multiplicative programming
problem as a concave minimization problem. To show how this can be accomplished, we
will first prove the following preliminary result.
Lemma 3.2.1. Let ae Rp satisfy a > 0, and consider the nonlinear programming problem
v = min(a,A), s.t. As A, (3.2)
where A =
Then, v is finite and problem (3.2) has at least one
optimal solution.
Proof. Notice that, if As A, then A > 0 and (a, A) > 0. Therefore, v > 0. This,
combined with the fact that A ^ 0, implies that v is finite.
Now, suppose that, for each j = 1,2,..., there exists a vector A'6 A such that
(a,XiS)^v + Ej,
where {e¡Y.^ is a strictly decreasing sequence of positive real numbers such that
lim£y = 0. Then the sequence {AJ is either bounded or unbounded.
Case 1: {A' ]\=1 is bounded. Then, for some bounded set cA, A; e A for each
j = 1, 2,.... Therefore, by passing to an appropriate subsequence {A'}^ of {V }*=l, if
necessary, we can guarantee that A = lim A' exists. Furthermore, since A'eAcA for
jeJ
each j e J, and A is a closed set, A belongs to A. By assumption,
(j,A')v+£,, (3.3)


43
for each je J. By taking the limits over je J on both sides of (3.3), we conclude that
(a,Xjv. Since A e A, this implies that A is an optimal solution to (3.2).
Case 2: {A'Jl, is unbounded. Then, for some subsequence {A'}^, of {Aj and
forsome ke {l, 2,...,p}, limAf =+. For each jej, since A; e A, AJ >0.
¡-~
Combined with the fact that a > 0, implies that, for each ye 7,
0 By assumption, for each j e J,
(a,XJ)v+Sj. (3.5)
From (3.4) and (3.5), we obtain
a, Ai < v + e,
(3.6)
for each ye J. By taking the limits over ye J on both sides of (3.6), we conclude that
+ o = v, which is a contradiction. Therefore, this case cannot hold, and the proof is
complete.
Using Lemma 3.2.1, we may now establish the following theorem.
Theorem 3.2.1. Assume in problem (Px ) that X is a convex set and that /; :X > R,
j = 1,2 p, are concave functions. Let g : X * R be defined for each x e X by
-i'/p
g(x)=P
fi/yW
Then g : X > R is a concave function.


44
Proof. Consider the function h : X > R defined for each jtg X by
*M = min V, M. s.t.Ae A,
(3.7)
where A is as defined in Lemma 3.2.1. From Lemma3.2.1, since is strictly positive
on A for each j = 1,2,..., p, it follows that the minimum in (3.7) exists and is finite for
each x e X. If, for each A e A, we define a function h^ -. X > R by
M*)=£ajfj(x).
then for each xe X, h(x) may also be written as
h(x)=mmhl(x).
(3.8)
Notice that, for each A 6 A, : X > R is a concave function. From this and (3.8), we
conclude that h: X - R is also a concave function (Rockafellar 1970).
To complete the proof, we will show that, for each xe X h(x)= g(x). Toward
this end, fix xe X and let A(x)e X denote an optimal solution to problem (3.7). From
the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker necessary conditions for this problem (Bazaraa, Sherali, and
Shetty 1993), since X(x)> 0, it follows that there exists a nonnegative constant 0(x)
such that
(3.9)
Since A(x)e X is an optimal solution to problem (3.7), it is easy to see that
flAj(jr) = l.


45
Together with (3.9), this implies that
*;(*)/,(*)= 0(4 7 = 1.2 p. (3.10)
From (3.10), it follows that
Xj{x) = e{x)/fj{x), j = l,2,...,p.
By substitution in
i->
this implies that
0M--
-]1/P
(3.11)
Vp
From equations (3.10) and (3.11), we see that
P Tlfj(x) (3.12)
i-1 L 7='
Since xe X and X is an optimal solution to (3.7), the left-hand-side of equation
(3.12) coincides with h(x). By definition of g, the right-hand-side of equation (3.12)
equals g(jc), so that the proof is complete.
Theorem 3.2.1 can also be proven by using a composite function approach and
showing several preliminary results (Avriel, Diewert, Schaible, and Zang 1987). We offer
the proof here, because it is more direct and because we will use it below to help derive a
corollary of interest.


46
Notice from Theorem 3.2.1 that, when problem (Px) is a concave multiplicative
program, the optimal solution set of problem (Px) is identical to the optimal solution set
of the concave minimization problem
min g{x), s.t.xe X, (3.13)
where f: X - R is defined for each je X by
(*)= p\g(x)fF.
In practice, this implies that any concave multiplicative program (Px), if rewritten in the
form (3.13), can be solved by applying any suitable concave minimization algorithm to
(3.13). Notice also that problem (3.13) is a simpler reformulation of problem (Px ) for the
concave case than the typical reformulation used in the literature to solve problem (Px)
in the convex case (see e.g., Konno and Kuno 1992, Kuno and Konno 1991, Thoai 1991,
and Kuno, Yajima, and Konno 1993).
Theorem 3.2.1 also has some interesting theoretical implications concerning the
product of functions. For instance, for any finite set of concave functions f¡, j = 1,2,
..., p, each defined on a common nonempty convex domain X c R" and each strictly
positive on this domain, it is known that the function g : X -> R defined by their product
is not necessarily concave, convex, or quasiconvex on X (Kuno, Yajima and Konno
1993 and Avriel, Diewert, Schaible and Zang 1988). However, from Theorem 3.2.1, the
function f : X > R given by
for each ie X is a concave function on X.


47
In addition, Theorem 3.2.1 implies the following result concerning the product of
a set of concave functions.
Corollary 3.2.1. Let X and fjy 7 = 1,2,...,/?, be defined as in Theorem 3.2.1, and
suppose that g : X > R is defined for each xe X by
7=1
Then g :X R is a quasiconcave function.
Proof. Choose ae R, and let
La={xe X\g(x)ia}.
If a 0, La = X is a convex set. If a > 0, then from Theorem 3.2.1 and Rockafellar
(1970), the set
Lf={xe X\p[g(x)]Vp zp]
is a convex set, where /? = pa'1''. Since = La, this implies that La is a convex set.
Therefore, we have shown that, for any as/?, La is a convex set. This is equivalent to
showing that g : X > R is a quasiconcave function (Bazaraa, Sherali, and Shetty 1993),
so that the proof is complete.
It follows from Corollary 3.2.1 that any concave multiplicative programming
problem (Px) is a problem involving the minimization of a quasiconcave function over a
convex set. Many of the most popular algorithms for minimizing a concave function over
a convex set are equally suitable for minimizing quasiconcave functions over convex sets
(Horst and Tuy 1993 and Benson 1995). As a result, we see that any concave


48
multiplicative program (Px) can be solved by applying any number of suitable concave
minimization algorithms directly to problem (Px). In particular, no reformulations of
problem (Px) are needed to apply these algorithms.
Remark 3.2.1. Corollary 3.2.1 has been previously shown to hold for the special case
where p = 2, X is a nonempty, compact polyhedron, and /, and f2 are linear functions
(see, e.g., Konno and Kuno 1992).
The next corollary of Theorem 3.2.1 concerns the minimization problem (3.7)
used in the proof of the theorem. Possible uses for this corollary may include the
construction of methods for finding local optimal solutions to concave multiplicative
programs, although we will not investigate this here.
Corollary 3.2.2. Let X and fjt j = 1, 2,...,p, be defined as in Theorem 3.2.1, and let A
be defined as in Lemma 3.2.1. Then, A is a convex set and, for each xe X, the unique
optimal solution X(x) to problem (3.7) is given by
Proof. Notice that A may be rewritten according to the relation
(3.14)
where
intfif ={2.6 R',|2.>o}.
It is easy to see that, for each j = 1,2,..., p, h¡ : int R£ R, defined for each Xe int S'
by


49
A,(AM,.
is a concave function on int Rf that satisfies
hj (A) > 0, for all A s int Rf .
Therefore, by Theorem 3.2.1, the function m: int Rf > R defined for each A 6 int Rf by
is a concave function. This implies that
{As intRf|m(A)^ p}
is a convex set (Rockafellar 1970). By (3.14), this proves that A is a convex set.
Now, fix xe X, and let A(x)e A denote an optimal solution to problem (3.7).
From the proof of Theorem 3.2.1, this implies that, for each k = 1, 2,..., p,
At{x)=e(x)/ ft(x),
where d(x) is given by (3.11), so that the corollary is proven.
In addition to its relationships to concave minimization, a concave multiplicative
program also has some interesting ties to multiple-objective mathematical programming.
In the remainder of this section, we will show some of the theoretical relationships
between concave multiplicative programs and certain multiple-objective mathematical
programs. In the next section, some practical benefits of those relationships will be
demonstrated.
Let f(x) denote the vector
[/iM./jM /,MT.


50
where fj.X-*R, j = 1,2,..., p, are the functions used in defining problem (Px).
Then, the components of the vector f(x) are generally conflicting, in the sense that the
nfima over X of f¡(x), j = 1,2,..., p, are generally not simultaneously achieved at the
same point in X. As a result, inherent tradeoffs in the achievable values of the
components of f(x) over xe X are present. To account for these tradeoffs, and to seek
what decision makers call a most preferred solution in situations where the goal is to
attempt to simultaneously minimize f¡{x), j = 1,2,..., p, over X, one of the most
popular approaches is to consider the associated multiple-objective mathematical
program
VMIN/(x:), s.t. jce X. (3.15)
In particular, in typical situations, a most preferred solution in X will exist that is also an
efficient solution for (3.15), where an efficient solution is defined as follows.
Definition 3.2.1. A point x e R" is called an efficient solution for (3.15) when x e X
and, whenever f(x)f(x) for some xe X, then f(x)= f(x).
An efficient solution is also called a nondominated or Pareto-optimal solution. By
generating or searching the set XE of the efficient solutions for (3.15), decision makers
are able to observe the inherent tradeoffs among the objective functions ft, j = 1,2,...,
p, that are available over X and are often able to choose from XE a most preferred
solution. For further discussions on multiple-objective mathematical programming and its
applications, the reader may consult, for instance, Cohon (1978), Evans (1984), Luc


51
(1989), Sawaragi, Nakayama, and Tanino (1985), Stadler (1979), Steuer (1986), Yu
(1985), Zeleny (1982) and references therein.
The first relationship between multiplicative programming and multiple-objective
mathematical programming is given in the following result. The proof of this result is an
elementary exercise. .
Proposition 3.2.1. Any optimal solution to problem (Px) must belong to the efficient set
XE of the multiple-objective mathematical programming problem (3.15).
Notice that Proposition 3.2.1 holds for arbitrary multiplicative programming
problems (Px). The next result, however, is restricted to certain types of concave
multiplicative programs.
Proposition 3.2.2. Assume in problem (Px) that X is a compact, convex set and that
fj.X-^R, j = 1,2,..., p, are concave functions. Then, there exists an optimal solution
to problem (Px) which is an extreme point of X.
Proof. From Theorem 3.2.1, problem (Px) can be solved by finding an optimal
solution to the concave minimization problem (3.13), where g : X R is the concave
function defined by
for each xe X. Since X is a nonempty compact, convex set, from Horst and Tuy (1993),
problem (3.13) has an optimal solution that is an extreme point of X. These two
observations together prove the desired result.



52
Taken together, Proposition 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 imply that any concave multiplicative
programming problem with a compact feasible region has at least one optimal solution
that is an efficient extreme point solution to the multiple-objective mathematical
programming problem (3.15). Special cases of this observations have been alluded to in
the literature (see, e.g., Aneja, Aggarwal and Nair 1984 and Sniedovich and Findlay,
1995). In the next section, we put this observation to practical use.
3.3. Efficient Point Search Heuristic
Assume in this section that, in problem (Px),
X={xeR'\AxZb}
is a compact polyhedron, where A is an mxn matrix and be Rm, and that for each
j = 1,2,..., p, f j(x) = (c1,xj, where c e R" for each j = 1,2,..., p. Then problem
(Px) is a linear multiplicative programming problem or, more briefly, a linear
multiplicative program (Konno and Kuno 1992). We have designed and tested a heuristic
algorithm for this problem, based in part on some of the results in the previous section. In
this section, we will formally state this heuristic algorithm and explain its workings.
The multiple-objective program (3.15) associated with a linear multiplicative
problem may be written as
VMIN Cx, s.t. Axib, (3.16)
where C is the pxn matrix whose jth row equals (c'J, j = 1,2 p. Problem (3.16)
is a multiple-objective linear programming problem (Steuer 1986 and Yu 1985). Let Xex
denote the set of extreme points of


53
X={xeRn\Axgb}.
Then, by Proposition 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, an optimal solution to the linear multiplicative
programming problem can be found in the set
of efficient extreme points of problem (3.16). The set X Exx is finite, and various
procedures have been developed for generating it in its entirety (see, e.g., Steuer 1986, Yu
1985 and Steuer 1983).
It follows that, in theory, at least, a global optimal solution to a linear
multiplicative problem can be found by completely enumerating the set XEex of efficient
extreme points of the associated multiple-objective linear programming problem (3.16)
and, from this set, choosing the point(s) with the smallest value of
w=(c>-t)
(see, e.g., Sniedovich and Findlay 1995). Unfortunately, as we shall see later, in practice
the exponential growth in the size of XEtx as a function of problem size (Steuer 1986)
renders this approach impractical for many cases.
The approach of the heuristic algorithm is to efficiently search a dispersed,
carefully chosen sample of candidate points from XE ex in order to find an attractive
solution to the linear multiplicative programming problem. To describe and explain the
workings of the heuristic, we must first present some theoretical background from the
theory of multiple-objective linear programming.
Let


54
W = {we w^SM,wSe},
where e e Rp isa vector with each entry equal to 1.0, and M is a positive real number.
For sufficiently large M, from Philip (1972) it is known that a point x belongs to the
efficient set XE of (3.16) if and only if x is an optimal solution to the weighted-sum
problem
min (wTC,x'j, s.t. Ax b, (3.17)
for some w = w e W. We will assume henceforth that M is chosen to be large enough to
guarantee that this property holds. It is also well known that the efficient set XE for
(3.16) is given by
where, for each we W, Xw denotes the optimal solution set of the linear program (3.17)
(Steuer 1986 and Yu 1985). Since the optimal solution set to (3.17) for any we VP is a
face of
X ={*e R"\Axib\,
it follows that the efficient set XE for (3.16) is equal to the union of the faces X,,
we W, of X. Although Xf is a connected set (Yu 1985), it is generally nonconvex. The
heuristic algorithm will individually identify efficient faces Xw, we W, of X, and find
an approximately-optimal extreme point solution to the problem
min
s.t.xe X.,
(3.18)
for each efficient face Xw that it finds.


55
Let
Y = {ye R''|y = Cx, for some xe X },
T2 = {ye R'J|y ^ Jiforsoroeys i'}
To aid in its search, the heuristic algorithm will solve the linear program
min (wTC,x^)
(3.19a)
s.t. Cts; y,
(3.19b)
Axib,
(3.19c)
for various values of ys K2 and we If The heuristic relies in part upon the properties
of problem (3.19) given in the next three results. The first two results follow easily from
Benson (1978).
Theorem 3.3.1. Suppose that x e R" and let y = Cx. Then, x is an efficient solution
for (3.16) if and only if, with y = y, x is an optimal solution to (3.19) for every
we W.
Theorem 3.3.2. If ye Y~ and we W, then (3.19) has at least one optimal solution, and
any optimal solution for (3.19) is an efficient solution for (3.16).
Theorem 3.3.3. Suppose in 13.191 that w = weW and that y = y = Cx, where x is
an efficient solution for (3.16). Let [u0T,zor) denote any optimal solution to linear
programming dual of (3.19), where u represents the dual variables corresponding to the
constraints Cx y of (3.19). Let w = u + w and let v0 = (wJCx. Then, x belongs
to the efficient face Xof X, and can be represented as


56
X_o={*exj(w0JrC;t = v0j.
Proof. To prove the theorem, we will show that, with w = w, x is an optimal
solution to problem (3.17). Suppose in (3.19) that w = w 6 VP and that y = y = Cx,
where x is an efficient solution for (3.16) given in the theorem. The dual linear program
to (3.19) is then given by
max-^y,H^-(,z),
s.t. -Ctu-Atz = Ctw,
u,z0.
From Theorem 3.3.1, x is an optimal solution to (3.19) when w=w and y = y. By
the duality theory of linear programming (Murty 1983), since (uOT,z0T) is an optimal
solution to the linear programming dual of (3.19) when w = w and y = y, this implies
that
(w/Cr=-(/,)-(b,z).
By rearranging this equation and using the definitions of y and w, we obtain
(iwJCx=-(b,z).
(3.20)
w, the dual linear program to (3.17) may be written as
max-(fc, z),
(3.21a)
s.t. -Atz = Ctw\
(3.21b)
zgO.
(3.21c)
Let z denote an arbitrary feasible solution to problem (3.21). From the definitions of u


57
and vv, this implies that (u 'T ,zT) is a feasible solution to the dual linear program of
(3.19). Since (u0T ,z0T) is an optimal solution to the latter problem, it follows that
- {y,) (b, z) § (/, it0) (b, z),
or, equivalently,
-(b,z%-(b,z).
Notice that, since (u0T ,z0T) is an optimal solution to the dual linear program to (3.19), z
is a feasible solution to (3.21). By the choice of z, the preceding two statements imply
that z is an optimal solution to (3.21). Since x is an efficient solution for (3.16), with
w = vv, jc is a feasible solution for (3.17). From (3.20) and the duality theory of linear
programming (Murty 1983), since z is an optimal solution to (3.21), this implies that,
with w = w, x is an optimal solution to (3.17), and the proof is complete.
Notice in Theorem 3.3.3 that, for any t > 0, X^ = 2f_. This implies that, in
Theorem 3.3.3, when vv e W, there exists a f e (0, l) such that tw e W and
X_ = X_. Thus, in Theorem 3.3.3, when vv e W, X_ has an alternate representation
X for which iv e W. For simplicity, we may and will assume without loss of
generality that in Theorem 3.3.3, vv 6 W.
To generate various points y e Y* for use in problem (3.19), the heuristic
algorithm will rely upon the two concepts defined in the next two definitions (see, e.g.,
Zeleny 1982).


58
Definition 3.3.1. The point y' e Rp is called the ideal point of Y when, for each
j = 1,2 p, y'j equals the minimum value of y¡ over Y.
Definition 3.3.2. The point yM e Rp is called the anti-ideal point of Y when, for each
j = 1,2,..., p, yj1 equals the maximum value of yt over Y.
Notice that y' and y* generally do not belong to Y. The algorithm uses these
two points as anchor points in an initialization procedure whose goal is, in part, to
generate a dispersed sample of points from T2.
The heuristic algorithm may be stated as follows.
Algorithm 3.3.1. Efficient Point Search Heuristic Algorithm
Initialization Phase. See Steps 1 through 5 below.
Step 1. Find the ideal and anti-ideal points y' and yM of Y.
Step 2. Find an optimal solution Je /?"+1 to the linear program
max a,
s.t. yM + a(y' -yM)'Cx,
Ax ib,
a SO,
and set y* = yM + a'(y' -yM).
Step 3. Choose a positive integer S and, for each ¡ = 1,2,..., S, let
y' = /'+ {i/S ty-yA' )
Step 4. Choose a positive integer N such that liN iM p + l, let w = e e Rp and,
for each j = 1, 2 p, define vv' s R1' by


59
1, if i* j.
[N, if i = j.
Step 5. Set t/B = +<*>, i = O and j = 0.
Efficient Point Search Phase. See Steps 1 through 6 below.
Step 1. Set y = y' and w = w. and find any optimal solution x¡ to linear program
(3.19).
Step 2. Set y = Cx!i and w = w in (3.19), and compute any optimal solution
{zJ J to the dual linear program to (3.19), where u denotes the optimal dual variables
corresponding to the constraints Cx^y of (3.19).
Step 3. Let w'1 = u'¡ + wJ. If w1' is a positive multiple of w" for some i' < i and f < j
such that (/', /) (i, /), then go to Step 6. Otherwise, continue.
Step 4. Let v:j = (vv" J Cx'1. For each h = 1,2,..., n, calculate ah according to the formula
n
c ,XJ
(3.22)
and find any basic optimal solution xu to the linear program
(a,x),
(3.23a)
II
(3.23b)
Axib.
(3.23c)
Step 5. If (c*, x¡ go to Step 6. Otherwise, set x = x, and Uli =
and go to Step 6.


60
Step 6. Set j = j +1. If j p, go to Step I. Otherwise, set i = i +1 and j = 0. If i S,
go to Step 1. Otherwise, Stop: jce XEa is the recommended solution to the linear
multiplicative programming problem.
In the initialization phase of the algorithm, samples of points from Y* and from
W are generated. To generate the sample of points from F2, Step 2 of this phase
determines the point y between yA and y' such that, of all line segments with
endpoints yM and y that lie in T1 and for which y lies on the line segment connecting
yA' and y', the line segment L connecting yAI and y has maximum norm. The sample
{/ |i = 1,2,..., s} of points from Y2 is then generated in Step 3 of this phase by
partitioning L into S line segments of equal length, where S is a positive integer chosen
by the user. In Step 4, a sample of p +1 all-integer vectors from W is generated, where
for p of these vectors, the value N of one of the components is chosen by the user from
the set {l, p + l}.
Each iteration of the efficient point search phase of the heuristic executes two key
operations. First, it identifies an efficient face X_ of X. Second, unless this face has
been previously identified during an earlier execution of this phase, with w = w'J in
problem (3.18), by using a first-order linear approximation to the objective function of
this problem, it finds an extreme point xJ of X in this efficient face that is an
approximate optimal solution to (3.18).
Steps 1 through 3 of the efficient point search phase of the algorithm identify an
efficient face of X. In Step 1, with y = y' e T2 and w = w'e W, the linear program


61
(3.19) is solved for any optimal solution x11. By Theorem 3.3.2, this optimal solution
must exist and is an efficient solution for (3.16). In Steps 2 and 3, with y = Cx'1 and
w = w in (3.19), the dual linear program to (3.19) is solved to yield the vector u'J e Rp,
and the weighting vector w = u + w is computed. From Theorem 3.3.3, the face X_s
corresponding to this weighting vector is an efficient face for (3.16) and contains x'J.
Furthermore, from the same theorem, this face can be written as
(3.24)
where v,y = (w'' J Cx'1. Step 3 checks whether or not Xhas been identified during a
previous execution of this phase of the algorithm. If so, the algorithm proceeds to Step 6
to prepare for another possible iteration of the efficient point search phase of the heuristic.
Otherwise, control shifts to Steps 4-5.
In Steps 4-5 of the efficient point search phase, problem (3.18) is approximately
solved using a new efficient face Xw as the feasible region. In particular, in Step 4, (3.22)
is first used to construct the nonconstant portion of a first-order Taylor series linear
approximation (a, x) of the objective function of problem (3.18) at x = x s X_¡,. Next,
using the representation (3.24) of the efficient face an extreme point minimizer x
of (a,x) over Xis found by solving the linear program (3.23). Notice that x e XEiI
(see Rockafellar 1970). In Step 5, the value achieved by x'1 in the objective function of
the linear multiplicative problem is compared to the smallest value UB found thus far for
this objective function by the search. If x achieves a smaller objective function value


62
than UB, xli becomes the new incumbent solution x and UB is reduced in value
accordingly.
Notice that the performance of the heuristic algorithm depends in part upon the
number, locations, and dimensions of the efficient faces (3.24) that are searched via
problem (3.23). This, in turn, is partially dependent upon the sizes of the parameters S
and N chosen by the user. The goal is to search as many points of X Ea as possible by
generating a variety of distinct efficient faces (3.24) of large dimensions that are
dispersed widely throughout XE. Notice that, since each efficient face identified by the
heuristic is given in the form (3.24) and searched by solving linear program (3.23), the
individual points in XEex that are searched by the algorithm are searched implicitly rather
than explicitly, i.e., they do not need to be explicitly enumerated.
3.4. Computational Results
The heuristic algorithm described in Section 3.3 has the following attractive
characteristics:
(a) it can be implemented using only linear programming methods;
(b) it generally implicitly searches many efficient extreme points of (3.16) at once
by optimizing over entire efficient faces of (3.16), rather than by explicitly examining
individual efficient extreme points of (3.16);
(c) it allows the user to manipulate the nature and extent of the efficient face
search through the choices for the input parameters S and IV;
(d) it finds efficient faces of (3.16) by attempting to globally sample from a
variety of regions of the efficient set.


63
To evaluate the effectiveness in practice of the heuristic algorithm and its features,
we have written a VS FORTRAN computer code for the algorithm and used it to solve
260 linear multiplicative programming problems of various sizes. To execute the code on
these 260 problems, we used an IBM ES/9000 model 831 mainframe computer. As a
further illustration of the effectiveness in practice of the heuristic algorithm, we solved a
multiple-object linear programming problem in forest management that was derived from
a real decision situation using real data.
To implement Step 3 of the initialization phase of the algorithm, we chose to set
S = 4, so that a sample of five points lying between yM and y1 in Y' is always
generated in this step. We used a value of N = 9 in Step 4 of the initialization phase to
help generate the sample of p +1 points from W.
To solve the linear programming problems called for by the heuristic, the
computer code uses the simplex method procedures given in the subroutines of the
Optimization Subroutine Library (International Business Machines 1990). These
subroutines employ anticycling rales to handle degeneracy as needed. Therefore, they are
especially appropriate for solving instances of problem (3.23), since these problems
always contain degenerate extreme points.
Let
and suppose that k is a positive integer. To generate the 260 test problems, we used the
following random procedure. First, for each j = l,2,...,p, we generated the elements of
the vector c e It" by randomly drawing elements from the set {l, 2,..., 10}. Next, we


64
generated a nonempty, compact polyhedral feasible region X cint R". This region can
be written as
X ={re R"\Pxiq, lg^ iq, j = l, 2
where P is a kxn matrix, qe Rk, and qe R. To accomplish this, first the elements of P
were generated by randomly choosing elements from the set {l, 2,..., 10}. Next, for each
i = 1,2,..., fc, the formula
= £ P?,
was used to calculate q¡, and, finally, q was chosen according to the rule
q = max {<^¡1 = 1,2,...,k}.
Each test problem was constructed to belong to one of four categories, where a
category is defined by the number p of linear functions used in the objective function
J^J (c1, x'j of the test problem. The values p = 2,3,4,5 were chosen to define these
categories. We chose these categories in this way because empirical evidence seems to
indicate that the complexity of these problems is more sensitive to the magnitude of p
than to the magnitudes of k or n (Kuno, Yajima and Konno 1993). Within each
category, the test problems were classified into subcategories of 10 problems, each
defined by the values of the ordered pair (k,n).
To help evaluate the attractiveness of the solutions found by the heuristic
algorithm, we found a global optimal solution for each test problem by completely
enumerating all of the efficient extreme points of the associated multiple-objective linear


65
program (3.16). To accomplish this, we use the ADBASE computer code developed by
Steuer (1983).
Some statistics summarizing the results of these computations are presented in
Tables 3.1-3.4. In each table, each row gives average statistics for a subcategory (k,n) of
10 problems, a measure of the worst case performance of the heuristic, and the number of
problems in a category for which a global optimal solution was found. The first statistic is
the average number of efficient extreme points found by ADBASE in solving the
problems by complete enumeration. In some sense, the magnitudes of these numbers
correspond to the average relative difficulties, by subcategory, of each group of 10 linear
multiplicative programs in a subcategory. The second statistic is the average efficiency
rating r given by
where zH is the objective function value returned by the heuristic, and where zmin and
zma* are the global minimum and maximum values of the objective function of the test
problem over the corresponding set of efficient extreme points of (3.16). Thus, 0 i r ^ 1,
and the closer r is to 1.0, the more attractive the value z returned by the heuristic is
relative to the actual global minimum value The third statistic given for each
subcategory in these tables is the average CPU time (seconds) that the heuristic needed to
solve a problem in the subcategory. The fourth statistic shows the lowest efficiency rating
calculated for a problem in the subcategory. It gives a measure of the worst case
performance of the heuristic algorithm when applied to the 10 problems in a subcategory.


66
Table 3.1. Computational Results: p = 2.
Subcategory
k n
Avg No.
Eff. Points
Avg. Eff.
Rating r
Avg. Solutions
Time (sec.)
Lowest Eff.
Rating r
No. Exact
Solutions
25
20
28.8
1.000
0.227
1.000
10
25
30
28.8
1.000
0.241
1.000
10
30
40
47.9
1.000
0.389
1.000
10
40
30
28.2
1.000
0.328
1.000
10
40
50
47.0
0.999
0.504
0.996
8
50
40
35.1
0.999
0.453
0.999
9
50
60
29.2
1.000
0.556
1.000
10
60
70
62.3
1.000
1.070
1.000
10
The fifth statistic is the number of problems in a category for which the heuristic
algorithm found a global optimal solution.
These four tables show that the solutions returned by the heuristic algorithm give,
on the average, quite accurate estimates of the actual global minimum values for the 260
linear multiplicative test problems generated. This is indicated by the fact that average
efficiency ratings by subcategory always were at least 0.920, and in approximately 96%
of the subcategories exceeded 0.950. It is noteworthy that, for these problems, these
ratings r by subcategory do not seem to decline significantly as p, k, and n increase in
Table 3.2. Computational Results: p = 3.
Subcategory
k n
Avg. No. Eff.
Ext. Points
Avg Eff.
Rating r
Avg. Solutions
Time (sec.)
Lowest Eff.
Rating r
No. Exact
Solutions
25
20
330.6
0.985
0.321
0.951
4
25
30
896.8
0.960
0.469
0.708
5
30
40
873.3
0.987
0.543
0.884
7
40
30
949.3
0.993
0.609
0.968
6
40
50
2073.7
0.920
0.967
0.806
4
50
40
1484.9
0.993
0.908
0.961
7
50
60
2846.3
0.995
1.298
0.978
6
60
70
5867.5
0.969
2.495
0.799
2


67
Table 3.3. Computational Results: p = 4.
Subcategory
k n
Avg. No. Eff.
Ext. Points
Avg Eff.
Rating r
Avg. Solutions
Time (sec.)
Lowest Eff.
Rating r
No. Exact
Solutions
25
20
2789.5
0.998
0.426
0.993
4
25
30
7245.9
0.992
0.598
0.945
5
30
40
23656
0.986
1.019
0.947
1
40
30
19034
0.978
0.998
0.923
2
40
50
50889
0.969
1.539
0.918
0
50
40
59443
0.969
1.587
0.843
2
50
50
83780
0.981
1.901
0.890
3
value. In addition, with the exception of one subcategory, a global optimal solution was
found for at least one problem in each subcategory.
The average solution times by subcategories shown in the four tables indicate that,
for these test problems, the computational effort required by the heuristic was rather
small. In fact, these average times were always less than 2.50 seconds. In comparison to
exact algorithms that have been used in test situations to globally solve linear
multiplicative problems, these times are generally either at least as small or much smaller
(see, e.g., Kuno, Yajima, Konno 1993 and Ryoo and Sahinidis 1996). Furthermore, in
contrast to solution times for exact algorithms, these average solution times seem much
less sensitive to increases in p, n, k or to increases in the average number of efficient
Table 3.4. Computational Results: p = 5.
Subcategory
k n
Avg. No. Eff.
Ext. Points
Avg. Eff.
Rating r
Avg. Solutions
Time (sec.)
Lowest Eff.
Rating r
No. Exact
Solutions
10
20
1331.4
0.993
0.353
0.941
5
20
10
527.1
0.998
0.294
0.993
2
25
30
57115
0.995
0.962
0.992
2


68
extreme points that exist in the corresponding problems (3.16); see Kuno, Yajima, Konno
(1993) and Ryoo and Sahinidis, (1996).
Finally, it is worth noting that we were able to apply the heuristic to much larger
problems than those reported in Tables 3.1-3.4. However, the number of efficient extreme
points in the associated multiple-objective linear programming problems (3.16) for these
cases always exceeded 200,000. Since the ADBASE code cannot be used to find all of the
efficient extreme points for such problems, we were unable to completely enumerate the
sets of efficient extreme points to find zmm and r values for these problems. Thus, we are
as yet not able to draw conclusions concerning the accuracy of the heuristic for any
problems larger than those reported in Tables 3.1-3.4.
To further illustrate the effectiveness in practice of the heuristic algorithm, we
solved a real application problem in forest management that was studied in Steuer and
Schuler (1978) as a multiple-objective linear programming problem. The problem
involves the allocation of land and budget monies in a way that seeks to maximize
objectives in timber production, hunting and cattle grazing in the Swan Creek subunit of
the Mark Twain National Forest. Steuer and Schuler (1978) provide actual data used to
formulate their multiple-objective linear programming problem. The problem contains 31
decision variables, 5 linear objective functions, and 13 constraints. Our multiplicative
programming problem was formed from this problem by multiplying the 5 linear
objective functions together to form a single objective function. The heuristic was then
used to search for an approximate solution that maximizes this single objective function
subject to the constraints of the forest management multiple-objective linear
programming problem.


69
To help evaluate the attractiveness of the solution found by the heuristic
algorithm, we found a global optimal solution by enumerating the 83 efficient extreme
points of the associated forest management multiple-objective linear program using the
ADBASE computer code. An efficiency rating of r = 0.999 was calculated using the
slightly modified equation
r = 1 [(z, Z* )/(z Z,)]
since this multiplicative programming problem is a maximization problem rather than a
minimization problem. This efficiency rating indicates that the heuristic algorithm
returned an attractive value zH relative to the actual global maximum value z,m.
3.5. Discussion
The results of this chapter imply that there are at least two ways to rewrite a
concave multiplicative programming problem as a concave minimization problem. It
follows that concave minimization theory and methods can be used in these ways to
analyze and solve concave multiplicative programs. The results also imply that a concave
multiplicative programming problem can be analyzed and solved directly, without any
reformulation, as a quasiconcave minimization problem over a convex set. Furthermore,
the analysis in the chapter implies that any concave multiplicative programming problem
(Px) with a compact feasible region has at least one optimal solution that is an efficient
extreme point solution of the associated multiple-objective mathematical programming
problem (3.15). Therefore, the opportunity exists for devising solution methods for such
problems (Px) that search among the efficient extreme points of the associated multiple-
objective problems (3.15). The chapter proposes a heuristic algorithm that takes this


70
approach for solving linear multiplicative programs. From the computational results
presented for this heuristic algorithm, we conclude that its features and performance offer
significant potential for conveniently finding very attractive solutions with relatively little
computational effort to the various applications using linear multiplicative programming
encountered in practice. Thus, the theoretical and algorithmic results presented in this
chapter offer some potential new avenues for more effectively analyzing and solving
multiplicative programming problems of various types.


CHAPTER 4
A GENERAL MULTIPLICATIVE PROGRAMMING PROBLEM IN OUTCOME-
SPACE
4.1. Introduction
Recall from Chapter 1 that the multiplicative programming problem is given by
(Px) vx = mins.t.Ate X,
where p2t 2 is an integer, X is a nonempty set in Rn, and, for each j = 1,2,..., p,
fj.X > R satisfies ft (x) > 0 for all xe X. For simplicity, we assume that the
minimum vx in problem (Px) is achieved.
For any xe R", let f(x) denote thep-vector withy'th entry equal to f¡{x),
j = 1,2,...,p. Let ye R'' denote the p-vector with jth entry equal to yjx j = \,2,..., p.
For each j = 1,2,..., p, let y e R satisfy
yySsup/y(jc),s.t.jce X,
where y( = +~ is possible, and let ye R1 denote the vector with fth entry equal to y¡,
j = 1,2,..., p. Although various outcome-space reformulations of problem (Px) have
been proposed for solution purposes, one of the most common reformulations is given by
the problem
(Pri) vy = min g(y), s.t. y e Ys,
71


72
where
Y- = {ye P'|/(x) ygy for some .re X j, (4.1)
and where, for each ye Y-, g:Yi*R is defined by
g(y)=f{yj- (4.2)
7=1
For example, problem (Pyi) is essentially the reformulation of problem (Px) used in the
algorithms of Benson (1998c), Falk and Palocsay (1994) and Thoai (1991). Notice that
since X is nonempty, Ys is a nonempty set. By constructing appropriate global solution
algorithms for problem (Pyi), this problem provides us with the opportunity to solve
problem (Px) by working in the outcome-space R'" of the problem, rather than in the
decision space R", which is generally much larger than Rp. In order to globally solve
problem (Py,), it is important to understand the properties of the set Y~ defined by (4.1),
of the function g defined by (4.2), and of problem (Pyi) itself.
This chapter undertakes a mathematical analysis of the outcome-space
reformulation (Pyi) of problem (Px). The analysis is organized according to whether or
not the outcome-space problem satisfies conditions for the general case, the convex case,
or the polyhedral case. For the general case, we show, for instance, that globally solving
either problem (Px) or problem (P,) essentially also globally solves the other problem,
and that, for any feasible point y for problem (Pyi), either g(y)< g(y) for some ye Y*
or y satisfies a condition that is necessary, but not sufficient, for it to be a local optimal
solution for problem (Pyi). For the convex and polyhedral cases, we show stronger


73
results. For example, we show for the convex case that any global optimal solution for
problem (Pyi) must lie on the boundary of Y-, that the objective function g in problem
(Pyi) is strictly pseudoconcave on Y-, and, when Y- is closed and contains at least one
extreme point, that problem (Pyi) has an extreme point global optimal solution.
The analysis of the general case of problem (Pyi) is given in Section 4.2. Section
4.3 provides analytical results for both the convex and polyhedral cases of problem (Pyi).
4.2. Results for the General Case of Problem (Pyi)
Notice under the assumptions made in Section 4.1 for problem (Px) that Y- is a
nonempty subset of Rx {z e > o}. When Y- satisfies this condition, we obtain
what we will call the general case of problem (Pyi).
It is important to establish that by solving the general case outcome-space
formulation (Pyi) of problem (Px), a global optimal solution for problem (Px) can be
recovered. The following result, by showing that problems (Px) and (P.) are equivalent
in a certain sense, immediately establishes this fact.
Theorem 4.2.1. (a) If x is a global optimal solution for problem (Px), then y" = f(x')
is a global optimal solution for problem (Pyi). Furthermore, vy = vx.
(b) Problem (Pyi) has at least one global optimal solution. Furthermore,
if y is a global optimal solution for problem (Pyi), then any x' e X such that
A*hy' is a global optimal solution for problem (Px).


74
Proof, (a) Let x' be a global optimal solution for problem (Px), and set
y* = f(x). From (4.1) and (4.2), this implies that y e Y- and that
giy')=tlfj(x")=v--
M
Therefore, vy gv,. If g(y)< vx were to hold for some ye Vs, then, from (4.1) and (4.2),
there would exist an xe X such that
M
which contradicts the definition of vx. Therefore, g(y)^vx for all ye Y-. This implies
that vy~ivx. Since vy gvx = g(y), and y" e Y-, it follows that vy=vx = g(y), and y is
a global optimal solution for problem (P s).
(b) By assumption, we may choose a global optimal solution for problem
(Px). From part (a), this implies that problem (Pyi) has at least one global optimal
solution. Suppose that y' is a global optimal solution for problem (Pyi). Since y" e Y-,
(4.1) implies that we may choose an arbitrary x' e X such that /(jt')gy'. Then, from
(4.2), since 0 Since x* e X and y* is a global optimal solution for problem (PyS), this implies that
vxgflfj(x-)gvy.
y=l
(4.3)


75
Frompart(a), vy = vt. By (4.3), this implies that fJ(x')= vs. Since x e X, it follows
M
that jc* is a global optimal solution for problem (Px).
Suppose in the general case of problem (Pyi) that a point ye Y- has been
generated. For algorithmic purposes, it may be valuable to have a tool for finding an
alternate point yeYs that satisfies g(y) gives an idea for potentially helping to create such a tool. To prove this result, we need
the following lemma. This lemma will also be useful in proving several other results later
in this chapter.
Lemma 4.2.1. Assume that ye Yi. Then, for any ye Y-,
(V p)(Vg(y). y) = (y¡/y¡\
7=1
and
g(y)(Vpl,(yj/yMg(y)\g(y)/g(y)]/P,
7=1
with equality holding in the latter relationship iff, for some constant M > 0, y}=M yr
j = 1,2,..., p.
Proof. Choose an arbitrary point ye Y~. Suppose that ye Ks. Then, by (4.2),
since Y~ 0. By definition of g,
0/p)(v(>).3'>=0/p) ru
y¡
= (l/p)bW/>y]y/


76
= ?(>")£ (l/pX^/y,)- (4-4)
7=1
Since (l/p)^0, (y¡/yj)>0 for each j = \,2,...,p, and p(l/p)=l, the arithmetic-
geometric mean inequality (Duffin, Peterson, and Zener 1967) implies that
£ (l/p)iyj/y¡ 'k\giy)/g(y)r.
with equality holding iff for some constant M > 0, yj=Myj for each j = 1,2,..., p.
Together with (4.4), since g(y)sO, this implies the desired results.
Theorem 4,2.2. Assume that ye ¥-. If
1.0 > inf (1Jpfciyj/yj). (4.5)
* /-I
then g(y)< g(y) for some yeYs. In particular, if y achieves the infimum in (4.5), then
g(y) Proof. Suppose that y 6 Y-. If (4.5) holds, then for some yeY-,
1.0>(l/p)£(y;/y,). (4.6)
7=1
Since g(y)>0, this implies that
g{y)>g{y){i/p),(yi/yj). (4.7)
7=1
From Lemma4.2.1, since ye Y, we know that
g(y)(^ p)'tiiyl/yj'hg(y)\g(y)/giy)]'lp- (4.8)
Since g(y)>0, together (4.7) and (4.8) imply that


77
i-0>k(y)/g(y)]/P-
Because g(y)>0, this implies that g(y)< g{y). Therefore, g(y)< g(y) for some
ye Y*. Since, for any point y that achieves the infimum in (4.5), (4.6) is also satisfied,
the argument above also implies that if y achieves the infimum in (4.5), then
g(y) Notice that when yeY*, the infimum in (4.5) is either less than 1.0 or equal to
1.0. From Theorem 4.2.2, when this infimum is less than 1.0, a point y in Y* such that
g(y)< g(y) exists. In particular, in this case y is not a global optimal solution for
problem (P-). The next result covers the case when the infimum in (4.5) equals 1.0.
Theorem 4.2.3. Assume that yeY-. If
1.0 = inf(l/p)£(y;/y,.), (4.9)
7=1
then y is an optimal solution to
vd =min(Vi;(y),y-y), (4.10)
and vd = 0.
Proof. From (4.9), since yeY*, the infimum in (4.9) is achieved at y = y. By
Lemma 4.2.1, since g(y) is a positive constant, this implies that y also minimizes
(l/ p)(y giy),y) over Y*. Since (l/p) is a positive constant and -(Vg(y), y) isa
constant, it is easy to see that this implies that y is an optimal solution to (4.10) and
v=0.



78
A point ye ¥- is a local optimal solution for problem (Py,) when there exists an
e>0 such that for each yeY- forwhich ||j>-y||£, g{y)^g(y). From Theorem 4.2.3,
when ye Y- and (4.9) holds, then, for any yeY-, if there is a S >0 such that
d :={y y) satisfies y + Xd e Y¡ for all X such that 0 < Ag<5, the directional derivative
of g at y in the direction d will be nonnegative, i.e., (Vg(y),d)£0. FromBazaraa,
Sherali and Shetty (1993), this is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for y to be a
local (or global) optimal solution for problem (PyS).
4.3. Results for Convex and Polyhedral Cases of Problem (Pyt)
When Yi, in addition to being a nonempty subset of /if, is a convex set, then we
obtain what we will call the convex case of problem (Pyi). Similarly, when Yi, in
addition to being a nonempty subset of /if, is a polyhedron, then we obtain what we will
call the polyhedral case of problem (Pyi). Each of these types of outcome-space versions
of problem (Px) arises from a broad class of decision space problems, as shown by the
next result.
Theorem 4.3.1. When X isa convex set and, for each j = \,2,...,p, f¡ is a convex
function on X, we obtain the convex case of problem (P s). When X is a polyhedron
and, for each j = 1,2,..., p, f] is linear on R", we obtain the polyhedral case of
problem (P s).
Proof. Assume, in addition to the assumptions made in Section 4.1 on X and on
fj, j = 1,2,..., p, that X is a convex set and that, for each j = 1,2,...,p, fy is a


79
convex function on X. We will show that Y- is a convex set. Choose any y1, y2 e Y-.
From (4.1), since y',y1e.Y~, we may choose x',x2eX such that fj{x )s y' and
fj(x2)y2, j = 1,2,..., p. Suppose that Ae R and OAil. Then, since ASO and
(l-A)SO, for each j = \,2,...,p,
A fj (*')+ (1 A)/, {x2 )g A y'1 + (1 X)y1. (4.11)
By the convexity of f¡, j = 1,2,..., p, on the convex set X, if we set 3c = A x' +
(l-A)jr2, then
xe X,
(4.12)
and, for each j = 1,2,..., p,
/^A/^O+O-A)/^2). (4.13)
From (4.11)-(4.13), f(x) Ay' + (l-A)y2, where x e X Since y',y2eY-, y1 y
holds for each i = 1, 2. As a result, since A, (l A)S 0, Ay1 + (l A)y2 y. The
conditions for Ay' + (l-X)y2 to belong to Y- are thus satisfied. By the choices of y', y2
and A, this implies that Y is a convex set.
Now suppose, in addition to the assumptions made in Section 4.1 on X and on
fj, j = 1, 2,...,p, that X is a polyhedron and that, for each j = 1,2 p, fj is a linear
function on if". We will show that Yi is a polyhedron. By definition, since X is a
polyhedron, there exists a finite number q of linear functions j = 1, 2 q, on R",
and real numbers b¡, j = \,2,...,q, such that
X={xeRn\gj{x)zbj, y = l, 2 ?}.


80
Let Z £ R"*p be defined as the set of all solutions (x, >) to the system of linear
inequalities (4.14)-(4.16) given by
7 = 1, 2,..
,P,
(4.14)
IIA
v;>
7 = 1, 2,..
,P,
(4.15)
bj
7 = 1,2,..
.,q.
(4.16)
Then, by definition, Z is a polyhedron in Rn+P. Let A be the px(n+ p) matrix whose
first n columns each equal Oe R and whose last p columns together form the pxp
identity matrix. Then, from (4.1) and the definition of Z, Y = AZ. From Rockafellar
(1970, Theorem 19.3), Y- is a polyhedron in R'\
In convex cases of problem (P s) (and thus, in polyhedral cases as well), certain
locations within Y- for seeking global optimal solutions can be specified. For instance,
we have the following result.
Theorem 4.3.2. Suppose that problem (Pyi) satisfies the conditions for the convex case.
Then:
(a) Any global optimal solution for problem (Pyi) belongs to the boundary of Ys.
(b) If Y- is closed and contains at least one extreme point, then there exists at
least one global optimal solution for problem (PyS) that is an extreme point of Y~.
Proof. Assume that Y~, in addition to being a nonempty subset of Rp, is a
convex set, i.e., that we have the convex case for problem (Pyi). Then, from Theorem
4.2.1, problem (Pyi) has at least one global optimal solution.


81
(a) To show this part of the theorem, let y* denote an arbitrary global optimal
solution to problem (Pyi). Suppose that y is not on the boundary of F. By the choice
of y and since Y- is a convex set, Y- has a nonempty interior. Therefore, y must
belong to the interior of F. From (4.1), this implies that for some xe X, f(x)< y
must hold. By assumption, since xe X, f(x)> 0. Therefore, if we set y = fix), it
follows that y e F and
iWiU
M M
From (4.2), this contradicts the global optimality of y in problem (Pyi). Therefore, y
must belong to the boundary of F.
(b) From the discussion in Section 3.2, since F is a nonempty convex set and,
for each j = 1,2,..., p, the function hj(y)=yj is positive and concave on F, the global
optimal solution set for problem (Pyi) is identical to the global optimal solution set for
the problem
(Pys) min g(y), s.t.ye F,
where, for each y e F, g : F R is the concave function defined by
s(y)=
n
Since F is a nonempty, closed convex set with at least one extreme point, from
Rockafellar (1970, Corollary 18.5.3), it is easy to see that F can contain no lines.
Furthermore, since problem (Pyf) has at least one global optimal solution, problem (PyS)


82
also has at least one global optimal solution. By Rockafellar (1970, Corollary 32.3.1),
since g is a concave function on Y-, the latter two statements imply that problem (Py,)
has at least one global optimal solution y that is an extreme point of Y~. Because the
optimal solution sets of problems (Pyi) and (Pyi) coincide, this completes the proof.
Suppose that Y- is a nonempty, closed convex subset of R', and that Y-
contains at least one extreme point. Then, from Theorem 4.3.2, there will exist at least
one global optimal solution for problem (Pyi) that is an extreme point of Y-, and all
global optimal solutions for problem (Pyi) will lie on the boundary of Y-. Neither of
these properties, however, is necessarily shared by the decision set-based problem (Px)
whose outcome-space reformulation yields problem (PyS). The following example
demonstrates this.
Example 4.3.1. Let p = 2, X = {(jr,,jc2Jr 6 R2|0gx, 26, I = 1, 2},
/,(xx2) = (x,-l)2 + 1,
and
f2(xx2)=(x2-2f + 1
in problem (Px). Then X is a nonempty, convex set and for each i = 1,2, f is a
convex, positively-valued function on X Therefore, by Theorem 4.3.1, the problem
(.P¡) obtained by formulating the outcome-space version of problem (Px) is guaranteed
to satisfy the conditions of the convex case for problem (Pyi). Furthermore, it is not
difficult to show, in this case, that Ys is compact. Thus, Y- is closed and contains at


83
least one extreme point. It is easy to see that the unique global optimal solution to
problem (Pyi) is (y'J = (l, l) which, as guaranteed by Theorem 4.3.2, is an extreme
point of Ys (and is thus on the boundary of Y-). On the other hand, the only global
optimal solution to problem (Px) is (x'J =(l, 2), yet x is neither on the boundary of
X nor is it an extreme point of X.
To present the next result, we need to define two types of functions.
Definition 4.3.1. Let Z q, R be a nonempty convex set, and let h:Z > R. The function
h is said to be auasiconcave on Z when for each z1, z2 e Z and Ae R such that
0 h\h' + (l-A)z2Js min Mz'Wz2)}-
Definition 4.3.2. Let W be an open set in R" that contains Z £ Rn, and let h.W R.
The function h is said to be strictly pseudoconcave over Z when h is differentiable over
Z and, for each distinct z',z2eZ, if ^V/i(z'),z2-z'^gO, then h(z2)< h(z').
It is well known that a differentiable, quasiconcave function h.Z-^R need not
be strictly pseudoconcave over Z. For a discussion of quasiconcave and strictly
pseudoconcave functions see, for example, Bazaraa, Sherali and Shetty (1993).
From Konno and Kuno (1995, p. 379), we know that when Y- is a convex set,
since Ys £ /if, g .Ys > R defined by (4.2) is quasiconcave on Yi. Thus, in the convex
case, problem (P f) is a minimization of a quasiconcave function over a convex set. In
fact, however, we have the following even stronger result.


84
Theorem 4.3.3. Suppose that problem (P s) satisfies the conditions for the convex case.
Then, in this problem, g is a strictly pseudoconcave function over the convex set Y-.
Proof. The set Y- is a convex set by definition of the convex case for problem
(Pyi). To show that g is strictly pseudoconcave over Y~, notice first that by (4.2), g
can be considered to be well defined over the open set Rf. Also notice that g is
differentiable over R1 and, thus, over Y- c Rf.
Suppose now that y' and y1 are distinct points in Y- that satisfy
(Vg(y'), y2 y'^ 0. Then, from (4.2), we obtain
yl-'tgiy')
(4.17)
By multiplying both sides of (4.17) by (l/p) and rearranging, we obtain that
(4.18)
*=i
From Lemma 4.2.1
s{y')(i/p)(ylh'kh g(y)t{y2)U(y')] .
(4.19)


85
with equality holding iff, for some M > 0, y* = M y[, k = 1,2 p. There are two
cases to consider.
Case (i): There is no M >0 such that y\=My\, k =1,2,...,p. Then, in (4.19),
strict inequality holds, so that from (4.18) and (4.19),
G,l)>(y)k(>2)/(>'')]
Since g(y)>0, this implies that g(y2)< g(y).
Case (ii): For some M > 0, y\ = M y'k, k = 1, 2,..., p. If we choose such an M,
then (4.19) holds as an equality. Thus, from (4.19) and the choice of M, we obtain that
g{y' )(Vp)£ (v* h\ )= g(y' )b (y2 )/s(y)] (4-2)
*=1
and that
g(y2)=M-g(y'), (4.21)
respectively. Since g(y)> 0, together (4.18), (4.20) and (4.21) imply that
s(y g(y' )(m p ) lp= M giy').
Dividing through by g(y)> 0 yields M gl. Notice that M 1, since, by assumption, y'
and y1 are distinct. Therefore M <1. By(4.21), since g(y'), g(y2)>0, this implies that
g(y2)< g(y' ) ar|d the proof is complete.
Remark 4.3.1. Theorem 4.3.3 justifies and strengthens the claim of Sniedovich and
Findlay (1995, p. 317) that when Yi is a convex subset of Rl, g.Yi-J>R defined by
(4.2) is differentiable and pseudoconcave on Yi.


86
From Theorem 4.3.3, in the convex case, problem (PyS) is a global optimization
problem involving the minimization of a strictly pseudoconcave function over a convex
set Y-. Therefore, as in the general case, multiple local optimal solutions for problem
(Pri) will generally exist that are not globally optimal.
From Theorem 3.2.1, we know that when Ys is a nonempty, convex subset of
Rp, the function g : Ys R defined, as in the proof of Theorem 4.3.2, by
g{y)=b(y)]h
(4.22)
is concave where g:Yi >R is given by (2). By the next result, when the domain of g is
restricted to an appropriate subset of Yi, a stronger statement can be made.
Theorem 4.3.4. Assume that Y~ is a nonempty, compact, convex subset of Rp. For any
e Rp and be R such that a > 0 and b> 0, let Z(a,b)=Yi |"] {ye R'|(a, y) = b\.
a
Then g : Z(a,b)> R defined for each ye Z(a,b) by (4.22) is a strictly concave function
for any ae Rp and te R such that a > 0 and b> 0.
Proof. Assume that y,y2 e Z(a,b) and y1 y2, where ae Rp, be R, a >0,
and b > 0. Since Z(a,b) is an intersection of two convex sets, it is itself a convex set.
Therefore, if we choose X e R such that 0 < X < 1, then
z:=Ay1 + (l-A)y2e Z(a,b).
Also, by (2) and (4.22),
(4.23)
From Polya and Szego (1972),


87
yIp
17 [A y) + (1 A)y,2] Apfl y' + (l - xyf[ y2
}/p r
iIr
(4.24)
with equality holding iff A y \ = K(l A)y2, j = 1,2,..., p, for some positive constant K.
Since
, \V/>
and
(i-Arrt
iIp
y,
= (i-^(y2).
(4.23) and (4.24) will imply the desired result if we can show that no K > 0 exists such
that
X y) = K(\-X)y), j = 1,2 p. (4.25)
Notice that since y' *y2, Kx := [A/(l A)] does not satisfy (4.25).
Suppose, to the contrary, that for some K > 0, (4.25) is satisfied. Then from
(4.25) it follows that
y = /f[(l-A)/A]y2. (4.26)
Since y',y2 6 Z(a,b),
(a,y') = (a,y2) = b. (4.27)
Substituting for y' in (4.27) via (4.26), we obtain
/¡[(l A)/A](a, y2) = (a, y2) = b.


88
Solving here for K, we obtain that K [A/(1 A)]. Since K = Ki= [A/(l A)] does not
satisfy (4.25), this contradiction concludes the proof.
It is important to notice that the counterpart of Theorem 4.3.4 in the decision
space does not hold, even in the polyhedral case. In particular, suppose that X C R" is a
nonempty, compact polyhedron and, for each j = 1,2,..., p, that there exists a c e R"
such that fj(x) = (cj,x')> 0 for all xeX. Then, although the function h: X > R
defined for each x e X by
h(x)=
Vp
L J=l J
is concave (see Theorem 3.2.1), the function h : X(a,b)>R need not be strictly
concave, where ae Rp, be R, a>0, b>0, and
(4.28)
X(a,b)=
The following example illustrates this observation.
Example 4.3.2. Let
X = {(x,, x2 J e R2 |o.5 g x, S 4.0,1 = 1,2},
and let f¡(x¡,x2)={(1,1),(x,,jc2)), j = 1,2. Then X is a nonempty, compact polyhedron
and, for each j = 1,2, f¡ is positive and linear on X. As guaranteed by Theorem 3.2.1,
h :X > /?, which, by (4.28), is given by
h{xx2)={x,+x2),


89
is concave. However, if, for example, a¡ = a2 = 1 and 6 = 4, then h is not strictly
concave on
X(a,b)= {(jc, jCj |o.5 jc, S4.0, i = 1,2, x¡ +x2 =4}
Consider now problem (PyS) when the conditions of the polyhedral case hold.
Assume also that Ys is a compact set, and that ye Y~. For algorithmic purposes, it may
be quite useful in this case to develop tools for finding local optimal solutions for
problem (Pyi). These tools could then potentially be used to construct global solution
algorithms for the problem that repeatedly move from a local optimal solution to an
improved local optimal solution until a global optimal solution is found. The remaining
results in this section are motivated, in part, by the desire to find such tools.
Notice that in the polyhedral case, the optimization problem in (9) is a linear
program given by
(LP) min(l/p)(y,/y;),s.t.ye Yi.
1=1
Problem (LP) will have an optimal solution y' that can be found, for instance, by the
simplex method. Since yeYi, the minimum value vmin in problem (LP) satisfies vmin
S1.0. As a result, there are three possible cases for problem (LP). First, vmin <1.0 may
hold. Second, vmin = 1.0 may hold, with y being the unique optimal solution to problem
(LP). Third, vmin = 1.0 may hold, with problem (LP) having multiple optimal solutions.
In the first case, from Theorem 4.2.2, it follows that g(y')< g(y), where y is any
optimal solution to problem (LP), so that a more attractive feasible solution y' to


90
problem (Pyi) than y has been found. To analyze the second case, we need the
following two definitions and lemma.
Definition 4,3.3. A point y e Y* is a strict local optimal solution for problem (Pyi) when
there exists an e > 0 such that for each y e Ys for which y *y and ||y y || < e,
g(y)>g{y)-
Definition 4.3.4. Let Z be a nonempty convex set in R", and let h : Z > R. The function
h is said to be strongly quasiconcave on Z when for each z, z2 e Z with z' z2, we
have
h[lz' +(l A)z2 ]> min ^i(z'). *(z2)}
for each A such that 0 < A < 1.
Lemma 4.3.1. Let Z be a nonempty convex set in R", and let h: Z > R be strongly
quasiconcave. Suppose that z', / = 1,2 k, are distinct points in Z and that r is an
element of the convex hull of z', i = l,2,...,k, such that, for each i = 1,2,...,k, s*z.
Then
Proof. The lemma is easy to prove using Definition 4.3.4 and induction.
The following result analyzes the case where vmin = 1.0 and y is the unique optimal
solution to problem (LP).
Theorem 4.3.5. Assume that problem (Py¡) satisfies the conditions for the polyhedral
case, and that Y% is a compact set. Assume also that ye Y*. Suppose that vmin = 1.0


91
and that y = y is the unique optimal solution to problem (LP). Then y is a strict local
optimal solution for problem (PyS).
Proof. Since g(y)> 0 and y = y is the unique optimal solution to the problem
mi n(1/p)£(:Vj/>v)'
y*r- ;=1
y = y must also be the unique optimal solution to the problem
min
y*Y~ j=i
Therefore, by Lemma 4.2.1, y = y is the unique optimal solution to the problem
min(l/p)(Vg(>0, y).
Since (l/p)> 0 and ~(Vg(y),y) is a constant, this implies that y = y is the unique
optimal solution to the problem
min(Vg(y),y-y). (4.29)
Therefore, the optimal value of problem (4.29) is 0, and for all ye Vs such that y*y,
(Vg{y\y-y)>0- (4-3)
Let d\d2,...,dk represent the directions of the edges of 7s emanating from the
extreme point y of Ys. From (4.30),
(Vg(y),d')>o
for all i = 1,2 k. By Theorem 4.1.2 in Bazaraa, Sherali, and Shetty (1993), this implies
that there exist positive reals 5,., i = 1,2 k, such that
g{y + X-,d')> g{y)
(4.31)


92
for each A, e (0,5,). Let y + Sdy + Sd2, ..., y + Sdk.
Then by definition of S and (4.31),
g{y + Sd)>g(y) (4-32)
for each i = 1,2,...,k. Let z be any element of the convex hull of y, y + Sd', i = 1,2,
such that z*y and,for each = 1,2,...,/:, z y + Sd'. Since g isastrictly
pseudoconcave function on Y~, it is also a strongly quasiconcave function on Ys
(Bazaraa, Sherali, Shetty 1993). As a result, by Lemma 4.3.1,
g(z)> min jg(y), g(y + 8d),i = 1,2 fc}. (4.33)
From (4.32) and (4.33), g(z)> g(y). Since S > 0, this implies that there exists an e > 0
sufficiently small so that if ze Ts, ||z-y||<£, and z y, then g(z)> g(y).
Under the assumptions of Theorem 4.3.5, if vmin = 1.0 but y = y is one of two or
more optimal solutions to problem (LP), then y need not be a strict local optimal
solution for problem (Pyi). The following example illustrates this point.
Example 4.3.3. Let
rs = {(*,yj eR2|y,+y2S8, y,S7,y2S4j,
and let yT = (4,4)r. Then Y- is a nonempty, compact polyhedron in R2, and the
assumptions of Theorem 4.3.5 are satisfied. In this case, ye Ys and y is an optimal
solution to problem (LP). However, since (y SJ = (4 + S,4-Sj e Y- and g(y5) for all values of 8 such that 0 < 5 < 3, by Definition 4.3.3, y is not a strict local optimal


Full Text

PAGE 1

08/7,3/,&$7,9( 352*5$00,1* 7+(25< $1' $/*25,7+06 %\ *(25*( %2*(5 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

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nV GHJUHH DGYLVRU 'U )UHGHULFN %XRQL DW WKH )ORULGD ,QVWLWXWH RI 7HFKQRORJ\ IRU KLV JXLGDQFH +H VXJJHVWHG PXOWLSOH REMHFWLYH OLQHDU SURJUDPPLQJ DV D WRSLF IRU P\ WKHVLV :KLOH ZRUNLQJ RQ WKH WKHVLV PHW 'U %HQVRQ GXULQJ D YLVLW WR ),7 WR SUHVHQW D WDON UHODWHG WR PXOWLSOH REMHFWLYH OLQHDU SURJUDPPLQJ LL

PAGE 3

'U %HQVRQ DJUHHG WR VHUYH RQ P\ PDVWHUnV GHJUHH FRPPLWWHH DQG ODWHU UHFUXLWHG PH IRU WKH ',6 3K' SURJUDP

PAGE 4

7$%/( 2) &217(176 (DJH $&.12:/('*0(176 LL $%675$&7 YL &+$37(56 ,1752'8&7,21 7KH 0XOWLSOLFDWLYH 3URJUDPPLQJ 3UREOHP 5HIRUPXODWLRQV RI WKH 0XOWLSOLFDWLYH 3URJUDPPLQJ 3UREOHP 3XUSRVH DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQ RI WKH 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $ 5(9,(: 2) 7+( /,7(5$785( 21 08/7,3/,&$7,9( 352*5$00,1* 352%/(06 2UJDQL]DWLRQ RI WKH /LWHUDWXUH 5HYLHZ 0HWKRGV WR 6ROYH 3UREOHPV /03f */03f DQG &/03f 0HWKRGV %DVHG RQ 4XDGUDWLF 3URJUDPPLQJ 0HWKRGV %DVHG RQ 6HDUFKLQJ WKH 2XWFRPH 6HW 0HWKRGV %DVHG RQ 6ROYLQJ D 3DUDPHWULF 0DVWHU 3UREOHP 0HWKRGV %DVHG RQ 3RO\KHGUDO $QQH[DWLRQ ([WHQVLRQV RI $OJRULWKPV IRU 3UREOHP /03f WR 6ROYH 3UREOHP /03f ZKHQ S J 0HWKRGV WR 6ROYH 3UREOHPV &03f *&03f DQG &&03f 0HWKRGV %DVHG RQ 6ROYLQJ D 5HIRUPXODWHG 3UREOHP $ 0HWKRG %DVHG RQ 2XWHU $SSUR[LPDWLRQ 0HWKRGV WR 6ROYH 3UREOHP /03f DV D &RQFDYH 0LQLPL]DWLRQ 3UREOHP &21&$9( 08/7,3/,&$7,9( 352*5$00,1* 352%/(06 $1$/<6,6 $1' $1 ()),&,(17 32,17 6($5&+ +(85,67,& )25 7+( /,1($5 &$6( ,QWURGXFWLRQ $QDO\VLV (IILFLHQW 3RLQW 6HDUFK +HXULVWLF &RPSXWDWLRQDO 5HVXOWV 'LVFXVVLRQ LY

PAGE 5

$ *(1(5$/ 08/7,3/,&$7,9( 352*5$00,1* 352%/(0 ,1 287&20(63$&( ,QWURGXFWLRQ 5HVXOWV IRU WKH *HQHUDO &DVH RI 3UREOHP 3\If 5HVXOWV IRU &RQYH[ DQG 3RO\KHGUDO &DVHV RI 3UREOHP 3\Lf 'LVFXVVLRQ $1 287&20(63$&( &877,1*3/$1( $/*25,7+0 )25 /,1($5 08/7,3/,&$7,9( 352*5$00,1* ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7KHRUHWLFDO 3UHUHTXLVLWHV 2XWFRPH6SDFH &XWWLQJ3ODQH $OJRULWKP 6WULFW /RFDO 2SWLPDO 6ROXWLRQ 6HDUFK &XWWLQJ 3ODQH &RQVWUXFWLRQ 7HUPLQDWLRQ 7HVW 2XWFRPH6SDFH &XWWLQJ3ODQH $OJRULWKP ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ ([DPSOH &RQFOXGLQJ 5HPDUNV 6800$5< $1' )8785( 5(6($5&+ ,QWURGXFWLRQ )XWXUH 5HVHDUFK RQ WKH +HXULVWLF $OJRULWKP )XWXUH 5HVHDUFK RQ DQ *OREDO 6ROXWLRQ $OJRULWKPV 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ Y

PAGE 6

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

PAGE 7

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

PAGE 8

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 7KH 0XOWLSOLFDWLYH 3URJUDPPLQJ 3UREOHP 0XOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV DUH PDWKHPDWLFDO RSWLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHPV LQ ZKLFK WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ FRQWDLQV D SURGXFW RI VHYHUDO UHDO YDOXHG IXQFWLRQV GHILQHG RYHU D FRPPRQ GRPDLQ DQG WKH IHDVLEOH GHFLVLRQV DUH GHVFULEH E\ D QRQHPSW\ VHW 7KHVH SUREOHPV RFFXU LV D ZLGH YDULHW\ RI DSSOLFDWLRQ DUHDV )RU H[DPSOH .RQQR DQG ,QRUL f VWXGLHG D ERQG SRUWIROLR RSWLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHP LQ ZKLFK WKH SRUWIROLRf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f LV D SDFNDJLQJ SUREOHP HQFRXQWHUHG LQ GHVLJQLQJ YHU\ ODUJH VFDOH LQWHJUDWHG FLUFXLW 9/6,f FKLSV DQG OD\LQJ RXW EXLOGLQJ IORRU SODQV RU PDQXIDFWXULQJ SODQW IDFLOLWLHV ,Q WKH SUREOHP WKH RYHUDOO UHFWDQJXODU GLPHQVLRQV RI WKH IHDVLEOH OD\RXW

PAGE 9

SODQV DUH FRQVWUDLQHG UDWKHU WKDQ IL[HG 'LIIHUHQW OD\RXW SODQV ZLWK GLIIHULQJ RYHUDOO UHFWDQJXODU GLPHQVLRQV DUH REWDLQHG DFFRUGLQJ WR KRZ WKH FRPSRQHQWV RI D V\VWHP DUH DUUDQJHG ZLWKLQ HDFK SODQ 7KH REMHFWLYH LV WR ILQG WKH DUUDQJHPHQW RI FRPSRQHQWV WKDW PLQLPL]HV WKH RYHUDOO OD\RXW DUHD VXEMHFW WR FHUWDLQ FRQVWUDLQWV RQ WKH DUHD DQG WKH SHULPHWHU RI WKH OD\RXW +HQGHUVRQ DQG 4XDQGW S f DOVR JLYH DQ DSSOLFDWLRQ RI PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV 7KHLU H[DPSOH LV IURP PLFURHFRQRPLFV ,Q WKHLU H[DPSOH D UDWLRQDO FRQVXPHU ZLVKHV WR ILQG D FRPELQDWLRQ RI WZR FRPPRGLWLHV WR SXUFKDVH IURP ZKLFK KH ZLOO GHULYH WKH KLJKHVW SRVVLEOH OHYHO RI VDWLVIDFWLRQ %XGJHWDU\ FRQVWUDLQWV DQG WKH DYDLODELOLW\ RI WKH FRPPRGLWLHV OLPLW WKH TXDQWLWLHV WKH FRQVXPHU PD\ SXUFKDVH 7KH FRQVXPHUfV OHYHO RI VDWLVIDFWLRQ LV FDSWXUHG E\ KLV XWLOLW\ IXQFWLRQ ZKLFK LV DVVXPHG WR EH WKH SURGXFW RI WKH TXDQWLWLHV RI WKH WZR FRPPRGLWLHV 7KH UDWLRQDO FRQVXPHUfV SUREOHP LV WKHQ IRUPXODWHG DV PD[LPL]LQJ KLV XWLOLW\ IXQFWLRQ VXEMHFW WR WKH EXGJHWDU\ DQG FRPPRGLW\ DYDLODELOLW\ FRQVWUDLQWV 7KH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP RU PRUH EULHIO\ WKH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDP PD\ EH IRUPXODWHG PDWKHPDWLFDOO\ DV ZKHUH SJ LV DQ LQWHJHU ; F 5 DQGIRUHDFK M S Ic; f§! 5 VDWLVILHV [fV IRU DOO [H ; )RU VLPSOLFLW\ ZH ZLOO DVVXPH WKURXJKRXW WKLV SURSRVDO WKDW WKH PLQLPXP RI SUREOHP 3[f LV DFKLHYHG DW VRPH SRLQW [n H ; ,Q DGGLWLRQ ZH ZLOO DVVXPH WKDW S LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ OHVV WKDQ Q VLQFH WKLV KROGV IRU YLUWXDOO\ DOO DSSOLFDWLRQV RI

PAGE 10

PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV ,I Ic[f IRU VRPH MH ^O S` DQG VRPH [ H ; WKHQ FOHDUO\ [ LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ 7KLV FRQGLWLRQ FDQ EH FKHFNHG E\ VROYLQJ S PLQLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHPV PLQ ?I@ [f_[ VL@ M S 7KHUHIRUH ZH PD\ DVVXPH ZLWKRXW ORVV RI JHQHUDOLW\ WKDW IRU HDFK M S Ic [f! KROGV IRU DOO [H ; 7KH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ K RI SUREOHP 3[f LV JHQHUDOO\ QRW D FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ $V D UHVXOW SUREOHP 3[f EHORQJV WR D FODVV RI QRQFRQYH[ SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV FDOOHG JOREDO RSWLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHPV ,Q FRQWUDVW WR FRQYH[ SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV WKHUH PD\ EH PDQ\ ORFDO PLQLPD IRU SUREOHP 3[f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f LV D GLIILFXOW SUREOHP WKDW LV NQRZQ WR EH 13 KDUG HYHQ ZKHQ WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ LV VLPSO\ K[f [ ‘ [ DQG WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ ; LV D SRO\KHGURQ 0DWVXL f :KHQ LQ DGGLWLRQ WR WKH DVVXPSWLRQV JLYHQ SUHYLRXVO\ IRU SUREOHP 3[f ; LV D FRQYH[ VHW DQG IRU HDFK M S Ic;f§r5 LVD FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ ZH REWDLQ WKH FRQFDYH FDVH RI SUREOHP 3[f FDOOHG WKH FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP 7KH FRQYH[ FDVH RI SUREOHP 3[f FDOOHG WKH FRQYH[ PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ

PAGE 11

SUREOHP LV REWDLQHG ZKHQ LQ DGGLWLRQ WR WKH DVVXPSWLRQV PDGH SUHYLRXVO\ IRU SUREOHP 3[f ; LV D FRQYH[ VHW DQG IRU HDFK M S Ic;r5 LV D FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ $ VSHFLDO OLQHDU FDVH RI SUREOHP 3[f FDOOHG WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP LV REWDLQHG ZKHQ LQ DGGLWLRQ WR WKH DVVXPSWLRQV PDNH SUHYLRXVO\ IRU SUREOHP 3[f ; LV D FRPSDFW SRO\KHGURQ DQG IRU HDFK M S IU;A5 LV D OLQHDU IXQFWLRQ .RQQR DQG .XQR f 5HIRUPXODWLRQV RI WKH 0XOWLSOLFDWLYH 3URJUDPPLQJ 3UREOHP 'XULQJ WKH fV WKHUH KDV EHHQ D UHVXUJHQFH RI LQWHUHVW LQ SUREOHP 3[f (QFRXUDJHG E\ WKH UDSLG DGYDQFHV LQ KLJK VSHHG FRPSXWLQJ UHVHDUFKHUV EHJDQ GHYHORSLQJ DQG WHVWLQJ QHZ PHWKRGV IRU VROYLQJ JOREDO RSWLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHPV WKDW DULVH LQ SUDFWLFDO DSSOLFDWLRQV LQFOXGLQJ SUREOHP 3[f ,QFOXGHG DPRQJ WKH JOREDO RSWLPL]DWLRQ PHWKRGV XVHG WR VROYH SUREOHP 3[f IRU WKH VSHFLDO FDVH ZKHQ S DUH YDULRXV SDUDPHWULF VLPSOH[ PHWKRGEDVHG DOJRULWKPV HJ .RQQR DQG .XQR .RQQR DQG .XQR .RQQR
PAGE 12

S VROYH WKH SUREOHP GLUHFWO\ ZLWKRXW UHIRUPXODWLQJ LW DV DQ RXWFRPHVSDFH SUREOHP ,QFOXGHG DPRQJ WKHVH IRU LQVWDQFH LV WKH SRO\KHGUDO DQQH[DWLRQ DOJRULWKP RI 7X\ f 0RVW RI WKH DOJRULWKPV IRU VROYLQJ SUREOHP 3[f ZKHQ S KRZHYHU VROYH WKH SUREOHP LQGLUHFWO\ E\ JOREDOO\ VROYLQJ DQ RXWFRPHVSDFH UHIRUPXODWLRQ RI WKH SUREOHP LQVWHDG 7KLV LV EHFDXVH LQ SUDFWLFDO DSSOLFDWLRQV S LV URXWLQHO\ PXFK VPDOOHU WKDQ Q RIWHQ E\ WZR RU PRUH RUGHUV RI PDJQLWXGH $V D UHVXOW ZRUNLQJ LQ "nn LV FRPSXWDWLRQDOO\ OHVV FKDOOHQJLQJ WKDQ ZRUNLQJ LQ LI /HW \H 5f GHQRWH WKH SYHFWRU ZLWK \WK HQWU\ HTXDO WR \MW M S )RU HDFK M S OHW \cH 5 VDWLVI\ \c AVXS Ic^[? VW[H ; ZKHUH \ rr LV SRVVLEOH DQG OHW \H5ff GHQRWH WKH YHFWRU ZLWK\WK HQWU\ HTXDO WR \ M S /HW I[f GHQRWH WKH YHFWRU I[f >Ic[?I[?IS[f@7 ZKHUH IM;W5 M S DUH WKH IXQFWLRQV XVHG LQ GHILQLQJ SUREOHP 3[f 7KRDL f DQG ODWHU .RQQR DQG .XQR f EDVHG WKHLU RXWHU DSSUR[LPDWLRQ DOJRULWKPV IRU UHVSHFWLYHO\ VROYLQJ WKH FRQYH[ DQG OLQHDU FDVHV RI SUREOHP 3[f RQ RQH RI WKH PRUH GLUHFW UHIRUPXODWLRQV RI SUREOHP 3[f DV DQ RXWFRPHVSDFH SUREOHP 7KHLU UHIRUPXODWLRQ LV JLYHQ E\ ‘3
PAGE 13

)DON DQG 3DORFVD\ f EDVHG WKHLU EUDQFK DQG ERXQG LPDJH VSDFH DOJRULWKP IRU WKH OLQHDU FDVH RI SUREOHP 3[f RQ DQRWKHU RXWFRPHVSDFH UHIRUPXODWLRQ WKDW LV FORVHO\ UHODWHG WR SUREOHP 3\Lf 7KHLU UHIRUPXODWLRQ LV JLYHQ E\ 3Uf QQMA\ VW \H< ZKHUH < ^\H 5S?\ &[ IRUVRPH[H ;` DQG & LV D S[Qf PDWUL[ ZKRVH URZV DUH FM M S 3XUSRVH DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQ RI WKH 'LVVHUWDWLRQ 7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ KDV WZR PDLQ SXUSRVHV 7KH ILUVW LV WR GHYHORS DQG WHVW D KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP WKDW ILQGV D JRRG VROXWLRQ WKRXJK QRW QHFHVVDULO\ D JOREDOO\ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU WKH OLQHDU FDVH RI SUREOHP 3[f 7KH VHFRQG SXUSRVH LV WR GHYHORS DQ H[DFW JOREDO VROXWLRQ DOJRULWKP IRU WKH OLQHDU FDVH RI SUREOHP 3[f WKDW LV SRWHQWLDOO\ PRUH HIILFLHQW WKDQ H[LVWLQJ DOJRULWKPV IRU WKLV SUREOHP 6LQFH WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP LV NQRZQ WR EH DQ 13KDUG PXOWLH[WUHPDO JOREDO RSWLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHP LW LV LQKHUHQWO\ PRUH GLIILFXOW WR JOREDOO\ VROYH WKDQ D FRQYH[ SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP RI WKH VDPH VL]H ,Q VRPH DSSOLFDWLRQ FDVHV D VROXWLRQ ZLOO DGHTXDWHO\ PHHW WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV RI D XVHU VHH HJ .RQQR DQG ,QRUL f ,Q WKHVH FDVHV WKH XVH RI D KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP VHHPV WR EH DSSURSULDWH IRU ILQGLQJ D VDWLVIDFWRU\ VROXWLRQ 7R GDWH KRZHYHU WKHUH LV QR NQRZQ KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP WDLORUHG WR ILQGLQJ D JRRG VROXWLRQ IRU WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP ,Q WKHLU UHYLHZ RI DOJRULWKPV IRU VROYLQJ SUREOHP 3[f .RQQR DQG .XQR f GR QRW PHQWLRQ

PAGE 14

DQ\ KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKPV IRU SUREOHP 3[f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f )RU FDVHV ZKHUH D OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDP PXVW EH VROYHG IRU DQ H[DFW JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ ZH H[SHFW WKDW JOREDOO\ VROYLQJ WKH RXWFRPHVSDFH UHIRUPXODWLRQ 3\6f LQVWHDG ZLOO UHVXOW LQ D VLJQLILFDQW GHFUHDVH LQ WKH FRPSXWDWLRQDO HIIRUW RYHU WKDW UHTXLUHG WR GLUHFWO\ VROYH WKH SUREOHP 7KLV LV EHFDXVH LQ W\SLFDO DSSOLFDWLRQV RI OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPV S LV VHYHUDO RUGHUV RI PDJQLWXGH VPDOOHU WKDQ Q $V D UHVXOW ZRUNLQJ LQ 5S VKRXOG EH FRPSXWDWLRQDOO\ OHVV FKDOOHQJLQJ WKDQ ZRUNLQJ LQ 5 7R JOREDOO\ VROYH WKH RXWFRPHVSDFH UHIRUPXODWLRQ 3\6f RI D OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDP ZH GHYHORS DQ RXWFRPHVSDFH SXUH FXWWLQJ SODQH DOJRULWKP WKDW ZRUNV LQ 5S 7KH IUDPHZRUN IRU WKH DOJRULWKP LV WDNHQ IURP D SXUH FXWWLQJ SODQH GHFLVLRQ VHWEDVHG FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ PHWKRG GHYHORSHG E\ +RUVW DQG 7X\ f :H VKRZ KRZ WR DGDSW WKLV PHWKRG WR VROYLQJ WKH UHIRUPXODWLRQ 3ff RI D OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDP IRU D JOREDO H[WUHPH SRLQW RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ 2QFH WKLV JOREDO VROXWLRQ LV IRXQG ZH FDQ

PAGE 15

UHFRYHU D JOREDOO\ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDP LQ GHFLVLRQ VSDFH $V D IXUWKHU FRPSXWDWLRQDO HQKDQFHPHQW ZH DOVR VKRZ WKDW IRU SXUSRVHV RI LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WKH PHFKDQLFV RI WKH RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP FDQ EH DSSOLHG WR WKH VPDOOHU SUREOHP 3Uf LQVWHDG RI SUREOHP 3\Lf 7KH RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI WKH SURSRVDO LV DV IROORZV ,Q &KDSWHU ZH SUHVHQW D UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH RQ PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV ,Q &KDSWHU ZH DQDO\]H WKH FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP DSSO\ WKH UHVXOWV WR GHYHORS D KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP IRU WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP DQG UHSRUW WHVW UHVXOWV XVLQJ WKH KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP RQ VRPH UDQGRPO\JHQHUDWHG SUREOHPV ,Q &KDSWHU ZH DQDO\]H WKH UHIRUPXODWLRQ SUREOHP 3\Lf DQG VKRZ WKDW XQGHU FHUWDLQ FRQYH[LW\ DVVXPSWLRQV RQ < SUREOHP 3\Lf KDV D JOREDO H[WUHPH SRLQW RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ \ H < :H WKHQ SUHVHQW D SURFHGXUH WKDW LV JXDUDQWHHG WR ILQG D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ IRU WKH UHIRUPXODWLRQ SUREOHP 3\Lf RI WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDP ,Q &KDSWHU ZH SUHVHQW DQ RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP IRU JOREDOO\ VROYLQJ D OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDP 7KH DOJRULWKP HPSOR\V WKH VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VHDUFK SURFHGXUH SUHVHQWHG LQ &KDSWHU :H DOVR LOOXVWUDWH WKH DOJRULWKP E\ DSSO\LQJ LW WR WKH VROXWLRQ RI D VDPSOH SUREOHP )LQDOO\ LQ &KDSWHU ZH JLYH DQ RYHUDOO VXPPDU\ DQG FRQFOXVLRQV DQG ZH GLVFXVV GLUHFWLRQV IRU IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK

PAGE 16

&+$37(5 $ 5(9,(: 2) 7+( /,7(5$785( 21 08/7,3/,&$7,9( 352*5$00,1* 352%/(06 2UJDQL]DWLRQ RI WKH /LWHUDWXUH 5HYLHZ ,Q WKLV FKDSWHU ZH SUHVHQW D UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH RQ PHWKRGV SURSRVHG IRU VROYLQJ PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV 7KH RQO\ NQRZQ OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ RQ PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV DSSHDUV LQ .RQQR DQG .XQR f ,Q WKHLU OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ .RQQR DQG .XQR GHILQHG PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV DV fD FODVV RI PLQLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHPV FRQWDLQLQJ D SURGXFW RI VHYHUDO FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQV HLWKHU LQ LWV REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RU LQ LWV FRQVWUDLQWVf 7KH\ LQFOXGHG SUREOHPV LQ ZKLFK WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ FRQWDLQHG WKH VXPPDWLRQ RI D FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ DQG WKH SURGXFW RI FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQV .RQQR DQG .XQR f RUJDQL]HG WKHLU OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ EDVHG RQ ZKHWKHU WKH SUREOHP GDWD DUH OLQHDU RU QRQOLQHDU DQG RQ WKH QXPEHU RI IXQFWLRQV WKDW DSSHDU LQ WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ 7KH\ FRQVLGHUHG VROXWLRQ PHWKRGV IRU WKH IROORZLQJ PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV 7KH ILUVW PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP FRQVLGHUHG E\ .RQQR DQG .XQR LV WKH VSHFLDO FDVH RI TXDGUDWLF SURJUDPPLQJ /03f PLQ[f AF[A GLf-F[A £f VW [H' ZKHUH ? ^[V 5Q?$[ 6 E [ J R` LV D QRQHPSW\ SRO\WRSH ERXQGHG SRO\KHGURQf LQ

PAGE 17

ZKLFK $ LV DQ P[Q PDWUL[ EH 5P DQG IRU HDFK L Fn H 5 ?^` DQG GcH 5 ,Q DGGLWLRQ LW LV DVVXPHG WKDW IRU HDFK [H Fn [nM GL! L 7KH VHFRQG PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP WKDW WKH\ FRQVLGHUHG LV WKH FRQYH[ PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP &03f PLQ[f c[? VW[V ; 0 ZKHUH ; F 5 LV D QRQHPSW\ FRPSDFW FRQYH[ VHW DQG IRU HDFK M S IM5A5 LV D FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ WKDW VDWLVILHV Ic[f! IRU DOO [H ; .RQQR DQG .XQR f FRQVLGHUHG WZR VSHFLDO FDVHV RI SUREOHP &03f f WKH FDVH ZKHUH S DQG f WKH FDVH ZKHUH S 6 DQG WKH SUREOHP GDWD DUH OLQHDU 7KH VHFRQG FDVH PD\ EH GHILQHG DV WKH IROORZLQJ H[WHQVLRQ RI SUREOHP /03f /03f PLQ I[f VW[H L L ZKHUH S 6 LV DQ LQWHJHU DQG IRU HDFK S Fn[nM Gc KROGV IRU DOO [H )LQDOO\ .RQQR DQG .XQR f FRQVLGHUHG WKUHH FODVVHV RI SUREOHPV UHODWHG WR SUREOHP &03f ,Q WKH ILUVW FODVV LV WKH IROORZLQJ SUREOHP *&03f PLQ[f I[f Kc^[fI-[f VW[H ; ZKHUH IRU HDFK M T IM m! LV D FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ WKDW VDWLVILHV [f IRU DOO [H ; 7KH VHFRQG FODVV LV D VSHFLDO FDVH RI *&03f LQ ZKLFK T DQG WKH SUREOHP GDWD DUH OLQHDU 7KLV FODVV PD\ EH GHILQHG DV WKH IROORZLQJ H[WHQVLRQ RI SUREOHP /03f

PAGE 18

*/03f PLQ: Fr$f FnA` fFMf £f VW[H ZKHUH Fr H 5Q DQG FfGW L DQG DUH GHILQHG DV LQ SUREOHP /03f 7KH WKLUG FODVV RI SUREOHPV FRQVLGHUHG E\ .RQQR DQG .XQR f LV WKH PLQLPL]DWLRQ RI D FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ RYHU D IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ WKDW LQFOXGHV D SURGXFW RI FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQV LQ LWV FRQVWUDLQW VHW .RQQR DQG .XQRfV FRYHUDJH RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH LV QRW H[KDXVWLYH 7KH\ IRFXVHG RQ DOJRULWKPV WKDW KDYH EHHQ GHPRQVWUDWHG E\ FRPSXWDWLRQDO H[SHULPHQWV WR EH SUDFWLFDO IRU UHDVRQDEO\ ODUJH SUREOHPV .RQQR DQG .XQR S f $OJRULWKPV SURSRVHG E\ .RQQR .XQR DQG WKHLU DVVRFLDWHV KDYH EHHQ WHVWHG RQ UDQGRPO\ JHQHUDWHG SUREOHPV DQG WKH UHVXOWV UHSRUWHG +RZHYHU FRPSXWDWLRQDO UHVXOWV KDYH QRW EHHQ UHSRUWHG E\ PRVW RI WKH RWKHU UHVHDUFKHUV DQG WKHUHIRUH WKHLU PHWKRGV ZHUH QRW LQFOXGHG LQ WKH UHYLHZ 6LQFH WKH SXEOLFDWLRQ RI WKH UHYLHZ E\ .RQQR DQG .XQR WZR PRUH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV KDYH EHHQ GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH 7KH ILUVW SUREOHP DGGV D FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ WR WKH REMHFWLYH RI SUREOHP /03f WR REWDLQ WKH SUREOHP &/03f PLQ[f J[fAFnA G;FA eLf VW[H' ZKHUH J 5 f§! 5 LV D WZLFH GLIIHUHQWLDEOH FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ DQG FfGc L DQG DUH GHILQHG DV LQ SUREOHP /03f 7KH VHFRQG SUREOHP DGGV D FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ WR SUREOHP &03f WR REWDLQ WKH SUREOHP &&03f PLQrf frfIWrf VW[H ; n L ZKHUH f 5 f§! 5 LV D FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ WKDW VDWLVILHV I[f! IRU DOO [H ; DQG M S DQG ; DUH GHILQHG DV LQ SUREOHP &03f

PAGE 19

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f WKLV OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ LV RUJDQL]HG EDVHG RQ ZKHWKHU WKH SUREOHP GDWD DUH OLQHDU RU QRQOLQHDU DQG RQ WKH QXPEHU RI IXQFWLRQV WKDW DSSHDU LQ WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ ,W LV GLYLGHG LQWR WKH IROORZLQJ IRXU VHFWLRQV 6HFWLRQ UHYLHZV WKH PHWKRGV SURSRVHG WR VROYH SUREOHPV /03f */03f DQG &/03f 6HFWLRQ UHYLHZV WKH PHWKRGV WR VROYH SUREOHP /03f WKDW DUH H[WHQVLRQV RI PHWKRGV IRU SUREOHP /03f 6HFWLRQ UHYLHZV WKH PHWKRGV WR VROYH SUREOHPV &03f *&03f DQG &&03f 6HFWLRQ UHYLHZV WKH PHWKRGV WR VROYH SUREOHP /03f DV D FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHP 7KH UDWLRQDOH IRU RUJDQL]LQJ WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ LQ WKLV ZD\ LV DV IROORZV +LVWRULFDOO\ WKH ILUVW DOJRULWKPV IRU VROYLQJ PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV ZHUH VSHFLILFDOO\ SURSRVHG IRU VROYLQJ SUREOHP /03f 3UREOHPV */03f DQG &/03f DUH JURXSHG ZLWK SUREOHP /03f VLQFH WKH\ ZHUH FRQFHLYHG DV H[WHQVLRQV RI WKDW SUREOHP 6HYHUDO RI WKH DOJRULWKPV SURSRVHG IRU VROYLQJ SUREOHP /03f FDQ EH H[WHQGHG WR VROYH

PAGE 20

WKH SUREOHP /03f VLQFH WKH\ GR QRW GHSHQG XSRQ KDYLQJ RQO\ WZR IXQFWLRQV LQ WKH SURGXFW WHUP RI WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ 3UREOHPV /03f /03f */03f DQG &/03f FRQWDLQ OLQHDU IXQFWLRQV DQG SRO\KHGUDO IHDVLEOH UHJLRQV $OJRULWKPV IRU VROYLQJ WKHVH SUREOHPV DUH LPSOHPHQWHG ZLWK WKH DLG RI WKH VLPSOH[ PHWKRG ZKLFK LV XVHG WR VROYH OLQHDU SURJUDPPLQJ VXESUREOHPV 7KH SUREOHPV &03f *&03f DQG &&03f FRQWDLQ QRQOLQHDU GDWD DQG PXVW UHO\ RQ RWKHU RSWLPL]DWLRQ PHWKRGV WR VROYH QRQOLQHDU FRQYH[ SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV 7KH ODWWHU WKUHH SUREOHPV DUH WKHUHIRUH SODFHG LQ D VHSDUDWH JURXS 3UREOHPV *&03f DQG &&03f DUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH JURXS ZLWK SUREOHP &03f EHFDXVH RQO\ RQH DUWLFOH DGGUHVVHV HDFK SUREOHP DQG WKH\ ZHUH FRQFHLYHG DV H[WHQVLRQV RI SUREOHP &03f )LQDOO\ WZR DUWLFOHV DSSHDUHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH WKDW SURSRVHG VROYLQJ SUREOHP /03f DV D FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHP XVLQJ WHFKQLTXHV WKDW WKH DXWKRUV KDG SUHYLRXVO\ GHYHORSHG 7DEOH JLYHV D VXPPDU\ RI WKH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV FRQVLGHUHG LQ WKLV OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ DORQJ ZLWK WKH DVVXPSWLRQV SODFHG RQ WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ DQG WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI HDFK SUREOHP 0HWKRGV WR 6ROYH 3UREOHPV /03f */03f DQG &/03f 7KH PHWKRGV IRU VROYLQJ SUREOHP /03f */03f DQG &/03f DUH IXUWKHU GLYLGHG LQWR IRXU FDWHJRULHV ,Q WKH ILUVW FDWHJRU\ DUH WKRVH PHWKRGV WKDW DQDO\]H SUREOHP /03f DV D VSHFLDO FDVH RI TXDGUDWLF SURJUDPPLQJ ,Q WKH VHFRQG FDWHJRU\ DUH DOJRULWKPV WKDW DQDO\]H SUREOHP /03f E\ VHDUFKLQJ WKH RXWFRPH VHW ,Q WKH WKLUG FDWHJRU\ DUH WKH DOJRULWKPV WKDW VROYH DQ HDVLHU SDUDPHWULF SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP UDWKHU WKDQ GLUHFWO\ VROYLQJ SUREOHPV /03f */03f DQG &/03f ,Q WKH ODVW FDWHJRU\ DUH

PAGE 21

7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI 0XOWLSOLFDWLYH 3URJUDP 7\SHV DQG $VVXPSWLRQV RQ 3UREOHPV 3UREOHP $VVXPSWLRQV RQ WKH )HDVLEOH 5HJLRQ 2EMHFWLYH )XQFWLRQ $VVXPSWLRQV RQ WKH 2EMHFWLYH )XQFWLRQ /03 LV D ERXQGHG SRO\KHGURQ FMFf LfF[f f Ff[nM GW L O IRU DOO [H' */03 LV D ERXQGHG SRO\KHGURQ Fr[f Fn[f Gf^F?[f Gf Fr[A! DQG Fn [M Gc! L OIRUDOO &/03 LV D ERXQGHG SRO\KHGURQ J[f^Fn[f GOOF?[f Gf J 5 f§! 5 LV D WZLFH GLIIHUHQWLDEOH FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ DQG Ff G L IRU DOO [H /03 LV D ERXQGHG SRO\KHGURQ Ff [Af Gc L S IRU DOO OH' &03 ; LV D FRPSDFW FRQYH[ VHW IL0 )RUHDFK Ic5A!5 LVD FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ WKDW VDWLVILHV IM [f IRU DOO [H ; *&03 ; LV D FRPSDFW FRQYH[ VHW R:LM\L:\: )RUHDFK M"f§}" LVD FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ WKDW VDWLVILHV Ic[f! IRU DOO [H ; &&03 ; LV D FRPSDFW FRQYH[ VHW mZUWM: )RUHDFK S LVD FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ WKDW VDWLVILHV M [f IRU DOO [H ;

PAGE 22

WZR DOJRULWKPV WKDW VROYH SUREOHP /03f EDVHG RQ WKH PHWKRG RI SRO\KHGUDO DQQH[DWLRQ 0HWKRGV %DVHG RQ 4XDGUDWLF 3URJUDPPLQJ 6LQFH WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI SUREOHP /03f FDQ EH H[SUHVVHG DV I[f ^^Fn [M GfF[f GLf A [74[ U7[ GG ZKHUH UH 5 DQG 4 LV D UHDO V\PPHWULF Q[Q PDWUL[ SUREOHP /03f LV D VSHFLDO FODVV RI TXDGUDWLF SURJUDPPLQJ 6ZDPS D DQG Ef ZDV WKH ILUVW UHVHDUFKHU WR DQDO\]H SUREOHP /03f LQ WKLV ZD\ EXW KH GLG QRW SURSRVH DQ\ H[DFW VROXWLRQ DOJRULWKPV +LV WZR DUWLFOHV DUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ IRU FRPSOHWHQHVV 3DUGDORV f DOVR DQDO\]HG SUREOHP /03f LQ WKLV ZD\ DQG KH SURSRVHG DQ H[DFW JOREDO VROXWLRQ DOJRULWKP 6ZDPS Df VKRZHG WKDW LI ERWK OLQHDU IXQFWLRQV Ff [M Gc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

PAGE 23

DOJRULWKP VWRSV 1R LQIRUPDWLRQ LV DYDLODEOH WR HLWKHU FHUWLI\ WKH JOREDO RSWLPDOLW\ RI WKH VROXWLRQ RU WR GHWHUPLQH KRZ WR SURFHHG WR DQ LPSURYHG VROXWLRQ ,Q DQRWKHU ZRUN 6ZDUXS Ef IRUPXODWHG WKH IROORZLQJ SDUDPHWULF OLQHDU SURJUDP E\ LQWURGXFLQJ DQ DX[LOLDU\ YDULDEOH W DQG PRYLQJ RQH RI WKH OLQHDU IXQFWLRQV LQWR WKH FRQVWUDLQW VHW 03f PLQ)[Lrf Fn[nf Gc VW [H F?[f G e 62 6LQFH F [M G DSSHDUV LQ WKH FRQVWUDLQW VHW GXDO SULFLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ LV DYDLODEOH WR GHWHUPLQH WKH YDOXH RI Fn Gc DV e LV VHW WR DFKLHYDEOH YDOXHV RI F [nM G RYHU 6ZDUXS GHULYHG D WHVW WKDW XVHV WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHQ T LV VHW WR D OHYHO WKDW FRUUHVSRQGV WR D ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ $OO ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQV FDQ WKHQ WKHRUHWLFDOO\ EH IRXQG E\ SDUDPHWULFDOO\ VROYLQJ SUREOHP 03f RYHU DOO DFKLHYDEOH YDOXHV RI $ JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ [f RI SUREOHP /03f FDQ WKHQ EH IRXQG E\ LGHQWLI\LQJ D JOREDO VROXWLRQ [? enf RI SUREOHP 03f 3DUGDORV f REVHUYHG WKDW LI Fn DQG F DUH OLQHDUO\ LQGHSHQGHQW WKHQ WKH +HVVLDQ PDWUL[ 4 RI WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI SUREOHP /03f KDV RQH SRVLWLYH HLJHQYDOXH DQG RQH QHJDWLYH HLJHQYDOXH DQG WKH UHPDLQLQJ HLJHQYDOXHV DUH HTXDO WR ]HUR %\ DSSO\LQJ WKH VSHFWUDO GHFRPSRVLWLRQ WKHRUHP RI OLQHDU DOJHEUD WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ FDQ EH UHZULWWHQ LQ WHUPV RI WZR YDULDEOHV 7KH SUREOHP FDQ WKHQ EH VROYHG E\ H[DPLQLQJ WKH YHUWLFHV RI DQ RUWKRJRQDO SURMHFWLRQ RI WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ LQWR D WZRGLPHQVLRQDO

PAGE 24

SRO\WRSH LQ WKH VSDFH RI WKH WZR YDULDEOHV XVHG LQ WKH UHZULWWHQ REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ 3DUGDORV f SURSRVHG DQ DOJRULWKP WKDW HQXPHUDWHV DOO YHUWLFHV RI WKH WZR GLPHQVLRQDO SRO\WRSH XQWLO DQ RSWLPDO YHUWH[ LV IRXQG 7KH DOJRULWKP PD\ UHTXLUH DQ H[SRQHQWLDO QXPEHU RI VWHSV EXW LWV DYHUDJH FRPSXWDWLRQDO WLPH FRPSOH[LW\ LV ERXQGHG E\ D SRO\QRPLDO 0HWKRGV %DVHG RQ 6HDUFKLQJ WKH 2XWFRPH 6HW 7KH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI SUREOHP /03f FDQ EH H[SUHVVHG DV WKH FRPSRVLWH OSSf RI WZR PDSSLQJV ZKHUH IRU HDFK [V 5 S[f AF?[nM GcF[nM Gf DQG IRU HDFK \H 5 L\f \ ‘ \ 7KH PDSSLQJ S PDSV HDFK SRLQW [H' LQWR D SRLQW \ \S \f ZKHUH \ Fn[A Gc DQG\ f F[nM G 6LQFH \ DQG \ DUH OLQHDU IXQFWLRQV S LV D OLQHDU WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ DQG KHQFH WKH OLQHDU VWUXFWXUH RI LV SUHVHUYHG 5RFNDIHOODU f 7KH LPDJH RI XQGHU S LV WKHQ WKH FRPSDFW FRQYH[ SRO\KHGURQ < ^\V I _M\ AFn[A GS\ F[nM G IRU VRPH [H G? FDOOHG WKH RXWFRPH SRO\KHGURQ $ JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ RI SUREOHP /03f FDQ EH IRXQG E\ ILQGLQJ D SRLQW RI < WKDW JOREDOO\ PLQLPL]HV WKH SURGXFW \ ‘ \ 6LQFH WKH VHDUFK LV FRQGXFWHG LQ < F 5 UDWKHU WKDQ 5 LW PD\ EH SRVVLEOH WR HFRQRPL]H RQ WKH FRPSXWDWLRQDO HIIRUW UHTXLUHG WR VROYH SUREOHP /03f 7KUHH DUWLFOHV $QHMD $JJDUZDO DQG 1DLU f )DON DQG 3DORFVD\ f DQG 7KRDL f SURSRVHG DOJRULWKPV IRU VROYLQJ SUREOHP /03f EDVHG RQ VHDUFKLQJ WKH RXWFRPH VHW XVLQJ RXWHU DSSUR[LPDWLRQ WHFKQLTXHV 2XWHU DSSUR[LPDWLRQ LV D JOREDO RSWLPL]DWLRQ WHFKQLTXH WKDW XVHV D GHFUHDVLQJ VHTXHQFH RI VLPSOH VHWV WR DSSUR[LPDWH WKH

PAGE 25

IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ 7KH DSSUR[LPDWLRQV DUH XVHG LQ D VHULHV RI RSWLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHPV WKDW DUH HDVLHU WR VROYH WKDQ WKH RULJLQDO SUREOHP 7KHVH RSWLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHPV DUH VHTXHQWLDOO\ VROYHG XQWLO D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR WKH RULJLQDO SUREOHP LV IRXQG 7KH WHFKQLTXH KDV EHHQ YHU\ XVHIXO LQ VROYLQJ JOREDO RSWLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHPV LQ ZKLFK WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ = LV D SRO\WRSH DQG WKH JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ LV NQRZQ WR EH DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RI = ,Q WKLV IRUP RI RXWHU DSSUR[LPDWLRQ WKH DOJRULWKP EHJLQV E\ ILQGLQJ D VLPSOH SRO\WRSH 3 = ZLWK DQ HDVLO\ GHILQHG LQHTXDOLW\ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG DQ HDVLO\ FDOFXODWHG VHW RI YHUWLFHV $ VHULHV RI DOJRULWKPLF LWHUDWLRQV IROORZV WKDW EXLOGV D VHTXHQFH RI GHFUHDVLQJ SRO\WRSHV 3 U! 7c ]! f f f ]! = LQ ZKLFK RQH SRO\WRSH LV JHQHUDWHG LQ HDFK LWHUDWLRQ ,Q DQ LWHUDWLRQ N RI WKH DOJRULWKP WKH RULJLQDO REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ LV HYDOXDWHG DW WKH H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI 3N WR ILQG DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ Yf ,I Yr LV DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RI = WKHQ Yr LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR WKH RULJLQDO SUREOHP 2WKHUZLVH D SRUWLRQ RI 3N ? = LV FXW RII WR IRUP 7KH SRLQW Yr LV SDUW RI WKH UHJLRQ FXW RII LH Yf LV QRW LQFOXGHG LQ WKH SRO\WRSH 7KH FXW LV PDGH E\ DGGLQJ D FRQVWUDLQW FDOOHG D FXWWLQJ SODQH FRQVWUDLQW WR WKH FRQVWUDLQW VHW WKDW GHILQHV 3N 7KH FXWWLQJ SODQH FRQVWUDLQW DGGV DGGLWLRQDO YHUWLFHV WR 30 WKDW ZHUH QRW SUHVHQW LQ 3W DQG WKHUHIRUH WKH\ PXVW EH FDOFXODWHG $QHMD $JJDUZDO DQG 1DLU f SURSRVHG DQ DOJRULWKP WKDW H[DPLQHV WKH VROXWLRQV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH ELFULWHULRQ SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP %&3f 90,1 \ Fn [f G \ F?[f Gf V W [H '

PAGE 26

7KH LQWHQW RI SUREOHP %&3f LV WR VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ PLQLPL]H WKH WZR FULWHULRQ IXQFWLRQV \ DQG \ &RQIOLFWV XVXDOO\ H[LVW EHWZHHQ WKH WZR FULWHULRQ IXQFWLRQV WKDW SUHYHQW D VLQJOH SRLQW RI IURP VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ PLQLPL]LQJ ERWK IXQFWLRQV 7KH XVXDO QRWLRQ RI DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ XVHG LQ VLQJOH REMHFWLYH OLQHDU SURJUDPPLQJ LV UHSODFHG E\ WKH FRQFHSW RI HIILFLHQW VROXWLRQV ZKHQ GLVFXVVLQJ WKH VROXWLRQV RI SUREOHP %&3f $ VROXWLRQ [ LV DQ HIILFLHQW VROXWLRQ RI SUREOHP %&3f LI L DQG ZKHQHYHU IRU HDFK L O Ff [A GLL^Ff [AM G IRU VRPH UH 2 WKHQ F [nM Gc F [AM GL cn 7KH VHW RI HIILFLHQW SRLQWV RI LV PDSSHG E\ S LQWR D VHW RI SRLQWV RQ WKH VXUIDFH RI < FDOOHG WKH HIILFLHQW IURQWLHU $QHMD $JJDUZDO DQG 1DLU f VKRZHG WKDW D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ RI SUREOHP /03f LV DWWDLQHG DW DQ HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQW [f RI WKDW LV PDSSHG E\ S LQWR DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW \f \f !Q WKH HIILFLHQW IURQWLHU RI < 7KHLU DOJRULWKP VHDUFKHV WKH HIILFLHQW IURQWLHU IRU DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW WKDW PLQLPL]HV \\ E\ XVLQJ D PRGLILHG RXWHU DSSUR[LPDWLRQ WHFKQLTXH ,QLWLDOO\ WKH OHJV RI D ULJKWDQJOH WULDQJOH IRUP WKH ILUVW DSSUR[LPDWLRQ RI WKH HIILFLHQW IURQWLHU 7KH fULVHf DQG WKH fUXQf YDOXHV RI WKH VORSH RI WKH K\SRWHQXVH DUH WZR SRVLWLYH VFDODU YDOXHV 7KH IXQFWLRQV \ Fn [A GW DQG \ F[nM G DUH PXOWLSOLHG E\ WKHVH YDOXHV DQG WKHQ VXPPHG WR IRUP D VLQJOH OLQHDU REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ 7KLV REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ LV WKHQ PLQLPL]HG RYHU WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ ,W LV ZHOO NQRZQ WKDW WKH PLQLPL]HU -F RI VXFK D OLQHDU SURJUDP LV DQ HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQW RI 6WHXHU f 7KH VROXWLRQ WR WKH OLQHDU SURJUDP ILQGV DQRWKHU SRLQW \ \f RQ WKH HIILFLHQW IURQWLHU WKDW LV XVHG WR VXEGLYLGH WKH LQLWLDO WULDQJOH LQWR WZR WULDQJOHV 7KH

PAGE 27

DOJRULWKP LV WKHQ UHSHDWHG XVLQJ HDFK RI WKH VPDOOHU WULDQJOHV 7KH DOJRULWKP WHUPLQDWHV ZKHQ WKHUH DUH QR PRUH H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI WKH HIILFLHQW IURQWLHU WKDW QHHG WR EH VHDUFKHG ,Q WKH DOJRULWKP RI $QHMD $JJDUZDO DQG 1DLU f D QHZ YHUWH[ PXVW EH FDOFXODWHG IRU HDFK WULDQJOH 7KLV LV HDVLO\ GRQH E\ VROYLQJ WZR V\VWHPV RI WZR HTXDWLRQV LQ WKH XQNQRZQV \ DQG \ 7KLV VSHFLDO WHFKQLTXH KRZHYHU FDQ QRW EH HDVLO\ H[WHQGHG WR KDQGOH FDVHV ZKHUH S )DON DQG 3DORFVD\ f DOVR SURSRVHG D VROXWLRQ DOJRULWKP WKDW VHDUFKHV DPRQJ WKH H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI < XVLQJ D PRGLILHG RXWHU DSSUR[LPDWLRQ WHFKQLTXH ,Q WKH ILUVW SKDVH RI WKH DOJRULWKP WKH WZR OLQHDU SURJUDPV PLQAFn[A G DQG O PnPF [M G DUH VROYHG IRU RSWLPDO VROXWLRQV [n DQG [ UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7ZR LQLWLDO YHUWLFHV \ DQG \ RI < DUH WKHQ \n >FO[nf GYF[nf Gf DQG \ ^Fn[f Gf F[f Gf $Q LQLWLDO SRO\WRSH LQ RXWFRPHVSDFH FRQWDLQLQJ DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU WKH SUREOHP <3f PLQ IM \ A cL LV \ 6 DQG \ O DQG DQ LQHTXDOLW\ Dc\ D\ 6 ZKHUH D DQG D DUH GHWHUPLQHG VXFK WKDW D\ D\ SDVVHV WKURXJK WKH SRLQW \N DUJPLQ ^\n_\c \Mf \\f` ,Q HDFK LWHUDWLRQ RI WKH DOJRULWKP YDOXHV IRU D DQG D DUH XSGDWHG DQG D OLQHDU SURJUDP RI WKH IRUP

PAGE 28


PAGE 29

0HWKRGV %DVHG RQ 6ROYLQJ D 3DUDPHWULF 0DVWHU 3UREOHP 7KH GLIILFXOW\ LQ VROYLQJ SUREOHP /03f LV FDXVHG E\ WKH SURGXFW IRUP RI WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ .RQQR DQG .XQR f DGGHG D SDUDPHWHU e DQG IRUPHG WKH IROORZLQJ SUREOHP WKDW WKH\ FDOOHG WKH PDVWHU SUREOHP 03f PLQ )^[?f _F[f UIf MF[M Gf VW [H e 1RWLFH WKDW IRU D IL[HG YDOXH RI SUREOHP 03f LV D OLQHDU SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP 7R VROYH SUREOHP 03f .RQQR DQG .XQR SURSRVHG XVLQJ D SDUDPHWULF REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ VLPSOH[ PHWKRG WR WKH ILQG FULWLFDO YDOXHV RI DW ZKLFK QHZ EDVHV EHFRPH RSWLPDO 7KH YDOXHV RI WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ ) DUH WKHQ HYDOXDWHG DW WKHVH EDVHV $ JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ Ur erf RI SUREOHP 03f LV IRXQG E\ FKRRVLQJ WKH EDVLV WKDW PLQLPL]HV ) RYHU WKHVH YDOXHV .RQQR DQG .XQR f VKRZHG WKDW LI MHr Mnf LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ RI SUREOHP 03f WKHQ [f LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ RI SUREOHP /03f .RQQR DQG .XQR WHVWHG WKLV DOJRULWKP RQ UDQGRPO\ JHQHUDWHG SUREOHPV /03f ZLWK QRQQHJDWLYH SUREOHP GDWD WKDW UDQJHG LQ VL]H IURP P Qf f WR f 7KHLU FRPSXWDWLRQDO H[SHULPHQWV VKRZHG WKDW WKH DPRXQW RI FRPSXWDWLRQDO WLPH QHHGHG WR VROYH SUREOHP /03f LV QRW PXFK GLIIHUHQW IURP WKDW UHTXLUHG WR VROYH OLQHDU SURJUDPV RI WKH VDPH VL]H ,Q .RQQR DQG .XQR f WKH DXWKRUV VOLJKWO\ VLPSOLILHG WKH DERYH SDUDPHWULF PHWKRG E\ UHGHILQLQJ WKH DX[LOLDU\ SDUDPHWHU VR WKDW FRQYH[ FRPELQDWLRQV RI WKH WZR OLQHDU IXQFWLRQV DUH XVHG LQ WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI SUREOHP 03f 7KLV PRGLILFDWLRQ

PAGE 30

PDNHV LW HDVLHU WR ILQG FULWLFDO SDUDPHWHU YDOXHV VLQFH WKH LQWHUYDO >2 O@ RYHU ZKLFK WKH DX[LOLDU\ SDUDPHWHU UDQJHV LV ERXQGHG 7KH UHVW RI WKH PHWKRG UHPDLQHG WKH VDPH $OWKRXJK .RQQR DQG .XQR f GLG QRW H[SOLFLWO\ VD\ LW WKHLU DOJRULWKP FDQ EH YLHZHG DV VHDUFKLQJ WKH HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI SUREOHP %&3f IRU RQH WKDW LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ RI SUREOHP /03f 1RWLFH WKDW IRU D VXIILFLHQWO\ VPDOO YDOXH DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ [ inf WR SUREOHP 03f FRLQFLGHV ZLWK DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ [f RI WKH OLQHDU SURJUDP QQ^OF[nM GMc[H G? 6LPLODUO\ IRU D VXIILFLHQWO\ ODUJH YDOXH DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ [ enf FRLQFLGHV ZLWK DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ [ RI WKH OLQHDU SURJUDP PLQ^AFnMA G_MFH e!` )RU DQ\ IL[HG YDOXH _!WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ I[_LV D FRPSRVLWH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ IRUPHG E\ PXOWLSO\LQJ WKH WZR OLQHDU IXQFWLRQV E\ SRVLWLYH YDOXHV DQG VXPPLQJ WKH UHVXOW ,W LV ZHOO NQRZQ WKDW DQ\ H[WUHPH SRLQW PLQLPL]HU RI VXFK D FRPSRVLWH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RYHU WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ LV DQ HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQW RI WKH SUREOHP %&3f 6WHXHU f 7KH HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI SUREOHP %&3f DUH IRXQG E\ VROYLQJ OLQHDU SURJUDPV IRU SDUDPHWHU YDOXHV EHWZHHQ DQG $V $QHMD $JJDUZDO DQG 1DLU f KDYH VKRZQ WKH JOREDO VROXWLRQ OLHV DW DQ HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQW RI LQ SUREOHP %&3f $ GLVDGYDQWDJH RI WKH DOJRULWKP RI .RQQR DQG .XQR LV WKDW LW PD\ UHTXLUH PDQ\ SLYRWV WR VROYH SUREOHP 03f IRU DOO SRVVLEOH SDUDPHWHU YDOXHV 7KLV ZLOO HVSHFLDOO\ EH WUXH LI WKHUH LV D JUHDW FRQIOLFW EHWZHHQ WKH WZR OLQHDU IXQFWLRQV RI WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ ,I IRU H[DPSOH F F WKHQ HYHU\ H[WUHPH SRLQW RI LV DQ HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQW RI SUREOHP %&3f 6LQFH WKH VL]H RI WKH VHW RI H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI WKH SRO\WRSH JURZV

PAGE 31

H[SRQHQWLDOO\ ZLWK WKH QXPEHU RI RSWLPDO VROXWLRQV WR SUREOHP 03f RYHU WKH HQWLUH UDQJH RI SDUDPHWHU YDOXHV JURZV H[SRQHQWLDOO\ ZLWK DQG LV QRW ERXQGHG E\ D SRO\QRPLDO .RQQR DQG .XQR LQ IDFW REVHUYHG WKDW WKH FRPSXWDWLRQDO WLPH LQFUHDVHG DV WKH QXPEHU RI ORFDO PLQLPD LQFUHDVHG $Q DGGLWLRQDO GLVDGYDQWDJH RI WKH .RQQR DQG .XQR DOJRULWKP LV WKDW PDQ\ RI WKH SLYRWV SHUIRUPHG ZLOO EH XQQHFHVVDU\ ZKHQ WKH\ DUH WR EDVHV WKDW GR QRW LPSURYH RQ D SUHYLRXVO\ IRXQG VROXWLRQ ,Q DQRWKHU SDSHU .RQQR DQG .XQR f DGGHG D FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ WR WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI SUREOHP /03f WR REWDLQ WKH SUREOHP &/03f :LWK WKLV DGGLWLRQ WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ PD\ QR ORQJHU EH TXDVLFRQFDYH DQG WKHUHIRUH WKH JOREDO PLQLPXP PD\ QRW QHFHVVDULO\ EH DWWDLQHG DW DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RI WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ 7R VROYH SUREOHP &/03f .RQQR DQG .XQR f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f $ ORFDO VHDUFK LV WKHQ GRQH LQ WKDW QHLJKERUKRRG IRU D JOREDOO\ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ XVLQJ WKH .DUXVK.XKQ7XFNHU FRQGLWLRQV &DUH PXVW EH WDNHQ KRZHYHU WR DWWHPSW WR GHILQH WKH VSDFLQJ EHWZHHQ WKH SRLQWV WR EH VPDOO HQRXJK VR WKDW D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ LV QRW PLVVHG

PAGE 32

7KH GLIILFXOW\ WKDW .RQQR DQG .XQR f HQFRXQWHUHG LQ WKHLU PHWKRG LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ SDUDPHWHU YDOXHV FDQ EH HOLPLQDWHG LI ZH DVVXPH WKDW WKH FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ J LQ WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI SUREOHP &/03f LV D OLQHDU IXQFWLRQ 3UREOHP */03f LV REWDLQHG E\ PDNLQJ WKLV UHSODFHPHQW .RQQR F [A VW [H rnrf m QR 1RWLFH WKDW WKH SDUDPHWHU A DSSHDUV LQ ERWK WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ DQG LQ D ULJKWKDQG VLGH RI D FRQVWUDLQW .RQQR
PAGE 33

.RQQR
PAGE 34

LW PD\ VNLS RYHU ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQV WKDW GR QRW LPSURYH WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ YDOXH f ,W FDQ EH XVHG HYHQ ZKHQ WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ LV XQERXQGHG DQG LW FDQ GHWHFW ZKHQ SUREOHP */03f LV XQERXQGHG IURP EHORZ 0XX DQG 7DP f DOVR FRQVLGHUHG SUREOHP &/03f EXW LQ WKHLU ZRUN WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ LV UHOD[HG WR D FRPSDFW FRQYH[ VHW 7KH\ VHHP WR EH WKH RQO\ UHVHDUFKHUV WR KDYH FRQVLGHUHG WKLV JHQHUDOL]DWLRQ RI SUREOHP &/03f 7KH DXWKRUV KRZHYHU WHVWHG WKHLU DOJRULWKP XVLQJ D SRO\WRSH IRU WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ 0XX DQG 7DP f IRUPXODWHG WKH SDUDPHWULF PDVWHU SUREOHP 03nf PLQ )[?ef J[fA@>Fn [6M G M VW [H Fn[A Gc e 62 7KH\ SURSRVHG D EUDQFK DQG ERXQG DOJRULWKP WR VROYH SUREOHP 03nf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f SDUWLWLRQV RI WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ DUH FRQVWUXFWHG E\ UHVWULFWLQJ WKH YDOXH RI Fn [nM Gc WR YDOXHV ZLWKLQ DQ LQWHUYDO 7KH DOJRULWKP EHJLQV E\ ILQGLQJ DQ LQWHUYDO f >A e @ RI DFKLHYDEOH YDOXHV RI AF [nM Gc

PAGE 35

E\ VROYLQJ WKH WZR FRQYH[ SURJUDPV PLQ ^AF [M G?[ H G? DQG e PD[ ^AF [f GL?[H G? 2SWLPDO VROXWLRQV Xr DQG Yr DUH WKHQ REWDLQHG IRU WKH WZR FRQYH[ SURJUDPV 3tf PLQ ?F[f GA JFf_MH e   $ ORZHU ERXQG `ff RYHU WKH LQWHUYDO RI WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ ) RI SUREOHP 03nf LV IRXQG E\ VHOHFWLQJ 3ff PLQ ^Mef fif` $Q XSSHU ERXQG D RQ ) LV REWDLQHG E\ VHOHFWLQJ D PLQ ^mff Yf` 7KH LQWHUYDO LV QH[W ELVHFWHG DQG WKH SURFHGXUH UHSHDWHG XVLQJ WKH WZR VXELQWHUYDOV $ VXELQWHUYDO WKDW SURGXFHV D ORZHU ERXQG WKDW H[FHHGV WKH FXUUHQW XSSHU ERXQG LV HOLPLQDWHG IURP IXUWKHU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ LH WKDW VXELQWHUYDO LV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH IDWKRPHG 7KH SURFHGXUH FRQWLQXHV ELVHFWLQJ LQWHUYDOV ,N WR JHQHUDWLQJ D VHTXHQFH RI VROXWLRQV ^rr -O WKDW FRQYHUJH WR D OLPLW SRLQW [ WKDW LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ &RPSXWDWLRQDO H[SHULPHQWV RQ SUREOHPV XS WR P Qf f VKRZHG WKDW WKH DOJRULWKP LV YHU\ HIILFLHQW ZKHQ ERWK YHFWRUV F DQG G DUH SRVLWLYH 0HWKRGV %DVHG RQ 3RO\KHGUDO $QQH[DWLRQ $ OLPLWDWLRQ RI FRQYHQWLRQDO RSWLPL]DWLRQ PHWKRGV LV WKDW WKH\ FDQ EHFRPH WUDSSHG DW D ORFDO PLQLPXP RU HYHQ D VWDWLRQDU\ SRLQW LI WKH\ DUH DSSOLHG WR D JOREDO RSWLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHP HJ VHH WKH DOJRULWKPV SURSRVHG E\ 6ZDUXS D Ef 7KH FHQWUDO SUREOHP RI D JOREDO RSWLPL]DWLRQ PHWKRG WKHQ LV WR RYHUFRPH WKLV OLPLWDWLRQ E\ SURYLGLQJ D FHUWLILFDWLRQ WHVW IRU JOREDO RSWLPDOLW\ DQG LI D SRLQW LV QRW JOREDOO\ RSWLPDO GHWHUPLQLQJ KRZ WR PRYH WR D EHWWHU VROXWLRQ 7X\ f FDOOHG WKLV WKH VXESUREOHP RI

PAGE 36

fWUDQVFHQGLQJ WKH LQFXPEHQWf ZKHUH WKH LQFXPEHQW LV WKH EHVW IHDVLEOH VROXWLRQ IRXQG VR IDU E\ DQ DOJRULWKP /HW EH WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ IRU SUREOHP /03f DQG OHW [ EH D YHUWH[ RI WKDW UHSUHVHQWV WKH LQFXPEHQW VROXWLRQ IRU WKLV SUREOHP 7KHQ IURP 7X\ f WR WUDQVFHQG WKH LQFXPEHQW RQH PXVW ILQG D SRLQW LQ [ H VXFK WKDW I[f I[f RU HOVH HVWDEOLVK WKDW QR VXFK SRLQW H[LVWV LH WKDW [ LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP /03f /HW ^[ H e_[f  "f` ZKHUH e LV D FRQYH[ VHW FRQWDLQLQJ 7KH SUREOHP RI WUDQVFHQGLQJ WKH LQFXPEHQW FDQ WKHQ EH UHVWDWHG DV WKH IROORZLQJ SUREOHP *&3f &KHFN LI 'F]* DQG LI QRW ILQG D SRLQW [H '?* 3UREOHP *&3f LV NQRZQ DV WKH *HRPHWULF &RPSOHPHQWDU\ 3UREOHP 7X\ f GHYHORSHG WKH PHWKRG RI SRO\KHGUDO DQQH[DWLRQ WR VROYH SUREOHP *&3f ,Q SRO\KHGUDO DQQH[DWLRQ D VHTXHQFH RI SRO\WRSHV 3c F 3 ]]3N W] f f f LV EXLOW E\ DGGLQJ D YHUWH[ WR WKH SRO\WRSH 3NBW RI WKH SUHYLRXV LWHUDWLRQ LQ VXFK D ZD\ WKDW D YHUWH[ RI LV DQQH[HG LQWR WKH QHZ SRO\WRSH 3N 7KH VHTXHQFH 3 Q' 3Q IRUPV DQ H[SDQGLQJ LQQHU DSSUR[LPDWLRQ RI :KHQ D SRO\WRSH 3K LV IRXQG DOO RI WKH H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI KDYH EHHQ VHDUFKHG DQG WKH DOJRULWKP WHUPLQDWHV $VVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH VHTXHQFH RI SRO\WRSHV 3 F3 FF3 F f f f LV WKH VHTXHQFH RI WKHLU SRODUV 3c ]! 3 ]! f f ‘ ]! 3N ]! ‘ ‘‘ ZKHUH D SRODU er RI D FRQYH[ VHW ( LQ 5 LV GHILQHG DV (n ^\ V 5f_\[f £ OIRU DOO[H eM? $ GXDO FRUUHVSRQGHQFH H[LVWV EHWZHHQ WKH IDFHWV RI D SRO\WRSH 3N DQG WKH YHUWLFHV RI LWV SRODU 3N 7KH VXESUREOHP RI GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH

PAGE 37

LQHTXDOLW\ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI 3N DIWHU D QHZ YHUWH[ KDV EHHQ DGGHG FDQ WKHQ EH VROYHG E\ VROYLQJ WKH HDVLHU SUREOHP RI FRPSXWLQJ WKH YHUWLFHV RI 3N 7KH WHUPLQDWLRQ FRQGLWLRQ 3K KDV WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ FRQGLWLRQ 3N F 'r )RU D PRUH GHWDLOHG GHVFULSWLRQ RI SRO\KHGUDO DQQH[DWLRQ VHH WKH FKDSWHUV RQ LQQHU DSSUR[LPDWLRQ LQ +RUVW 3DUGDORV DQG 7KRDL f RU LQ +RUVW DQG 7X\ f 7X\ DQG 7DP f SURSRVHG WZR DOJRULWKPV WKDW DUH GHULYHG XVLQJ WKH SRO\KHGUDO DQQH[DWLRQ PHWKRG ZLWK D GXDOL]DWLRQ DQG GLPHQVLRQ UHGXFWLRQ WHFKQLTXH GHYHORSHG E\ 7X\ f 'XDOL]DWLRQ UHIHUV WR VROYLQJ WKH RULJLQDO SUREOHP E\ VROYLQJ WKH GXDO SUREOHP RI JHQHUDWLQJ D VHTXHQFH RI SRODUV XQWLO D SRODU 3N F 'n LV IRXQG 7KH NH\ WR WKH GLPHQVLRQ UHGXFWLRQ WHFKQLTXH LV WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI D FRQH LQWR SUREOHP *&3f 7X\ DQG 7DP f DVVXPHG WKDW F DQG F DUH OLQHDUO\ LQGHSHQGHQW YHFWRUV DQG WKHQ IRUPHG WKH FRQH >UH 5_AF?DA 62 I ` &RQH LV RI LQWHUHVW VLQFH LI 7H LV DQ LQFXPEHQW VROXWLRQ WKHQ IRU DQ\ [H [ .f Lf6 I[f ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV FRQH LGHQWLILHV SRLQWV LQ 5 WKDW FDQ GR QR EHWWHU WKDQ WKH LQFXPEHQW VROXWLRQ F &RPSXWDWLRQDO HIIRUW PLJKW EH VDYHG XVLQJ FRQH VLQFH D SDUW RI WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ FDQ EH HOLPLQDWHG IURP IXUWKHU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ DQG WKH VHDUFK QDUURZHG WR WKH UHPDLQLQJ SRUWLRQ RI 7KH ILUVW DOJRULWKP SURSRVHG E\ 7X\ DQG 7DP f VROYHV SUREOHP /03f E\ VROYLQJ SUREOHP *&3f WKURXJK WKH GXDOL]DWLRQ SURFHVV RI JHQHUDWLQJ D VHTXHQFH RI SRODUV XQWLO D SRODU 3fW F LV IRXQG 7X\ DQG 7DP f VKRZHG WKDW WKH SRODU RI FRQH LV H[SOLFLWO\ JLYHQ DV .n ^\H 5Q?\ W^Fn IF IRU VRPH WO 6 I 6 R` $Q\

PAGE 38

YHUWH[ \ LQ D SRODU 3c OLHV LQ WKH SRODU FRQH .n DQG WKH PXOWLSOLHUV U DQG I XVHG WR H[SUHVV \ DUH XQLTXH VLQFH F DQG F DUH OLQHDUO\ LQGHSHQGHQW YHFWRUV 3RODU FRQH .n LV XVHG WR VROYH WKH GXDO SUREOHP E\ EXLOGLQJ D FROODSVLQJ VHTXHQFH RI SRODUV 3n G3c 'n23n ]! f f f ZLWK HDFK SRODU EHLQJ DQ LPSURYHG DSSUR[LPDWLRQ RI 'n 7KH VHDUFK LV FRQGXFWHG LQ WKH WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VSDFH JHQHUDWHG E\ F DQG F UDWKHU WKDQ LQ WKH RULJLQDO mGLPHQVLRQDO VSDFH 6ROYLQJ WKH OLQHDU SURJUDP /3Iff PD[ ^ccF [nMWF[A_MFH M ZKHUH W DQG I DUH WKH PXOWLSOLHUV XVHG WR H[SUHVV VRPH YHUWH[ [ IFn UF RI 3nK WHVWV IRU WKH WHUPLQDWLRQ FRQGLWLRQ 3nN F 'f 7KH VHFRQG DOJRULWKP SURSRVHG E\ 7X\ DQG 7DP f LV PRWLYDWHG E\ WKH REVHUYDWLRQ WKDW IRU D IL[HG YDOXH RI W W Lf SUREOHP /3Uff LV HTXLYDOHQW WR WKH OLQHDU SURJUDP /3Dff PD[ ^F DFFn[A_[V e!` ZKHUH D L K fH > O@ ‘ 7KH ILUVW DOJRULWKP WKXV UHGXFHV WR VROYLQJ D VHTXHQFH RI OLQHDU SURJUDPV /3Dff IRU GLIIHUHQW YDOXHV RI WKH SDUDPHWHU D 7KH VHFRQG DOJRULWKP SURSRVHG E\ 7X\ DQG 7DP f LV WR SDUDPHWULFDOO\ VROYH SUREOHP /3Dff IRU DOO RI WKH FULWLFDO YDOXHV RI D DW ZKLFK QHZ EDVHV EHFRPH RSWLPDO 7KH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQRI SUREOHP /03f LV HYDOXDWHG DW HDFK EDVLV DQG D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ FKRVHQ IURP WKRVH EDVHV 7KH VHFRQG DOJRULWKP RI 7X\ DQG 7DP f LV HVVHQWLDOO\ WKH VDPH SDUDPHWULF SUREOHP 03f XVHG E\ .RQQR DQG .XQR f

PAGE 39

7X\ DQG 7DP f UDQ FRPSXWDWLRQDO H[SHULPHQWV XVLQJ ERWK WKH ILUVW SRO\KHGUDO DQQH[DWLRQ DOJRULWKP DQG WKH VHFRQG SDUDPHWULF DOJRULWKP 7KHLU UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW IRU VROYLQJ SUREOHP /03f WKH SDUDPHWULF DOJRULWKP SHUIRUPHG EHWWHU WKDQ WKH SRO\KHGUDO DQQH[DWLRQ DOJRULWKP 7KH SRO\KHGUDO DQQH[DWLRQ DOJRULWKP LV QRW DV HIILFLHQW EHFDXVH PRUH VLPSOH[ SLYRWV ZHUH UHTXLUHG WKDQ IRU WKH SDUDPHWULF DOJRULWKP 7X\ DQG 7DP f SURSRVHG DQ LPSURYHG YDULDQW RI WKH SRO\KHGUDO DQQH[DWLRQ DOJRULWKP WKDW UHGXFHV WKH QXPEHU RI SLYRWV DQG WKH QXPEHU RI REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ HYDOXDWLRQV 7KH DXWKRUV REVHUYHG WKDW WKH LPSURYHG DOJRULWKP PD\ SRWHQWLDOO\ EH PRUH XVHIXO IRU D SUREOHP ZLWK DQ REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ WKDW LV GLIILFXOW WR HYDOXDWH 7KH FRPSXWDWLRQDO H[SHULPHQWV UXQ XVLQJ WKH SDUDPHWULF DOJRULWKP RQ SUREOHPV RI XS WR P Qf f DQG SRVLWLYH SUREOHP GDWD ZHUH LQ OLQH ZLWK WKH UHVXOWV UHSRUWHG LQ .RQQR DQG .XQR f ([WHQVLRQV RI $OJRULWKPV IRU 3UREOHP /03f WR 6ROYH 3UREOHP /03f ZKHQ S 6 7KH SRO\KHGUDO DQQH[DWLRQ PHWKRG RI 7X\ DQG 7DP f DQG WKH RXWFRPHVSDFH DOJRULWKPV RI 7KRDL f DQG )DON DQG 3DORFVD\ f FDQ EH H[WHQGHG WR WKH PRUH JHQHUDO SUREOHP /03f ZKHUH S J $OWKRXJK WKH DOJRULWKPV UHPDLQ XQFKDQJHG WKH VXESUREOHP RI GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH QHZ YHUWLFHV EHFRPHV PRUH GLIILFXOW DV WKH QXPEHU RI IXQFWLRQ WHUPV LQ WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ LQFUHDVHV 0HWKRGV WR 6ROYH 3UREOHPV &03f *&03f DQG &&03f 5HODWLYHO\ OLWWOH ZRUN KDV EHHQ GRQH LQ GHVLJQLQJ H[DFW JOREDO VROXWLRQ DOJRULWKPV WKDW DGGUHVV SUREOHPV &03f *&03f DQG &&03f 7KH DOJRULWKPV WKDW KDYH EHHQ

PAGE 40

SURSRVHG IDOO LQWR WZR FDWHJRULHV f PHWKRGV EDVHG RQ VROYLQJ D UHIRUPXODWHG SUREOHP DQG f D PHWKRG EDVHG RQ RXWHU DSSUR[LPDWLRQ 0HWKRGV %DVHG RQ 6ROYLQJ D 5HIRUPXODWHG 3UREOHP .RQQR DQG .XQR f LQWURGXFHG SUREOHP &03f ZKHUH S DQG IRUPXODWHG D PDVWHU SUREOHP E\ LQWURGXFLQJ D SDUDPHWHU LQWR WKH RULJLQDO SUREOHP WR VHSDUDWH WKH WZR IXQFWLRQV RI WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ LQWR D VXPPDWLRQ 7KLV WHFKQLTXH RI HPEHGGLQJ WKH RULJLQDO SUREOHP LQWR D SUREOHP LQ D KLJKHU GLPHQVLRQDO VSDFH LV VLPLODU WR WKH RQH XVHG E\ WKH DXWKRUV LQ WKH VDPH SDSHU WR VROYH SUREOHP /03f $W WKH WLPH .RQQR DQG .XQR ZHUH QRW DEOH WR JLYH DQ DOJRULWKP IRU VROYLQJ WKH PDVWHU SUREOHP ,Q .XQR DQG .RQQR f WKH DXWKRUV SURSRVHG D EUDQFK DQG ERXQG DOJRULWKP DORQJ ZLWK DQ XQGHUHVWLPDWLRQ IXQFWLRQ WR VROYH LW &RPSXWDWLRQDO UHVXOWV IRU SUREOHPV RI XS WR P Qf f LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH DOJRULWKP LV HIILFLHQW ZKHQ WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ LV WKH SURGXFW RI D OLQHDU IXQFWLRQ DQG D TXDGUDWLF IXQFWLRQ DQG WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ LV D SRO\WRSH .XQR
PAGE 41

DQ\ e H ( 6ROYLQJ SUREOHP 03f WKHQ UHGXFHV WR VROYLQJ WKH SUREOHP LQ 5S JLYHQ E\ 03nf PLQ c .XQR
PAGE 42

XVHG E\ .XQR S[f ? [ H [f 7KH KHDUW RI WKH WHFKQLTXH LV WR OLQHDUL]H WKH IXQFWLRQ \ DQG WUDQVIRUP WKH RULJLQDO RSWLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHP LQWR WKH SDUDPHWULF SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP 03f "ef PLQe" rff e H 5S 6QLHGRYLFK VKRZHG WKDW LI [r LV D JOREDOO\ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP &3f WKHQ DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 03f LV Wn 9 \S[n-M ZKHUH 9\ f LV WKH JUDGLHQW RI LS

PAGE 43

)RU SUREOHP &03f WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ FDQ EH H[SUHVVHG DV WKH FRPSRVLWH RI WZR IXQFWLRQV ZKHUH IRU HDFK [ V 5 S[f [f MFf [ff DQG IRU HDFK \H5U \]\f Ia> !c 6QLHGRYLFK DQG )LQGOD\ FODLPHG ZLWKRXW SURRI WKDW L LVD L L GLIIHUHQWLDEOH DQG SVHXGRFRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ RQ WKH RSHQ FRQYH[ VHW H 5 R` 6LQFH SUREOHP &03f VDWLVILHV WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV RI FSURJUDPPLQJ LW FDQ EH VROYHG E\ VROYLQJ WKH SDUDPHWULF SUREOHP 03 nf "ef PLQ e eH ZKHUH 6 LV DQ\ VXEVHW RI 5U VXFK WKDW 9OLS[ffH + IRU DOO [H ; ,Q SUREOHP 03nf WKH SDUDPHWHU A DSSHDUV RQO\ LQ WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ ZKHUHDV LQ SUREOHP 03f WKH SDUDPHWHU e DSSHDUV LQ ERWK WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ DQG LQ WKH FRQVWUDLQWV 6WDQGDUG /DJUDQJLDQ PHWKRGV FDQ EH HPSOR\HG WR VROYH SUREOHP 03nf IRU DOO A H ( ZKLOH VSHFLDOL]HG PHWKRGV DUH UHTXLUHG WR RSWLPL]H WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI SUREOHP 03f ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH RULJLQDO YDULDEOH [ DQG WKH SDUDPHWHU M .XQR DQG .RQQR f DQG .RQQR .XQR DQG
PAGE 44

REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI SUREOHP *&03f 7KH PDVWHU SUREOHP LV D FRQYH[ PLQLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHP LQ WKH VSDFH DQG LV VROYHG XVLQJ DQ RXWHU DSSUR[LPDWLRQ DOJRULWKP &RPSXWDWLRQDO H[SHULPHQWV FRQGXFWHG XVLQJ D SRO\KHGURQ IRU WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ VKRZHG WKDW IRU T WKLV DOJRULWKP UHTXLUHG OHVV WKDQ KDOI WKH FRPSXWDWLRQDO WLPH UHTXLUHG E\ WKH EUDQFK DQG ERXQG ZLWK XQGHUHVWLPDWLRQ IXQFWLRQ DOJRULWKP SURSRVHG LQ .RQQR DQG .XQR f WR VROYH SUREOHP &03f 7X\ f JDYH SUREOHP &03f DV DQ H[DPSOH RI DQ RSWLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHP WKDW FDQ EH IRUPXODWHG DV D *HRPHWULF &RPSOHPHQWDU\ 3UREOHP DQG VROYHG LW XVLQJ D SDUDPHWULF SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP 7KH SDUDPHWULF SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP LV D FRQYH[ PLQLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHP LQ ZKLFK D SRVLWLYH SDUDPHWHU YHFWRU LV XVHG WR EXLOG D FRPSRVLWH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ IURP WKH FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQV LQ WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI SUREOHP &03f $ FRPSOHWH DOJRULWKP WKDW LQFOXGHV VROYLQJ WKH SDUDPHWULF SURJUDP ZDV QRW JLYHQ $ 0HWKRG %DVHG RQ 2XWHU $SSUR[LPDWLRQ 7KRDL f H[WHQGHG WKH DOJRULWKP EDVHG RQ WKH RXWHU DSSUR[LPDWLRQ WHFKQLTXH WKDW KH SURSRVHG IRU VROYLQJ SUREOHP /03f WR DGGUHVV WKH VROXWLRQ RI SUREOHP &03f ZKHQ S 7KH PDLQ LGHD LV WR EXLOG D VHTXHQFH RI GHFUHDVLQJ SRO\WRSHV RI WKH FRQYH[ IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ ; DQG D VHTXHQFH RI GHFUHDVLQJ SRO\WRSHV 6 R ]! ‘ ‘ ‘ < RI WKH RXWFRPH VHW < ZKHUH < ^\H 5_\ Ic[f \ I [f IRU VRPH [ H ;? 3UREOHP &03f LV WKHQ VROYHG E\ DSSO\LQJ D PRGLILHG YHUVLRQ RI WKH DOJRULWKP IRU SUREOHP /03f ,Q DQ\ LWHUDWLRQ N XS WR WZR FXWV DUH LQWURGXFHG RQH IRU 3N DQG RQH IRU 6N WR REWDLQ WLJKWHU DSSUR[LPDWLQJ VHWV

PAGE 45

6LQFH WKH DOJRULWKP GRHV QRW GHSHQG RQ WKH DFWXDO YDOXH RI S LW FDQ EH H[WHQGHG WR KDQGOH FDVHV ZKHUH S 0HWKRGV WR 6ROYH 3UREOHP /03f DV D &RQFDYH 0LQLPL]DWLRQ 3UREOHP .RQQR DQG .XQR f VKRZHG WKDW WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI SUREOHP /03f LV QRW D FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ RYHU WKH IHDVLEOH VHW 7KHUHIRUH SUREOHP /03f LV QRW D FRQYH[ SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP +RZHYHU VLQFH WKH QDWXUDO ORJDULWKP IXQFWLRQ ,Q LV D VWULFWO\ LQFUHDVLQJ FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ RQ r!f LW LV HDV\ WR VKRZ WKDW WKH IXQFWLRQ GHILQHG IRU DOO [H LV D FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ VHW RI WKH FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHP PLQ )[? VW[H &0,1f LV LGHQWLFDO WR WKH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ VHW RI SUREOHP /03f 7KHUHIRUH DQ\ FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ PHWKRG PD\ EH DSSOLHG WR SUREOHP /03f LI WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ LV UHSODFHG E\ LWV ORJDULWKPLF HTXLYDOHQW 8VLQJ WKH DERYH WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ PRGLILFDWLRQ 7X\ f VKRZHG WKDW SUREOHP /03f FRXOG EH VROYHG LQ D UHGXFHG GLPHQVLRQ VSDFH XVLQJ SRO\KHGUDO DQQH[DWLRQ DQG WKH GXDOL]DWLRQ DQG GLPHQVLRQ UHGXFWLRQ WHFKQLTXH 7KH DOJRULWKP SUHVHQWHG LQ 7X\ DQG 7DP f LV HVVHQWLDOO\ DQ LPSURYHPHQW RI WKH RQH LQ 7X\ f 5\RR DQG 6DKLQLGLV f DOVR FRQYHUWHG SUREOHP /03f LQWR WKH SUREOHP &0,1f 7R VROYH SUREOHP &0,1f WKH\ HPSOR\HG D EUDQFK DQG ERXQG DOJRULWKP WKDW LQFRUSRUDWHV WKH XVH RI YDOLG LQHTXDOLWLHV WR DFFHOHUDWH FRQYHUJHQFH %UDQFK DQG ERXQG

PAGE 46

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f 7R PRUH HDVLO\ FDOFXODWH ORZHU ERXQGV RQ WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ ) RI SUREOHP &0,1f RYHU D SDUWLWLRQ RI WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ WKH DXWKRUV UHSODFHG ) E\ D OLQHDU XQGHUHVWLPDWLQJ IXQFWLRQ /RZHU ERXQGV ZHUH WKHQ FDOFXODWHG E\ VROYLQJ OLQHDU SURJUDPV 7KH DXWKRUV WHVWHG UDQGRPO\JHQHUDWHG SUREOHPV LQ VL]HV IURP P Qf f WR f ZLWK S UDQJLQJ IURP WR 7KH\ UHSRUWHG WKDW RQO\ D VPDOO IUDFWLRQ RI WKH WRWDO &38 WLPH LV FRQVXPHG LQ WKH UDQJH UHGXFWLRQ PHFKDQLVPV DQG WKDW WKHUH VHHPHG WR EH D ORZRUGHU SRO\QRPLDO UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH &38 WLPH DQG WKH YDOXH RI S

PAGE 47

&+$37(5 &21&$9( 08/7,3/,&$7,9( 352*5$00,1* 352%/(06 $1$/<6,6 $1' $1 ()),&,(17 32,17 6($5&+ +(85,67,& )25 7+( /,1($5 &$6( ,QWURGXFWLRQ $Q LPSRUWDQW EXW OLWWOH UHVHDUFKHG DUHD WKDW GHVHUYHV PRUH DWWHQWLRQ LV WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKPV IRU ILQGLQJ D JRRG VROXWLRQ IRU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV ,Q VRPH DSSOLFDWLRQV D JRRG WKRXJK QRW QHFHVVDULO\ JOREDOO\ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ PD\ DGHTXDWHO\ PHHW WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV RI D XVHU .RQQR DQG ,QRUL f ,Q WKHVH FDVHV VLQFH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV DUH NQRZQ WR EH 13 KDUG WKH H[SHQGLWXUH RI FRPSXWDWLRQDO HIIRUW UHTXLUHG WR JOREDOO\ VROYH WKHP PD\ QRW EH QHHGHG 7KLV FKDSWHU KDV WZR SXUSRVHV 7KH ILUVW LV WR SUHVHQW DQ DQDO\VLV RI SUREOHP 3[f ZKHQ SUREOHP 3[f LV D FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP 7KH VHFRQG SXUSRVH LV WR SURSRVH D KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP GHVLJQHG IRU WKH FDVH ZKHUH SUREOHP 3[f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

PAGE 48

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f WKDW $ LV D FRQYH[ VHW DQG WKDW IRU HDFK M S IMn;A5 LV D FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ LH DVVXPH WKDW SUREOHP 3[f LV D FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP &RQVLGHU WKH IXQFWLRQ J ; f§} 5 GHILQHG IRU HDFK UH ; E\ _[f ORJJ[f 7KHQ LW LV D VLPSOH PDWWHU WR VKRZ WKDW J;A!5 LV D FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ DQG WKDW WKH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ VHW WR WKH FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHP PLQ JMWf VW[V ; f LV LGHQWLFDO WR WKH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ VHW RI SUREOHP 3[f 7KXV DQ\ FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP RI WKH IRUP RI SUREOHP 3[f LI UHZULWWHQ LQ WKH IRUP f FDQ EH VROYHG E\ DSSO\LQJ DQ\ DSSURSULDWH JHQHUDOSXUSRVH FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ DOJRULWKP WR f )RU GLVFXVVLRQV DQG UHYLHZV RI FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ DOJRULWKPV VHH IRU LQVWDQFH %HQVRQ f %HQVRQ f +RUVW DQG 7X\ f DQG 3DUGDORV DQG 5RVHQ f

PAGE 49

,W LV LQWHUHVWLQJ DQG XVHIXO LQ ERWK SUDFWLFH DQG WKHRU\ WR REVHUYH WKDW LQ DGGLWLRQ WR f WKHUH LV DW OHDVW RQH RWKHU ZD\ WR UHZULWH D FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP DV D FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHP 7R VKRZ KRZ WKLV FDQ EH DFFRPSOLVKHG ZH ZLOO ILUVW SURYH WKH IROORZLQJ SUHOLPLQDU\ UHVXOW /HPPD /HW DH 5S VDWLVI\ D DQG FRQVLGHU WKH QRQOLQHDU SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP Y PLQD$f VW $V $ f ZKHUH $ 7KHQ Y LV ILQLWH DQG SUREOHP f KDV DW OHDVW RQH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ 3URRI 1RWLFH WKDW LI $V $ WKHQ $ DQG D $f 7KHUHIRUH Y 7KLV FRPELQHG ZLWK WKH IDFW WKDW $ A LPSOLHV WKDW Y LV ILQLWH 1RZ VXSSRVH WKDW IRU HDFK M WKHUH H[LVWV D YHFWRU $n $ VXFK WKDW D;L6fAY (M ZKHUH ^Hc
PAGE 50

IRU HDFK MH %\ WDNLQJ WKH OLPLWV RYHU MH RQ ERWK VLGHV RI f ZH FRQFOXGH WKDW D;MY 6LQFH $ H $ WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW $ LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR f &DVH ^$n-O LV XQERXQGHG 7KHQ IRU VRPH VXEVHTXHQFH ^$n`A RI ^$M DQG IRUVRPH NH ^O S` OLP$I rr )RU HDFK MHM VLQFH $ H $ $! ca &RPELQHG ZLWK WKH IDFW WKDW D LPSOLHV WKDW IRU HDFK \H D$ D$-f f %\ DVVXPSWLRQ IRU HDFK M H D;-fY6M f )URP f DQG f ZH REWDLQ D $L Y H f IRU HDFK \H %\ WDNLQJ WKH OLPLWV RYHU \H RQ ERWK VLGHV RI f ZH FRQFOXGH WKDW mR Y ZKLFK LV D FRQWUDGLFWLRQ 7KHUHIRUH WKLV FDVH FDQQRW KROG DQG WKH SURRI LV FRPSOHWH ’ 8VLQJ /HPPD ZH PD\ QRZ HVWDEOLVK WKH IROORZLQJ WKHRUHP 7KHRUHP $VVXPH LQ SUREOHP 3[ f WKDW ; LV D FRQYH[ VHW DQG WKDW ; f§! 5 M S DUH FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQV /HW J ; f§r 5 EH GHILQHG IRU HDFK [ H ; E\ LnS J[f 3 IL\: 7KHQ J ; f§! 5 LV D FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ

PAGE 51

3URRI &RQVLGHU WKH IXQFWLRQ K ; f§! 5 GHILQHG IRU HDFK MWJ ; E\ r0 PLQ ‹9 0 VW$H $ f ZKHUH $ LV DV GHILQHG LQ /HPPD )URP /HPPD VLQFH LV VWULFWO\ SRVLWLYH RQ $ IRU HDFK M S LW IROORZV WKDW WKH PLQLPXP LQ f H[LVWV DQG LV ILQLWH IRU HDFK [ H ; ,I IRU HDFK $ H $ ZH GHILQH D IXQFWLRQ KA ; f§! 5 E\ 0rf eDMIM[f WKHQ IRU HDFK [H ; K[f PD\ DOVR EH ZULWWHQ DV K[f PPKO[f f 1RWLFH WKDW IRU HDFK $ $ ; f§! 5 LV D FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ )URP WKLV DQG f ZH FRQFOXGH WKDW K ; } 5 LV DOVR D FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ 5RFNDIHOODU f 7R FRPSOHWH WKH SURRI ZH ZLOO VKRZ WKDW IRU HDFK [H ; K[f J[f 7RZDUG WKLV HQG IL[ [H ; DQG OHW $[fH ; GHQRWH DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP f )URP WKH .DUXVK.XKQ7XFNHU QHFHVVDU\ FRQGLWLRQV IRU WKLV SUREOHP %D]DUDD 6KHUDOL DQG 6KHWW\ f VLQFH ;[f! LW IROORZV WKDW WKHUH H[LVWV D QRQQHJDWLYH FRQVWDQW [f VXFK WKDW f 6LQFH $[fH ; LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP f LW LV HDV\ WR VHH WKDW IO$MMUf O

PAGE 52

7RJHWKHU ZLWK f WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW ‘rrfrf S f )URP f LW IROORZV WKDW ;M^[f H^[fIM^[f M OS %\ VXEVWLWXWLRQ LQ L! WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW 0 @3 f 9S )URP HTXDWLRQV f DQG f ZH VHH WKDW 3 7OIM[f f f L / n 6LQFH [H ; DQG ; LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR f WKH OHIWKDQGVLGH RI HTXDWLRQ f FRLQFLGHV ZLWK K[f %\ GHILQLWLRQ RI J WKH ULJKWKDQGVLGH RI HTXDWLRQ f HTXDOV JMFf VR WKDW WKH SURRI LV FRPSOHWH ’ 7KHRUHP FDQ DOVR EH SURYHQ E\ XVLQJ D FRPSRVLWH IXQFWLRQ DSSURDFK DQG VKRZLQJ VHYHUDO SUHOLPLQDU\ UHVXOWV $YULHO 'LHZHUW 6FKDLEOH DQG =DQJ f :H RIIHU WKH SURRI KHUH EHFDXVH LW LV PRUH GLUHFW DQG EHFDXVH ZH ZLOO XVH LW EHORZ WR KHOS GHULYH D FRUROODU\ RI LQWHUHVW

PAGE 53

1RWLFH IURP 7KHRUHP WKDW ZKHQ SUREOHP 3[f LV D FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDP WKH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ VHW RI SUREOHP 3[f LV LGHQWLFDO WR WKH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ VHW RI WKH FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHP PLQ J^[f VW[H ; f ZKHUH I ; } 5 LV GHILQHG IRU HDFK MH ; E\ mrf S?J[fI) ,Q SUDFWLFH WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW DQ\ FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDP 3[f LI UHZULWWHQ LQ WKH IRUP f FDQ EH VROYHG E\ DSSO\LQJ DQ\ VXLWDEOH FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ DOJRULWKP WR f 1RWLFH DOVR WKDW SUREOHP f LV D VLPSOHU UHIRUPXODWLRQ RI SUREOHP 3[ f IRU WKH FRQFDYH FDVH WKDQ WKH W\SLFDO UHIRUPXODWLRQ XVHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH WR VROYH SUREOHP 3[f LQ WKH FRQYH[ FDVH VHH HJ .RQQR DQG .XQR .XQR DQG .RQQR 7KRDL DQG .XQR
PAGE 54

,Q DGGLWLRQ 7KHRUHP LPSOLHV WKH IROORZLQJ UHVXOW FRQFHUQLQJ WKH SURGXFW RI D VHW RI FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQV &RUROODU\ /HW ; DQG IM\ EH GHILQHG DV LQ 7KHRUHP DQG VXSSRVH WKDW J ; f§! 5 LV GHILQHG IRU HDFK [H ; E\ 7KHQ J ; f§}5 LV D TXDVLFRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ 3URRI &KRRVH DH 5 DQG OHW /D ^[H ;?J[fLD` ,I D  /D ; LV D FRQYH[ VHW ,I D WKHQ IURP 7KHRUHP DQG 5RFNDIHOODU f WKH VHW /I ^[H ;?S>J[f@9S ]S@ LV D FRQYH[ VHW ZKHUH SDnnn 6LQFH /D WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW /D LV D FRQYH[ VHW 7KHUHIRUH ZH KDYH VKRZQ WKDW IRU DQ\ DV" /D LV D FRQYH[ VHW 7KLV LV HTXLYDOHQW WR VKRZLQJ WKDW J ; f§! 5 LV D TXDVLFRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ %D]DUDD 6KHUDOL DQG 6KHWW\ f VR WKDW WKH SURRI LV FRPSOHWH ’ ,W IROORZV IURP &RUROODU\ WKDW DQ\ FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP 3[f LV D SUREOHP LQYROYLQJ WKH PLQLPL]DWLRQ RI D TXDVLFRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ RYHU D FRQYH[ VHW 0DQ\ RI WKH PRVW SRSXODU DOJRULWKPV IRU PLQLPL]LQJ D FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ RYHU D FRQYH[ VHW DUH HTXDOO\ VXLWDEOH IRU PLQLPL]LQJ TXDVLFRQFDYH IXQFWLRQV RYHU FRQYH[ VHWV +RUVW DQG 7X\ DQG %HQVRQ f $V D UHVXOW ZH VHH WKDW DQ\ FRQFDYH

PAGE 55

PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDP 3[f FDQ EH VROYHG E\ DSSO\LQJ DQ\ QXPEHU RI VXLWDEOH FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ DOJRULWKPV GLUHFWO\ WR SUREOHP 3[f ,Q SDUWLFXODU QR UHIRUPXODWLRQV RI SUREOHP 3[f DUH QHHGHG WR DSSO\ WKHVH DOJRULWKPV 5HPDUN &RUROODU\ KDV EHHQ SUHYLRXVO\ VKRZQ WR KROG IRU WKH VSHFLDO FDVH ZKHUH S ; LV D QRQHPSW\ FRPSDFW SRO\KHGURQ DQG DQG I DUH OLQHDU IXQFWLRQV VHH HJ .RQQR DQG .XQR f 7KH QH[W FRUROODU\ RI 7KHRUHP FRQFHUQV WKH PLQLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHP f XVHG LQ WKH SURRI RI WKH WKHRUHP 3RVVLEOH XVHV IRU WKLV FRUROODU\ PD\ LQFOXGH WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI PHWKRGV IRU ILQGLQJ ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQV WR FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPV DOWKRXJK ZH ZLOO QRW LQYHVWLJDWH WKLV KHUH &RUROODU\ /HW ; DQG IMW M S EH GHILQHG DV LQ 7KHRUHP DQG OHW $ EH GHILQHG DV LQ /HPPD 7KHQ $ LV D FRQYH[ VHW DQG IRU HDFK [H ; WKH XQLTXH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ ;[f WR SUREOHP f LV JLYHQ E\ 3URRI 1RWLFH WKDW $ PD\ EH UHZULWWHQ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH UHODWLRQ f ZKHUH LQWILI ^ 5n_!R` ,W LV HDV\ WR VHH WKDW IRU HDFK M S Kc LQW 5e f§} 5 GHILQHG IRU HDFK ;H LQW 6n E\

PAGE 56

$$0 LV D FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ RQ LQW 5I WKDW VDWLVILHV KM $f IRU DOO $ V LQW 5I 7KHUHIRUH E\ 7KHRUHP WKH IXQFWLRQ P LQW 5I f§! 5 GHILQHG IRU HDFK $ LQW 5I E\ LV D FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ 7KLV LPSOLHV WKDW ^$V LQW5I_P$fA S` LV D FRQYH[ VHW 5RFNDIHOODU f %\ f WKLV SURYHV WKDW $ LV D FRQYH[ VHW 1RZ IL[ [H ; DQG OHW $[fH $ GHQRWH DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP f )URP WKH SURRI RI 7KHRUHP WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW IRU HDFK N S $W^[f H[f IW[f ZKHUH G[f LV JLYHQ E\ f VR WKDW WKH FRUROODU\ LV SURYHQ ’ ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR LWV UHODWLRQVKLSV WR FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ D FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDP DOVR KDV VRPH LQWHUHVWLQJ WLHV WR PXOWLSOHREMHFWLYH PDWKHPDWLFDO SURJUDPPLQJ ,Q WKH UHPDLQGHU RI WKLV VHFWLRQ ZH ZLOO VKRZ VRPH RI WKH WKHRUHWLFDO UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPV DQG FHUWDLQ PXOWLSOHREMHFWLYH PDWKHPDWLFDO SURJUDPV ,Q WKH QH[W VHFWLRQ VRPH SUDFWLFDO EHQHILWV RI WKRVH UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLOO EH GHPRQVWUDWHG /HW I[f GHQRWH WKH YHFWRU >L0M0 07

PAGE 57

ZKHUH IM;r5 M S DUH WKH IXQFWLRQV XVHG LQ GHILQLQJ SUREOHP 3[f 7KHQ WKH FRPSRQHQWV RI WKH YHFWRU I[f DUH JHQHUDOO\ FRQIOLFWLQJ LQ WKH VHQVH WKDW WKH QILPD RYHU ; RI Ic[f M S DUH JHQHUDOO\ QRW VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ DFKLHYHG DW WKH VDPH SRLQW LQ ; $V D UHVXOW LQKHUHQW WUDGHRIIV LQ WKH DFKLHYDEOH YDOXHV RI WKH FRPSRQHQWV RI I[f RYHU [H ; DUH SUHVHQW 7R DFFRXQW IRU WKHVH WUDGHRIIV DQG WR VHHN ZKDW GHFLVLRQ PDNHUV FDOO D PRVW SUHIHUUHG VROXWLRQ LQ VLWXDWLRQV ZKHUH WKH JRDO LV WR DWWHPSW WR VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ PLQLPL]H Ic^[f M S RYHU ; RQH RI WKH PRVW SRSXODU DSSURDFKHV LV WR FRQVLGHU WKH DVVRFLDWHG PXOWLSOHREMHFWLYH PDWKHPDWLFDO SURJUDP 90,1[f VW MFH ; f ,Q SDUWLFXODU LQ W\SLFDO VLWXDWLRQV D PRVW SUHIHUUHG VROXWLRQ LQ ; ZLOO H[LVW WKDW LV DOVR DQ HIILFLHQW VROXWLRQ IRU f ZKHUH DQ HIILFLHQW VROXWLRQ LV GHILQHG DV IROORZV 'HILQLWLRQ $ SRLQW [r H 5 LV FDOOHG DQ HIILFLHQW VROXWLRQ IRU f ZKHQ [r H ; DQG ZKHQHYHU I[fI[rf IRU VRPH [H ; WKHQ I[f I[rf $Q HIILFLHQW VROXWLRQ LV DOVR FDOOHG D QRQGRPLQDWHG RU 3DUHWRRSWLPDO VROXWLRQ %\ JHQHUDWLQJ RU VHDUFKLQJ WKH VHW ;( RI WKH HIILFLHQW VROXWLRQV IRU f GHFLVLRQ PDNHUV DUH DEOH WR REVHUYH WKH LQKHUHQW WUDGHRIIV DPRQJ WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQV IW M S WKDW DUH DYDLODEOH RYHU ; DQG DUH RIWHQ DEOH WR FKRRVH IURP ;( D PRVW SUHIHUUHG VROXWLRQ )RU IXUWKHU GLVFXVVLRQV RQ PXOWLSOHREMHFWLYH PDWKHPDWLFDO SURJUDPPLQJ DQG LWV DSSOLFDWLRQV WKH UHDGHU PD\ FRQVXOW IRU LQVWDQFH &RKRQ f (YDQV f /XF

PAGE 58

f 6DZDUDJL 1DND\DPD DQG 7DQLQR f 6WDGOHU f 6WHXHU f
PAGE 59

7DNHQ WRJHWKHU 3URSRVLWLRQ DQG LPSO\ WKDW DQ\ FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP ZLWK D FRPSDFW IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ KDV DW OHDVW RQH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WKDW LV DQ HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ WR WKH PXOWLSOHREMHFWLYH PDWKHPDWLFDO SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP f 6SHFLDO FDVHV RI WKLV REVHUYDWLRQV KDYH EHHQ DOOXGHG WR LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH VHH HJ $QHMD $JJDUZDO DQG 1DLU DQG 6QLHGRYLFK DQG )LQGOD\ f ,Q WKH QH[W VHFWLRQ ZH SXW WKLV REVHUYDWLRQ WR SUDFWLFDO XVH (IILFLHQW 3RLQW 6HDUFK +HXULVWLF $VVXPH LQ WKLV VHFWLRQ WKDW LQ SUREOHP 3[f ; ^[H5n?$[=E` LV D FRPSDFW SRO\KHGURQ ZKHUH $ LV DQ P[Q PDWUL[ DQG EH 5P DQG WKDW IRU HDFK M S I M[f F[M ZKHUH Ff H 5 IRU HDFK M S 7KHQ SUREOHP 3[f LV D OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP RU PRUH EULHIO\ D OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDP .RQQR DQG .XQR f :H KDYH GHVLJQHG DQG WHVWHG D KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP IRU WKLV SUREOHP EDVHG LQ SDUW RQ VRPH RI WKH UHVXOWV LQ WKH SUHYLRXV VHFWLRQ ,Q WKLV VHFWLRQ ZH ZLOO IRUPDOO\ VWDWH WKLV KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP DQG H[SODLQ LWV ZRUNLQJV 7KH PXOWLSOHREMHFWLYH SURJUDP f DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK D OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SUREOHP PD\ EH ZULWWHQ DV 90,1 &[ VW $[LE f ZKHUH & LV WKH S[Q PDWUL[ ZKRVH MWK URZ HTXDOV FnM S 3UREOHP f LV D PXOWLSOHREMHFWLYH OLQHDU SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP 6WHXHU DQG
PAGE 60

; ^[H5Q?$[JE` 7KHQ E\ 3URSRVLWLRQ DQG DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP FDQ EH IRXQG LQ WKH VHW RI HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI SUREOHP f 7KH VHW ; ([[ LV ILQLWH DQG YDULRXV SURFHGXUHV KDYH EHHQ GHYHORSHG IRU JHQHUDWLQJ LW LQ LWV HQWLUHW\ VHH HJ 6WHXHU
PAGE 61

: ^ZH ZA60Z6H` ZKHUH H H 5S LVD YHFWRU ZLWK HDFK HQWU\ HTXDO WR DQG 0 LV D SRVLWLYH UHDO QXPEHU )RU VXIILFLHQWO\ ODUJH 0 IURP 3KLOLS f LW LV NQRZQ WKDW D SRLQW [r EHORQJV WR WKH HIILFLHQW VHW ;( RI f LI DQG RQO\ LI [r LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR WKH ZHLJKWHGVXP SUREOHP PLQ Z7&[nM VW $[ £ E f IRU VRPH Z Zr H : :H ZLOO DVVXPH KHQFHIRUWK WKDW 0 LV FKRVHQ WR EH ODUJH HQRXJK WR JXDUDQWHH WKDW WKLV SURSHUW\ KROGV ,W LV DOVR ZHOO NQRZQ WKDW WKH HIILFLHQW VHW ;( IRU f LV JLYHQ E\ ZKHUH IRU HDFK ZH : ;Z GHQRWHV WKH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ VHW RI WKH OLQHDU SURJUDP f 6WHXHU DQG
PAGE 62

/HW < ^\H 5nn_\ &[ IRU VRPH [H ; ` 7 ^\H 5n-_\ A -LIRUVRURH\V Ln` 7R DLG LQ LWV VHDUFK WKH KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP ZLOO VROYH WKH OLQHDU SURJUDP PLQ Z7&[Af Df VW &WV \ Ef $[LE Ff IRU YDULRXV YDOXHV RI \V DQG ZH ,I 7KH KHXULVWLF UHOLHV LQ SDUW XSRQ WKH SURSHUWLHV RI SUREOHP f JLYHQ LQ WKH QH[W WKUHH UHVXOWV 7KH ILUVW WZR UHVXOWV IROORZ HDVLO\ IURP %HQVRQ f 7KHRUHP 6XSSRVH WKDW [r H 5 DQG OHW \r &[r 7KHQ [r LV DQ HIILFLHQW VROXWLRQ IRU f LI DQG RQO\ LI ZLWK \ \r [r LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR f IRU HYHU\ ZH : 7KHRUHP ,I \H
X7]RUf GHQRWH DQ\ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR OLQHDU SURJUDPPLQJ GXDO RI f ZKHUH Xr UHSUHVHQWV WKH GXDO YDULDEOHV FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR WKH FRQVWUDLQWV &[  \r RI f /HW Zr Xr Zr DQG OHW Y Zr-&[r 7KHQ [r EHORQJV WR WKH HIILFLHQW IDFH ;RI ; DQG FDQ EH UHSUHVHQWHG DV

PAGE 63

;BR ^rH[MZ-U&W YM 3URRI 7R SURYH WKH WKHRUHP ZH ZLOO VKRZ WKDW ZLWK Z Zr [r LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP f 6XSSRVH LQ f WKDW Z Zr 93 DQG WKDW \ \r &[r ZKHUH [r LV DQ HIILFLHQW VROXWLRQ IRU f JLYHQ LQ WKH WKHRUHP 7KH GXDO OLQHDU SURJUDP WR f LV WKHQ JLYHQ E\ PD[A\r+A]f VW &WX$W] &WZr X] )URP 7KHRUHP [r LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR f ZKHQ Z Zr DQG \ \r %\ WKH GXDOLW\ WKHRU\ RI OLQHDU SURJUDPPLQJ 0XUW\ f VLQFH X27]7f LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR WKH OLQHDU SURJUDPPLQJ GXDO RI f ZKHQ Z Zr DQG \ \r WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW Zr&Ur mrfE]rf %\ UHDUUDQJLQJ WKLV HTXDWLRQ DQG XVLQJ WKH GHILQLWLRQV RI \r DQG Zr ZH REWDLQ LZr-&[r E]rf f Zr WKH GXDO OLQHDU SURJUDP WR f PD\ EH ZULWWHQ DV PD[IF ]f Df VW $W] &WZ? Ef ]J2 Ff /HW ] GHQRWH DQ DUELWUDU\ IHDVLEOH VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP f )URP WKH GHILQLWLRQV RI Xr

PAGE 64

DQG YYr WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW X n7 ]7f LV D IHDVLEOH VROXWLRQ WR WKH GXDO OLQHDU SURJUDP RI f 6LQFH X7 ]7f LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR WKH ODWWHU SUREOHP LW IROORZV WKDW ^\r}rf E ]rf i LWf E ]f RU HTXLYDOHQWO\ E]bE]f 1RWLFH WKDW VLQFH X7 ]7f LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR WKH GXDO OLQHDU SURJUDP WR f ]r LV D IHDVLEOH VROXWLRQ WR f %\ WKH FKRLFH RI ] WKH SUHFHGLQJ WZR VWDWHPHQWV LPSO\ WKDW ]r LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR f 6LQFH [r LV DQ HIILFLHQW VROXWLRQ IRU f ZLWK Z YYr MFr LV D IHDVLEOH VROXWLRQ IRU f )URP f DQG WKH GXDOLW\ WKHRU\ RI OLQHDU SURJUDPPLQJ 0XUW\ f VLQFH ]r LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR f WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW ZLWK Z Zr [r LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR f DQG WKH SURRI LV FRPSOHWH Â’ 1RWLFH LQ 7KHRUHP WKDW IRU DQ\ W ;A IBf 7KLV LPSOLHV WKDW LQ 7KHRUHP ZKHQ YYr H : WKHUH H[LVWV D I H Of VXFK WKDW WZr H : DQG ;Bf ;Bf 7KXV LQ 7KHRUHP ZKHQ YYr H : ;Bf KDV DQ DOWHUQDWH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ ; IRU ZKLFK LYr H : )RU VLPSOLFLW\ ZH PD\ DQG ZLOO DVVXPH ZLWKRXW ORVV RI JHQHUDOLW\ WKDW LQ 7KHRUHP YYr : 7R JHQHUDWH YDULRXV SRLQWV \ H
PAGE 65

'HILQLWLRQ 7KH SRLQW \n H 5S LV FDOOHG WKH LGHDO SRLQW RI < ZKHQ IRU HDFK M S \nM HTXDOV WKH PLQLPXP YDOXH RI \c RYHU < 'HILQLWLRQ 7KH SRLQW \0 H 5S LV FDOOHG WKH DQWLLGHDO SRLQW RI < ZKHQ IRU HDFK M S \M HTXDOV WKH PD[LPXP YDOXH RI \W RYHU < 1RWLFH WKDW \n DQG \rf JHQHUDOO\ GR QRW EHORQJ WR < 7KH DOJRULWKP XVHV WKHVH WZR SRLQWV DV DQFKRU SRLQWV LQ DQ LQLWLDOL]DWLRQ SURFHGXUH ZKRVH JRDO LV LQ SDUW WR JHQHUDWH D GLVSHUVHG VDPSOH RI SRLQWV IURP 7 7KH KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP PD\ EH VWDWHG DV IROORZV $OJRULWKP (IILFLHQW 3RLQW 6HDUFK +HXULVWLF $OJRULWKP ,QLWLDOL]DWLRQ 3KDVH 6HH 6WHSV WKURXJK EHORZ 6WHS )LQG WKH LGHDO DQG DQWLLGHDO SRLQWV \n DQG \0 RI < 6WHS )LQG DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ -H WR WKH OLQHDU SURJUDP PD[ D VW \0 D\n \0fn&[ $[ LE D 62 DQG VHW \r \0 Dn\n \0f 6WHS &KRRVH D SRVLWLYH LQWHJHU 6 DQG IRU HDFK c 6 OHW \n n ^L6 W\f\$n ff 6WHS &KRRVH D SRVLWLYH LQWHJHU 1 VXFK WKDW OL1 L0 S O OHW Zr H H 5S DQG IRU HDFK M S GHILQH YYn V 5n E\

PAGE 66

 LI Lr M >1 LI L M 6WHS 6HW W% r! L 2 DQG M (IILFLHQW 3RLQW 6HDUFK 3KDVH 6HH 6WHSV WKURXJK EHORZ 6WHS 6HW \ \n DQG Z Zf DQG ILQG DQ\ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ [fc WR OLQHDU SURJUDP f 6WHS 6HW \ &[L DQG Z Zf LQ f DQG FRPSXWH DQ\ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ ^]mWR WKH GXDO OLQHDU SURJUDP WR f ZKHUH Xff GHQRWHV WKH RSWLPDO GXDO YDULDEOHV FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR WKH FRQVWUDLQWV &[A\ RI f 6WHS /HW Zn Xnc Z,I Zn LV D SRVLWLYH PXOWLSOH RI Z IRU VRPH Ln L DQG I M VXFK WKDW n f L f WKHQ JR WR 6WHS 2WKHUZLVH FRQWLQXH 6WHS /HW YM YY &[n )RU HDFK K Q FDOFXODWH DK DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH IRUPXOD Q F ;f DQG ILQG DQ\ EDVLF RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ [X WR WKH OLQHDU SURJUDP D[f Df ,, Ef $[LE Ff 6WHS ,I Fr [c JR WR 6WHS 2WKHUZLVH VHW [ [ff DQG 8OL DQG JR WR 6WHS

PAGE 67

6WHS 6HW M M ,I M  S JR WR 6WHS 2WKHUZLVH VHW L L DQG M ,I L £ 6 JR WR 6WHS 2WKHUZLVH 6WRS MFH ;(D LV WKH UHFRPPHQGHG VROXWLRQ WR WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP ,Q WKH LQLWLDOL]DWLRQ SKDVH RI WKH DOJRULWKP VDPSOHV RI SRLQWV IURP
PAGE 68

f LV VROYHG IRU DQ\ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ [ %\ 7KHRUHP WKLV RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ PXVW H[LVW DQG LV DQ HIILFLHQW VROXWLRQ IRU f ,Q 6WHSV DQG ZLWK \ &[n DQG Z Zf LQ f WKH GXDO OLQHDU SURJUDP WR f LV VROYHG WR \LHOG WKH YHFWRU XnH 5S DQG WKH ZHLJKWLQJ YHFWRU Zff Xff Zf LV FRPSXWHG )URP 7KHRUHP WKH IDFH ;BV FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR WKLV ZHLJKWLQJ YHFWRU LV DQ HIILFLHQW IDFH IRU f DQG FRQWDLQV [n)XUWKHUPRUH IURP WKH VDPH WKHRUHP WKLV IDFH FDQ EH ZULWWHQ DV f ZKHUH Y\ Znn &[n 6WHS FKHFNV ZKHWKHU RU QRW ;KDV EHHQ LGHQWLILHG GXULQJ D SUHYLRXV H[HFXWLRQ RI WKLV SKDVH RI WKH DOJRULWKP ,I VR WKH DOJRULWKP SURFHHGV WR 6WHS WR SUHSDUH IRU DQRWKHU SRVVLEOH LWHUDWLRQ RI WKH HIILFLHQW SRLQW VHDUFK SKDVH RI WKH KHXULVWLF 2WKHUZLVH FRQWURO VKLIWV WR 6WHSV ,Q 6WHSV RI WKH HIILFLHQW SRLQW VHDUFK SKDVH SUREOHP f LV DSSUR[LPDWHO\ VROYHG XVLQJ D QHZ HIILFLHQW IDFH ;Z DV WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ ,Q SDUWLFXODU LQ 6WHS f LV ILUVW XVHG WR FRQVWUXFW WKH QRQFRQVWDQW SRUWLRQ RI D ILUVWRUGHU 7D\ORU VHULHV OLQHDU DSSUR[LPDWLRQ D [f RI WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI SUREOHP f DW [ [ff V ;Bc 1H[W XVLQJ WKH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ f RI WKH HIILFLHQW IDFH DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW PLQLPL]HU [ff RI D[f RYHU ;LV IRXQG E\ VROYLQJ WKH OLQHDU SURJUDP f 1RWLFH WKDW [ff H ;(L, VHH 5RFNDIHOODU f ,Q 6WHS WKH YDOXH DFKLHYHG E\ [n LQ WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SUREOHP LV FRPSDUHG WR WKH VPDOOHVW YDOXH 8% IRXQG WKXV IDU IRU WKLV REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ E\ WKH VHDUFK ,I [ff DFKLHYHV D VPDOOHU REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ YDOXH

PAGE 69

WKDQ 8% [OL EHFRPHV WKH QHZ LQFXPEHQW VROXWLRQ [ DQG 8% LV UHGXFHG LQ YDOXH DFFRUGLQJO\ 1RWLFH WKDW WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP GHSHQGV LQ SDUW XSRQ WKH QXPEHU ORFDWLRQV DQG GLPHQVLRQV RI WKH HIILFLHQW IDFHV f WKDW DUH VHDUFKHG YLD SUREOHP f 7KLV LQ WXUQ LV SDUWLDOO\ GHSHQGHQW XSRQ WKH VL]HV RI WKH SDUDPHWHUV 6 DQG 1 FKRVHQ E\ WKH XVHU 7KH JRDO LV WR VHDUFK DV PDQ\ SRLQWV RI ; (D DV SRVVLEOH E\ JHQHUDWLQJ D YDULHW\ RI GLVWLQFW HIILFLHQW IDFHV f RI ODUJH GLPHQVLRQV WKDW DUH GLVSHUVHG ZLGHO\ WKURXJKRXW ;( 1RWLFH WKDW VLQFH HDFK HIILFLHQW IDFH LGHQWLILHG E\ WKH KHXULVWLF LV JLYHQ LQ WKH IRUP f DQG VHDUFKHG E\ VROYLQJ OLQHDU SURJUDP f WKH LQGLYLGXDO SRLQWV LQ ;(H[ WKDW DUH VHDUFKHG E\ WKH DOJRULWKP DUH VHDUFKHG LPSOLFLWO\ UDWKHU WKDQ H[SOLFLWO\ LH WKH\ GR QRW QHHG WR EH H[SOLFLWO\ HQXPHUDWHG &RPSXWDWLRQDO 5HVXOWV 7KH KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP GHVFULEHG LQ 6HFWLRQ KDV WKH IROORZLQJ DWWUDFWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV Df LW FDQ EH LPSOHPHQWHG XVLQJ RQO\ OLQHDU SURJUDPPLQJ PHWKRGV Ef LW JHQHUDOO\ LPSOLFLWO\ VHDUFKHV PDQ\ HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI f DW RQFH E\ RSWLPL]LQJ RYHU HQWLUH HIILFLHQW IDFHV RI f UDWKHU WKDQ E\ H[SOLFLWO\ H[DPLQLQJ LQGLYLGXDO HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI f Ff LW DOORZV WKH XVHU WR PDQLSXODWH WKH QDWXUH DQG H[WHQW RI WKH HIILFLHQW IDFH VHDUFK WKURXJK WKH FKRLFHV IRU WKH LQSXW SDUDPHWHUV 6 DQG ,9 Gf LW ILQGV HIILFLHQW IDFHV RI f E\ DWWHPSWLQJ WR JOREDOO\ VDPSOH IURP D YDULHW\ RI UHJLRQV RI WKH HIILFLHQW VHW

PAGE 70

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
PAGE 71

JHQHUDWHG D QRQHPSW\ FRPSDFW SRO\KHGUDO IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ ; FLQW 5 7KLV UHJLRQ FDQ EH ZULWWHQ DV ; ^UH 5?3[LT OJA LT M O ZKHUH 3 LV D N[Q PDWUL[ TH 5N DQG TH 5 7R DFFRPSOLVK WKLV ILUVW WKH HOHPHQWV RI 3 ZHUH JHQHUDWHG E\ UDQGRPO\ FKRRVLQJ HOHPHQWV IURP WKH VHW ^O ` 1H[W IRU HDFK L IF WKH IRUPXOD e 3" ZDV XVHG WR FDOFXODWH Tc DQG ILQDOO\ T ZDV FKRVHQ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH UXOH T PD[ ^Ac N` (DFK WHVW SUREOHP ZDV FRQVWUXFWHG WR EHORQJ WR RQH RI IRXU FDWHJRULHV ZKHUH D FDWHJRU\ LV GHILQHG E\ WKH QXPEHU S RI OLQHDU IXQFWLRQV XVHG LQ WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ -AF [nM RI WKH WHVW SUREOHP 7KH YDOXHV S ZHUH FKRVHQ WR GHILQH WKHVH FDWHJRULHV :H FKRVH WKHVH FDWHJRULHV LQ WKLV ZD\ EHFDXVH HPSLULFDO HYLGHQFH VHHPV WR LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH FRPSOH[LW\ RI WKHVH SUREOHPV LV PRUH VHQVLWLYH WR WKH PDJQLWXGH RI S WKDQ WR WKH PDJQLWXGHV RI N RU Q .XQR
PAGE 72

SURJUDP f 7R DFFRPSOLVK WKLV ZH XVH WKH $'%$6( FRPSXWHU FRGH GHYHORSHG E\ 6WHXHU f 6RPH VWDWLVWLFV VXPPDUL]LQJ WKH UHVXOWV RI WKHVH FRPSXWDWLRQV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOHV ,Q HDFK WDEOH HDFK URZ JLYHV DYHUDJH VWDWLVWLFV IRU D VXEFDWHJRU\ NQf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r DUH WKH JOREDO PLQLPXP DQG PD[LPXP YDOXHV RI WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI WKH WHVW SUREOHP RYHU WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ VHW RI HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI f 7KXV L U A DQG WKH FORVHU U LV WR WKH PRUH DWWUDFWLYH WKH YDOXH ]f UHWXUQHG E\ WKH KHXULVWLF LV UHODWLYH WR WKH DFWXDO JOREDO PLQLPXP YDOXH 7KH WKLUG VWDWLVWLF JLYHQ IRU HDFK VXEFDWHJRU\ LQ WKHVH WDEOHV LV WKH DYHUDJH &38 WLPH VHFRQGVf WKDW WKH KHXULVWLF QHHGHG WR VROYH D SUREOHP LQ WKH VXEFDWHJRU\ 7KH IRXUWK VWDWLVWLF VKRZV WKH ORZHVW HIILFLHQF\ UDWLQJ FDOFXODWHG IRU D SUREOHP LQ WKH VXEFDWHJRU\ ,W JLYHV D PHDVXUH RI WKH ZRUVW FDVH SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP ZKHQ DSSOLHG WR WKH SUREOHPV LQ D VXEFDWHJRU\

PAGE 73

7DEOH &RPSXWDWLRQDO 5HVXOWV S 6XEFDWHJRU\ N Q $YJ 1R (II 3RLQWV $YJ (II 5DWLQJ U $YJ 6ROXWLRQV 7LPH VHFf /RZHVW (II 5DWLQJ U 1R ([DFW 6ROXWLRQV 7KH ILIWK VWDWLVWLF LV WKH QXPEHU RI SUREOHPV LQ D FDWHJRU\ IRU ZKLFK WKH KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP IRXQG D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ 7KHVH IRXU WDEOHV VKRZ WKDW WKH VROXWLRQV UHWXUQHG E\ WKH KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP JLYH RQ WKH DYHUDJH TXLWH DFFXUDWH HVWLPDWHV RI WKH DFWXDO JOREDO PLQLPXP YDOXHV IRU WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH WHVW SUREOHPV JHQHUDWHG 7KLV LV LQGLFDWHG E\ WKH IDFW WKDW DYHUDJH HIILFLHQF\ UDWLQJV E\ VXEFDWHJRU\ DOZD\V ZHUH DW OHDVW DQG LQ DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKH VXEFDWHJRULHV H[FHHGHG ,W LV QRWHZRUWK\ WKDW IRU WKHVH SUREOHPV WKHVH UDWLQJV U E\ VXEFDWHJRU\ GR QRW VHHP WR GHFOLQH VLJQLILFDQWO\ DV S N DQG Q LQFUHDVH LQ 7DEOH &RPSXWDWLRQDO 5HVXOWV S 6XEFDWHJRU\ N Q $YJ 1R (II ([W 3RLQWV $YJ (II 5DWLQJ U $YJ 6ROXWLRQV 7LPH VHFf /RZHVW (II 5DWLQJ U 1R ([DFW 6ROXWLRQV

PAGE 74

7DEOH &RPSXWDWLRQDO 5HVXOWV S 6XEFDWHJRU\ N Q $YJ 1R (II ([W 3RLQWV $YJ (II 5DWLQJ U $YJ 6ROXWLRQV 7LPH VHFf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
PAGE 75

H[WUHPH SRLQWV WKDW H[LVW LQ WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ SUREOHPV f VHH .XQR
PAGE 76

7R KHOS HYDOXDWH WKH DWWUDFWLYHQHVV RI WKH VROXWLRQ IRXQG E\ WKH KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP ZH IRXQG D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ E\ HQXPHUDWLQJ WKH HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI WKH DVVRFLDWHG IRUHVW PDQDJHPHQW PXOWLSOHREMHFWLYH OLQHDU SURJUDP XVLQJ WKH $'%$6( FRPSXWHU FRGH $Q HIILFLHQF\ UDWLQJ RI U ZDV FDOFXODWHG XVLQJ WKH VOLJKWO\ PRGLILHG HTXDWLRQ U >]r1 =r f]r1 =r1f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f ZLWK D FRPSDFW IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ KDV DW OHDVW RQH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WKDW LV DQ HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ RI WKH DVVRFLDWHG PXOWLSOHREMHFWLYH PDWKHPDWLFDO SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP f 7KHUHIRUH WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ H[LVWV IRU GHYLVLQJ VROXWLRQ PHWKRGV IRU VXFK SUREOHPV 3[f WKDW VHDUFK DPRQJ WKH HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI WKH DVVRFLDWHG PXOWLSOH REMHFWLYH SUREOHPV f 7KH FKDSWHU SURSRVHV D KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP WKDW WDNHV WKLV

PAGE 77

DSSURDFK IRU VROYLQJ OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPV )URP WKH FRPSXWDWLRQDO UHVXOWV SUHVHQWHG IRU WKLV KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP ZH FRQFOXGH WKDW LWV IHDWXUHV DQG SHUIRUPDQFH RIIHU VLJQLILFDQW SRWHQWLDO IRU FRQYHQLHQWO\ ILQGLQJ YHU\ DWWUDFWLYH VROXWLRQV ZLWK UHODWLYHO\ OLWWOH FRPSXWDWLRQDO HIIRUW WR WKH YDULRXV DSSOLFDWLRQV XVLQJ OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ HQFRXQWHUHG LQ SUDFWLFH 7KXV WKH WKHRUHWLFDO DQG DOJRULWKPLF UHVXOWV SUHVHQWHG LQ WKLV FKDSWHU RIIHU VRPH SRWHQWLDO QHZ DYHQXHV IRU PRUH HIIHFWLYHO\ DQDO\]LQJ DQG VROYLQJ PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV RI YDULRXV W\SHV

PAGE 78

&+$37(5 $ *(1(5$/ 08/7,3/,&$7,9( 352*5$00,1* 352%/(0 ,1 287&20( 63$&( ,QWURGXFWLRQ 5HFDOO IURP &KDSWHU WKDW WKH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP LV JLYHQ E\ 3[f Y[ PLQVW$WH ; ZKHUH SW LV DQ LQWHJHU ; LV D QRQHPSW\ VHW LQ 5Q DQG IRU HDFK M S IM; f§! 5 VDWLVILHV IW [f IRU DOO [H ; )RU VLPSOLFLW\ ZH DVVXPH WKDW WKH PLQLPXP Y[ LQ SUREOHP 3[f LV DFKLHYHG )RU DQ\ [H 5 OHW I[f GHQRWH WKHSYHFWRU ZLWK\nWK HQWU\ HTXDO WR Ic^[f M S /HW \H 5nn GHQRWH WKH SYHFWRU ZLWK MWK HQWU\ HTXDO WR \M[ M ? S )RU HDFK M S OHW \ H 5 VDWLVI\ \\6VXS\MFfVWMFH ; ZKHUH \ a LV SRVVLEOH DQG OHW \H 5f GHQRWH WKH YHFWRU ZLWK IWK HQWU\ HTXDO WR \c M S $OWKRXJK YDULRXV RXWFRPHVSDFH UHIRUPXODWLRQV RI SUREOHP 3[f KDYH EHHQ SURSRVHG IRU VROXWLRQ SXUSRVHV RQH RI WKH PRVW FRPPRQ UHIRUPXODWLRQV LV JLYHQ E\ WKH SUREOHP 3ULf Y\ PLQ J\f VW \ H
PAGE 79

ZKHUH < ^\H 3nf_[f \J\ IRU VRPH UH ; M f DQG ZKHUH IRU HDFK \H < J
PAGE 80

UHVXOWV )RU H[DPSOH ZH VKRZ IRU WKH FRQYH[ FDVH WKDW DQ\ JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf PXVW OLH RQ WKH ERXQGDU\ RI < WKDW WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ J LQ SUREOHP 3\Lf LV VWULFWO\ SVHXGRFRQFDYH RQ < DQG ZKHQ < LV FORVHG DQG FRQWDLQV DW OHDVW RQH H[WUHPH SRLQW WKDW SUREOHP 3\Lf KDV DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ 7KH DQDO\VLV RI WKH JHQHUDO FDVH RI SUREOHP 3\Lf LV JLYHQ LQ 6HFWLRQ 6HFWLRQ SURYLGHV DQDO\WLFDO UHVXOWV IRU ERWK WKH FRQYH[ DQG SRO\KHGUDO FDVHV RI SUREOHP 3\Lf 5HVXOWV IRU WKH *HQHUDO &DVH RI 3UREOHP 3\Lf 1RWLFH XQGHU WKH DVVXPSWLRQV PDGH LQ 6HFWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3[f WKDW < LV D QRQHPSW\ VXEVHW RI 5[ ^] H R` :KHQ < VDWLVILHV WKLV FRQGLWLRQ ZH REWDLQ ZKDW ZH ZLOO FDOO WKH JHQHUDO FDVH RI SUREOHP 3\Lf ,W LV LPSRUWDQW WR HVWDEOLVK WKDW E\ VROYLQJ WKH JHQHUDO FDVH RXWFRPHVSDFH IRUPXODWLRQ 3\Lf RI SUREOHP 3[f D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3[f FDQ EH UHFRYHUHG 7KH IROORZLQJ UHVXOW E\ VKRZLQJ WKDW SUREOHPV 3[f DQG 3f DUH HTXLYDOHQW LQ D FHUWDLQ VHQVH LPPHGLDWHO\ HVWDEOLVKHV WKLV IDFW 7KHRUHP Df ,I [ LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3[f WKHQ \ I[nf LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf )XUWKHUPRUH Y\ Y[ Ef 3UREOHP 3\Lf KDV DW OHDVW RQH JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ )XUWKHUPRUH LI \f LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf WKHQ DQ\ [n H ; VXFK WKDW $rK\n LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3[f

PAGE 81

3URRI Df /HW [n EH D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3[f DQG VHW \r I[f )URP f DQG f WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW \f H < DQG WKDW JL\nf WOIM[f Y 0 7KHUHIRUH Y\ JY ,I J\f Y[ ZHUH WR KROG IRU VRPH \H 9V WKHQ IURP f DQG f WKHUH ZRXOG H[LVW DQ [H ; VXFK WKDW 0 ZKLFK FRQWUDGLFWV WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI Y[ 7KHUHIRUH J\fAY[ IRU DOO \H < 7KLV LPSOLHV WKDW Y\aLY[ 6LQFH Y\ JY[ J\ff DQG \ H < LW IROORZV WKDW Y\ Y[ J\ff DQG \f LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3 Vf Ef %\ DVVXPSWLRQ ZH PD\ FKRRVH D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3[f )URP SDUW Df WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW SUREOHP 3\Lf KDV DW OHDVW RQH JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ 6XSSRVH WKDW \n LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf 6LQFH \ H < f LPSOLHV WKDW ZH PD\ FKRRVH DQ DUELWUDU\ [n H ; VXFK WKDW MWnfJ\n 7KHQ IURP f VLQFH I[f 6LQFH [r H ; DQG \r LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\6f WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW Y[JIOIM[fJY\ \ O f

PAGE 82

)URPSDUWDf Y\ YW %\ f WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW I-[nf YV 6LQFH [f H ; LW IROORZV 0 WKDW MFr LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3[f Â’ 6XSSRVH LQ WKH JHQHUDO FDVH RI SUREOHP 3\Lf WKDW D SRLQW \H < KDV EHHQ JHQHUDWHG )RU DOJRULWKPLF SXUSRVHV LW PD\ EH YDOXDEOH WR KDYH D WRRO IRU ILQGLQJ DQ DOWHUQDWH SRLQW \H
PAGE 83

"!fe OS;A\f f 6LQFH OSfA \c\Mf! IRU HDFK M ?S DQG SOSf O WKH DULWKPHWLF JHRPHWULF PHDQ LQHTXDOLW\ 'XIILQ 3HWHUVRQ DQG =HQHU f LPSOLHV WKDW e OSfL\M\c nN?JL\fJ\fU ZLWK HTXDOLW\ KROGLQJ LII IRU VRPH FRQVWDQW 0 \M 0\M IRU HDFK M S 7RJHWKHU ZLWK f VLQFH J\fV2 WKLV LPSOLHV WKH GHVLUHG UHVXOWV Â’ 7KHRUHP $VVXPH WKDW \H g ,I LQI -SIFL\M\Mf f r WKHQ J\f J\f IRU VRPH \H
PAGE 84

L!N\fJ\f@3 %HFDXVH J\f! WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW J\f J^\f 7KHUHIRUH J\f J\f IRU VRPH \H
PAGE 85

$ SRLQW \H g LV D ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\f ZKHQ WKHUH H[LVWV DQ H! VXFK WKDW IRU HDFK \H< IRUZKLFK __M!\__£e J^\fAJ\f )URP 7KHRUHP ZKHQ \H < DQG f KROGV WKHQ IRU DQ\ \H< LI WKHUH LV D 6 VXFK WKDW G ^\ f§ \f VDWLVILHV \ ;G H
PAGE 86

FRQYH[ IXQFWLRQ RQ ; :H ZLOO VKRZ WKDW < LV D FRQYH[ VHW &KRRVH DQ\ \ \ H < )URP f VLQFH \n\H

PAGE 87

/HW = e 5rS EH GHILQHG DV WKH VHW RI DOO VROXWLRQV [ !ff WR WKH V\VWHP RI OLQHDU LQHTXDOLWLHV ff JLYHQ E\ 3 f ,,$ Y! 3 f EMf T f 7KHQ E\ GHILQLWLRQ = LV D SRO\KHGURQ LQ 5Q3 /HW $ EH WKH S[Q Sf PDWUL[ ZKRVH ILUVW Q FROXPQV HDFK HTXDO 2H 5ff DQG ZKRVH ODVW S FROXPQV WRJHWKHU IRUP WKH S[S LGHQWLW\ PDWUL[ 7KHQ IURP f DQG WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI = < $= )URP 5RFNDIHOODU 7KHRUHP f < LV D SRO\KHGURQ LQ 5n? Â’ ,Q FRQYH[ FDVHV RI SUREOHP 3 Vf DQG WKXV LQ SRO\KHGUDO FDVHV DV ZHOOf FHUWDLQ ORFDWLRQV ZLWKLQ < IRU VHHNLQJ JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQV FDQ EH VSHFLILHG )RU LQVWDQFH ZH KDYH WKH IROORZLQJ UHVXOW 7KHRUHP 6XSSRVH WKDW SUREOHP 3\Lf VDWLVILHV WKH FRQGLWLRQV IRU WKH FRQYH[ FDVH 7KHQ Df $Q\ JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf EHORQJV WR WKH ERXQGDU\ RI
PAGE 88

Df 7R VKRZ WKLV SDUW RI WKH WKHRUHP OHW \r GHQRWH DQ DUELWUDU\ JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP 3\Lf 6XSSRVH WKDW \f LV QRW RQ WKH ERXQGDU\ RI )p %\ WKH FKRLFH RI \f DQG VLQFH < LV D FRQYH[ VHW < KDV D QRQHPSW\ LQWHULRU 7KHUHIRUH \f PXVW EHORQJ WR WKH LQWHULRU RI )p )URP f WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW IRU VRPH [H ; I[f \f PXVW KROG %\ DVVXPSWLRQ VLQFH [H ; I[f! 7KHUHIRUH LI ZH VHW \ IL[f LW IROORZV WKDW \ H )p DQG L:L8 0 0 )URP f WKLV FRQWUDGLFWV WKH JOREDO RSWLPDOLW\ RI \f LQ SUREOHP 3\Lf 7KHUHIRUH \f PXVW EHORQJ WR WKH ERXQGDU\ RI )p Ef )URP WKH GLVFXVVLRQ LQ 6HFWLRQ VLQFH )p LV D QRQHPSW\ FRQYH[ VHW DQG IRU HDFK M S WKH IXQFWLRQ KM\f \M LV SRVLWLYH DQG FRQFDYH RQ )p WKH JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ VHW IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf LV LGHQWLFDO WR WKH JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ VHW IRU WKH SUREOHP 3\Vf PLQ J\f VW\H )p ZKHUH IRU HDFK \ H )p J )p f§}5 LV WKH FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ GHILQHG E\ V\f Q 6LQFH )p LV D QRQHPSW\ FORVHG FRQYH[ VHW ZLWK DW OHDVW RQH H[WUHPH SRLQW IURP 5RFNDIHOODU &RUROODU\ f LW LV HDV\ WR VHH WKDW )p FDQ FRQWDLQ QR OLQHV )XUWKHUPRUH VLQFH SUREOHP 3\If KDV DW OHDVW RQH JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ SUREOHP 3\6f

PAGE 89

DOVR KDV DW OHDVW RQH JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ %\ 5RFNDIHOODU &RUROODU\ f VLQFH J LV D FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ RQ < WKH ODWWHU WZR VWDWHPHQWV LPSO\ WKDW SUREOHP 3\f KDV DW OHDVW RQH JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ \ WKDW LV DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RI

PAGE 90

OHDVW RQH H[WUHPH SRLQW ,W LV HDV\ WR VHH WKDW WKH XQLTXH JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP 3\Lf LV \nO Of ZKLFK DV JXDUDQWHHG E\ 7KHRUHP LV DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RI
PAGE 91

7KHRUHP 6XSSRVH WKDW SUREOHP 3 Vf VDWLVILHV WKH FRQGLWLRQV IRU WKH FRQYH[ FDVH 7KHQ LQ WKLV SUREOHP J LV D VWULFWO\ SVHXGRFRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ RYHU WKH FRQYH[ VHW < 3URRI 7KH VHW < LV D FRQYH[ VHW E\ GHILQLWLRQ RI WKH FRQYH[ FDVH IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf 7R VKRZ WKDW J LV VWULFWO\ SVHXGRFRQFDYH RYHU

PAGE 92

ZLWK HTXDOLW\ KROGLQJ LII IRU VRPH 0 \r 0 \> N S 7KHUH DUH WZR FDVHV WR FRQVLGHU &DVH Lf 7KHUH LV QR 0 VXFK WKDW \? 0\? N S 7KHQ LQ f VWULFW LQHTXDOLW\ KROGV VR WKDW IURP f DQG f m*Of!m\fN!ffm!nnf@ f 6LQFH J\ff! WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW J\f J\ff &DVH LLf )RU VRPH 0 \? 0 \nN N S ,I ZH FKRRVH VXFK DQ 0 WKHQ f KROGV DV DQ HTXDOLW\ 7KXV IURP f DQG WKH FKRLFH RI 0 ZH REWDLQ WKDW J^\n f9Sfe Yr K? f J\n fE \ fV\f@ rf r DQG WKDW J\f 0J\nf f UHVSHFWLYHO\ 6LQFH J\ff! WRJHWKHU f f DQG f LPSO\ WKDW V\f J\n fP S f OS 0 JL\nf 'LYLGLQJ WKURXJK E\ J\ff! \LHOGV 0 JO 1RWLFH WKDW 0  VLQFH E\ DVVXPSWLRQ \n DQG \ DUH GLVWLQFW 7KHUHIRUH 0 %\f VLQFH J\nf J\f! WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW J\f J\n f‘ DU_G WKH SURRI LV FRPSOHWH ’ 5HPDUN 7KHRUHP MXVWLILHV DQG VWUHQJWKHQV WKH FODLP RI 6QLHGRYLFK DQG )LQGOD\ S f WKDW ZKHQ
PAGE 93

)URP 7KHRUHP LQ WKH FRQYH[ FDVH SUREOHP 3\6f LV D JOREDO RSWLPL]DWLRQ SUREOHP LQYROYLQJ WKH PLQLPL]DWLRQ RI D VWULFWO\ SVHXGRFRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ RYHU D FRQYH[ VHW < 7KHUHIRUH DV LQ WKH JHQHUDO FDVH PXOWLSOH ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQV IRU SUREOHP 3ULf ZLOO JHQHUDOO\ H[LVW WKDW DUH QRW JOREDOO\ RSWLPDO )URP 7KHRUHP ZH NQRZ WKDW ZKHQ
PAGE 94

\,S >$ \f $f\@ œ $SIO \n O ‘ [\I> \ `S U L,U f ZLWK HTXDOLW\ KROGLQJ LII $ \ ? .O $f\ M S IRU VRPH SRVLWLYH FRQVWDQW 6LQFH ‘?9! DQG L$UUW L,S \ LA\f f DQG f ZLOO LPSO\ WKH GHVLUHG UHVXOW LI ZH FDQ VKRZ WKDW QR H[LVWV VXFK WKDW ; \f .?;f\f M S f 1RWLFH WKDW VLQFH \n r\ .[ >$O $f@ GRHV QRW VDWLVI\ f 6XSSRVH WR WKH FRQWUDU\ WKDW IRU VRPH f LV VDWLVILHG 7KHQ IURP f LW IROORZV WKDW \f I>O$f$@\ f 6LQFH \n\ =DEf D\nf D\f E f 6XEVWLWXWLQJ IRU \n LQ f YLD f ZH REWDLQ c‘>O $f$@D \f D \f E

PAGE 95

6ROYLQJ KHUH IRU ZH REWDLQ WKDW >$ $f@ 6LQFH .L >$O $f@ GRHV QRW VDWLVI\ f WKLV FRQWUDGLFWLRQ FRQFOXGHV WKH SURRI ’ ,W LV LPSRUWDQW WR QRWLFH WKDW WKH FRXQWHUSDUW RI 7KHRUHP LQ WKH GHFLVLRQ VSDFH GRHV QRW KROG HYHQ LQ WKH SRO\KHGUDO FDVH ,Q SDUWLFXODU VXSSRVH WKDW ; & 5 LV D QRQHPSW\ FRPSDFW SRO\KHGURQ DQG IRU HDFK M S WKDW WKHUH H[LVWV D F H 5 VXFK WKDW IM[f FM[nf! IRU DOO [H; 7KHQ DOWKRXJK WKH IXQFWLRQ K ; f§! 5 GHILQHG IRU HDFK [ H ; E\ K[f 9S / O LV FRQFDYH VHH 7KHRUHP f WKH IXQFWLRQ K ;DEff§!5 QHHG QRW EH VWULFWO\ FRQFDYH ZKHUH DH 5S EH 5 D! E! DQG f ;DEf 7KH IROORZLQJ H[DPSOH LOOXVWUDWHV WKLV REVHUYDWLRQ ([DPSOH /HW ; ^[ [ H 5 _R J [ 6 ` DQG OHW Ic[c[f ^f[MFff M 7KHQ ; LV D QRQHPSW\ FRPSDFW SRO\KHGURQ DQG IRU HDFK M Ic LV SRVLWLYH DQG OLQHDU RQ ; $V JXDUDQWHHG E\ 7KHRUHP K ; f§! ZKLFK E\ f LV JLYHQ E\ K^[f[f ^[[f

PAGE 96

LV FRQFDYH +RZHYHU LI IRU H[DPSOH Dc D DQG WKHQ K LV QRW VWULFWO\ FRQFDYH RQ ;DEf ^MF M&M _R £ MF 6 L [c [ ` &RQVLGHU QRZ SUREOHP 3\6f ZKHQ WKH FRQGLWLRQV RI WKH SRO\KHGUDO FDVH KROG $VVXPH DOVR WKDW
PAGE 97

SUREOHP 3\Lf WKDQ \ KDV EHHQ IRXQG 7R DQDO\]H WKH VHFRQG FDVH ZH QHHG WKH IROORZLQJ WZR GHILQLWLRQV DQG OHPPD 'HILQLWLRQ $ SRLQW \ H O]n O $f] @! PLQ AL]nf r]f` IRU HDFK $ VXFK WKDW $ /HPPD /HW = EH D QRQHPSW\ FRQYH[ VHW LQ 5 DQG OHW K = f§! 5 EH VWURQJO\ TXDVLFRQFDYH 6XSSRVH WKDW ]n N DUH GLVWLQFW SRLQWV LQ = DQG WKDW U LV DQ HOHPHQW RI WKH FRQYH[ KXOO RI ]n L ON VXFK WKDW IRU HDFK L N Vr]f 7KHQ 3URRI 7KH OHPPD LV HDV\ WR SURYH XVLQJ 'HILQLWLRQ DQG LQGXFWLRQ ’ 7KH IROORZLQJ UHVXOW DQDO\]HV WKH FDVH ZKHUH YPLQ DQG \ LV WKH XQLTXH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP /3f 7KHRUHP $VVXPH WKDW SUREOHP 3\cf VDWLVILHV WKH FRQGLWLRQV IRU WKH SRO\KHGUDO FDVH DQG WKDW
PAGE 98

DQG WKDW \ \ LV WKH XQLTXH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP /3f 7KHQ \ LV D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\6f 3URRI 6LQFH J\f! DQG \ \ LV WKH XQLTXH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR WKH SUREOHP PL QSfe9M!Yfn \rU \ \ PXVW DOVR EH WKH XQLTXH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR WKH SUREOHP PLQ \r

PAGE 99

IRU HDFK $ H f /HW 6 OPLQ^£c_L OIF` DQG FRQVLGHU WKH SRLQWV \ DQG \ 6G\ 6G \ 6GN 7KHQ E\ GHILQLWLRQ RI 6 DQG f J^\ 6Gff!J\f f IRU HDFK L N /HW ] EH DQ\ HOHPHQW RI WKH FRQYH[ KXOO RI \ \ 6Gn L VXFK WKDW ]r\ DQGIRU HDFK  ] r \ 6Gn 6LQFH J LVDVWULFWO\ SVHXGRFRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ RQ

PAGE 100

VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf ,Q IDFW \ LV QRW HYHQ D ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lff 1RWLFH WKDW SUREOHP /3f LQ WKLV FDVH KDV PXOWLSOH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQV ,Q WKH WKLUG FDVH RI SUREOHP /3f YPLQ DQG SUREOHP /3f KDV PXOWLSOH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQV ,Q WKLV FDVH E\ WKH QH[W UHVXOW DV LQ WKH ILUVW FDVH DQ LPSURYHG IHDVLEOH VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf LV DW KDQG 7KH SURRI RI WKLV UHVXOW UHOLHV FUXFLDOO\ RQ 7KHRUHP 7KHRUHP $VVXPH WKDW SUREOHP 3\Lf VDWLVILHV WKH FRQGLWLRQV IRU WKH SRO\KHGUDO FDVH DQG WKDW p LV FRPSDFW 6XSSRVH WKDW \ LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP /3f DQG VXSSRVH WKDW SUREOHP /3f KDV PXOWLSOH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQV 7KHQ IRU DQ\ \f r\ WKDW LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP /3f J\f J\f PXVW KROG 3URRI /HW \f  \ EH DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP /3f 7KHQ VLQFH J\f! \f LV DOVR DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU WKH SUREOHP PLQ J\f9 SIHL\M\MOVW\H \V %\ /HPPD VLQFH \H

PAGE 101

SUREOHP f HTXDOV $V D UHVXOW VLQFH \n LV DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP f A9J!!f \r f§ \f %\ WKH FKRLFH RI \ LW IROORZV WKDW %\ f \ DQG \f ERWK EHORQJ WR < )URP %D]DUDD 6KHUDOL DQG 6KHWW\ f VLQFH \n r \ WKH ODWWHU WKUHH VHQWHQFHV WRJHWKHU LPSO\ WKDW )URP f DQG f WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW W"f@3 ?J\f?nEOSfW`J\fOS \@\@ \f ?J\fI3 ?J^\fn3 \f\@ E&\f@A N\f@ \f J\IU ZKHUH WKH ODVW HTXDWLRQ IROORZV IURP WKH IDFW WKDW \nFI $V D UHVXOW J\ff J\f ’ 5HPDUN 6XSSRVH WKDW SUREOHP 3 Wf VDWLVILHV WKH FRQGLWLRQV IRU WKH SRO\KHGUDO FDVH DQG WKDW 7V LV FRPSDFW 7KHQ E\ XVLQJ 7KHRUHP DQG WKH GLVFXVVLRQ SUHFHGLQJ LW D

PAGE 102

ILQLWH JXDUDQWHHG PHWKRG FDQ EH GHVFULEHG IRU ILQGLQJ D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3ILf )RU LQVWDQFH RQH VXFK PHWKRG LV DV IROORZV $OJRULWKP 6WULFW /RFDO 2SWLPDO ([WUHPH 3RLQW 6ROXWLRQ 6HDUFK ,QLWLDOL]DWLRQ 6WHS )LQG DQ LQLWLDO H[WUHPH SRLQW \ RI V 6WHS )LQG WKH RSWLPDO YDOXH YPLQ IRU OLQHDU SURJUDP /3f ,I YPLQ JR WR 6WHS ,I YPLQ JR WR 6WHS 6WHS )LQG DQ\ RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ \f IRU SUREOHP /3f 6HW \ \ DQG UHWXUQ WR 6WHS 6WHS ,I \ LV WKH XQLTXH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP /3f WKHQ VWRS 7KH SRLQW \ LV D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf ,I SUREOHP /3f KDV PXOWLSOH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQV WKHQ FRQWLQXH 6WHS )LQG DQ\ RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ \n r\ IRU SUREOHP /3f 6HW \ \f DQG UHWXUQ WR 6WHS 7KH PHWKRG LV ILQLWH EHFDXVH V PXVW KDYH D ILQLWH QXPEHU RI H[WUHPH SRLQWV 7KH PHWKRGV RI %HQVRQ Gf DQG %HQVRQ DQG 6XQ f FDQ EH VKRZQ WR EH VXLWDEOH IRU H[HFXWLQJ WKH LQLWLDOL]DWLRQ VWHS DQG IRU VROYLQJ WKH OLQHDU SURJUDP /3f LQ 6WHSV DQG 1RWLFH WKDW WKH FRXQWHUSDUW WR WKLV PHWKRG IRU WKH GHFLVLRQ VHWEDVHG SUREOHP 3[f LV QRW JXDUDQWHHG WR VXFFHHG 7KLV LV VKRZQ E\ WKH IROORZLQJ H[DPSOH ([DPSOH /HW ; ^[[M V 5_ [ [  [ [ eM DQG IRU HDFK [H 5 OHW

PAGE 103

IL[f [[ I^[f [[ 7KHQ ; LV D QRQHPSW\ FRPSDFW SRO\KHGURQ DQG IRU HDFK M Ic[f LV D OLQHDU IXQFWLRQ ZLWK SRVLWLYH YDOXHV IRU DOO [H ; ,I ZH JHQHUDWH WKH LQLWLDO H[WUHPH SRLQW [n O f RI ; IRU H[DPSOH WKHQ WKH OLQHDU SURJUDP PLQ f; rfIL rn V;[H ; M L KDV RSWLPDO YDOXH DQG LW KDV H[DFWO\ WZR H[WUHPH SRLQW RSWLPDO VROXWLRQV 7KHVH DUH [n DQG [6LQFH M WKH FRXQWHUSDUW SURFHGXUH WR WKH DERYH PHWKRG ZRXOG LQ WKLV FDVH F\FOH ZLWKRXW WHUPLQDWLRQ EHWZHHQ JHQHUDWLQJ WKH H[WUHPH SRLQW [n DQG JHQHUDWLQJ WKH H[WUHPH SRLQW [ 1HLWKHU RI WKHVH H[WUHPH SRLQWV LV D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3[f ZKHUH WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ [ IRU SUREOHP 3[f LV JLYHQ E\ 'HILQLWLRQ ZLWK [ ; 3[f [ DQG UHSODFLQJ \ < 3\f \ DQG J UHVSHFWLYHO\ + 'LVFXVVLRQ 7KH DQDO\VLV RI WKH RXWFRPHVSDFH SUREOHP IRUPXODWLRQ 3\Lf RI WKH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP 3[f \LHOGV VHYHUDO UHVXOWV 7KH NH\ RQHV DUH DV IROORZV )LUVW VLQFH JOREDOO\ VROYLQJ SUREOHP 3\Lf DOVR HVVHQWLDOO\ JOREDOO\ VROYHV SUREOHP 3[f DQG VLQFH < JHQHUDOO\ OLHV LQ D VLJQLILFDQWO\ VPDOOHU VSDFH WKDQ ; WKHUH FRXOG EH JUHDW FRPSXWDWLRQDO JDLQ WR EH GHULYHG E\ FRQVWUXFWLQJ JOREDO RSWLPL]DWLRQ

PAGE 104

DOJRULWKPV IRU SUREOHP 3[f WKDW ZRUN GLUHFWO\ RQ SUREOHP 3\Lf LQVWHDG RI RQ SUREOHP "rff 6HFRQG WKH SRWHQWLDO WR FUHDWH JOREDO VROXWLRQ DOJRULWKPV IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf LV TXLWH KLJK )RU LQVWDQFH LQ WKH FRQYH[ FDVH ZKHUH < LV FORVHG DQG KDV DW OHDVW RQH H[WUHPH SRLQW WKH DQDO\VLV KDV VKRZQ WKDW SUREOHP 3\Lf SRVVHVVHV DW OHDVW RQH JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WKDW LV DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RI
PAGE 105

&+$37(5 $1 287&20(63$&( &877,1*3/$1( $/*25,7+0 )25 /,1($5 08/7,3/,&$7,9( 352*5$00,1* ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7KH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP PD\ EH ZULWWHQ S 3[f PLQ I^[f VW [H ; 0 ZKHUH ;Fn LVD QRQHPSW\ FRPSDFW SRO\KHGURQ LV DQ LQWHJHU DQG IRU HDFK M ?S FH 5 VDWLVILHV FM[M! IRU DOO [H; )RU HDFK M S OHW \c H 5 VDWLVI\ \ PD[ ^Fc[M VW [H ; DQG OHW \H5) GHQRWH WKH YHFWRU ZLWK MWK HQWU\ HTXDO WR \MW M S /HW & GHQRWH WKH S [ Q PDWUL[ ZKRVH MWK URZ HTXDOV FM S 5HFDOO IURP &KDSWHU WKDW RQH RI WKH PRUH GLUHFW UHIRUPXODWLRQV RI SUREOHP 3[f DV DQ RXWFRPHVSDFH SUREOHP LV JLYHQ E\ 3\6f PLQJAAA\ VW \H IV 0 ZKHUH < ^\H 5S?&[\L \ IRUVRPH[H [M &ORVHO\ UHODWHG WR WKLV UHIRUPXODWLRQ LV WKH SUREOHP

PAGE 106

3Uf PLQJ\f ,e>!f VW \( 0 ZKHUH < ^\V 5S?\ &[ IRU VRPH [H [f ,Q WKLV FKDSWHU ZH GHYHORS DQ RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP IRU JOREDOO\ VROYLQJ WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP 3[f 7R DFFRPSOLVK WKLV ZH XVH WKH IUDPHZRUN RI D SXUH FXWWLQJ SODQH GHFLVLRQ VHWEDVHG FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ PHWKRG RI +RUVW DQG 7X\ SS f :H VKRZ KRZ WR DGDSW WKLV PHWKRG WR VROYLQJ WKH RXWFRPHVSDFH IRUPXODWLRQ 3\Lf RI SUREOHP 3[f IRU D JOREDO H[WUHPH SRLQW RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ %HFDXVH S LV DOPRVW DOZD\V VPDOOHU WKDQ Q RIWHQ E\ VHYHUDO RUGHUV RI PDJQLWXGH ZH H[SHFW WKDW SRWHQWLDOO\ FRQVLGHUDEOH FRPSXWDWLRQDO VDYLQJV FRXOG EH REWDLQHG E\ XVLQJ WKH QHZ RXWFRPHVSDFH SXUH FXWWLQJ SODQH DOJRULWKP LQVWHDG RI D GHFLVLRQ VHWEDVHG DSSURDFK $V D IXUWKHU FRPSXWDWLRQDO HQKDQFHPHQW ZH DOVR VKRZ WKDW IRU SXUSRVHV RI LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WKH PHFKDQLFV RI WKH RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP FDQ EH DSSOLHG WR WKH VPDOOHU SUREOHP 3
PAGE 107

7KHRUHWLFDO 3UHUHTXLVLWHV 7KH RXWFRPHVSDFH DOJRULWKP XVHV H[WUHPH SRLQW VHDUFK DQG FXWWLQJ SODQHV WR ILQG D JOREDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP 3\Lf )URP WKLV VROXWLRQ D JOREDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ WR WKH RULJLQDO PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP 3[f FDQ EH HDVLO\ UHFRYHUHG DV ZH VKDOO VHH 7KH DSSURDFK RI WKH QHZ DOJRULWKP UHOLHV RQ VHYHUDO WKHRUHWLFDO UHVXOWV ,Q WKLV VHFWLRQ ZH UHYLHZ RU GHYHORS WKH QHFHVVDU\ UHVXOWV RI WKLV W\SH 7KH WKHRUHWLFDO SUHUHTXLVLWHV FRQFHUQ SUREOHPV 3[f DQG 3\Lf DQG WKHLU UHODWLRQVKLSV WR RQH DQRWKHU %HIRUH SUHVHQWLQJ WKHVH SUHUHTXLVLWHV ZH PXVW JLYH VRPH SUHOLPLQDU\ GHILQLWLRQV 'HILQLWLRQ /HW : EH DQ RSHQ VHW LQ 5 WKDW FRQWDLQV = F 5 DQG OHW K : f§! 5 7KH IXQFWLRQ K LV FDOOHG VWULFWO\ SVHXGRFRQFDYH RYHU = ZKHQ K LV GLIIHUHQWLDEOH RYHU = DQG IRU HDFK SDLU RI GLVWLQFW SRLQWV ]n] = LI K]nf ] ]nf 62 WKHQ K]fK]nf )URP %D]DUDD 6KHUDOL DQG 6KHWW\ f D VWULFWO\ SVHXGRFRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ K = \ 5 GHILQHG RYHU D FRQYH[ VHW = LV ERWK SVHXGRFRQFDYH DQG TXDVLFRQFDYH RYHU = 7KH FRQYHUVH WR WKLV VWDWHPHQW KRZHYHU LV QRW WUXH )RU GHWDLOV VHH %D]DUDD 6KHUDOL DQG 6KHWW\ f 'HILQLWLRQ %D]DUDD 6KHUDOL DQG 6KHWW\ f $ SRLQW \ H )V LV FDOOHG D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf ZKHQ WKHUH H[LVWV DQ H VXFK WKDW IRU HDFK \H
PAGE 108

3URSRVLWLRQ 7KHRUHP f 7KH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ < IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf LV D QRQHPSW\ SRO\KHGUDO VXEVHW RI 5S ^\H 5S?\ RM 3URSRVLWLRQ 3URSRVLWLRQ f 3UREOHP 3[f SRVVHVVHV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WKDW LV DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RI ; 7KHRUHP 7KHRUHP f 3UREOHP 3\Lf SRVVHVVHV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WKDW LV DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RI
PAGE 109

ZLOO KDYH DW OHDVW RQH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ DQG IRU DQ\ RSWLPDO EDVLF VROXWLRQ [nXnf [nRfH 5QrS WR WKLV OLQHDU SURJUDP [n LV DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3[f 7KXV JLYHQ D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf D JOREDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3[f FDQ EH HDVLO\ UHFRYHUHG E\ VROYLQJ D VLQJOH OLQHDU SURJUDP IRU D EDVLF RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ %DVHG XSRQ 7KHRUHP WKH RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP WR EH SUHVHQWHG FRQILQHV LWV VHDUFK WR H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI WKH QRQHPSW\ FRPSDFW SRO\KHGURQ .p ,Q IDFW WKH DOJRULWKP VHDUFKHV RQO\ ZLWKLQ D FHUWDLQ VXEVHW RI WKH VHW RI H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI 7p 7KLV LV MXVWLILHG LQ SDUW E\ WKH IROORZLQJ UHVXOW 7KHRUHP $Q\ SRLQW WKDW LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf PXVW DOVR EH DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RI 7p DQG D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\6f 3URRI (LWKHU Lf SUREOHP 3\Lf KDV D XQLTXH JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ RU LLf SUREOHP 3\Lf KDV PXOWLSOH JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQV &DVH Lf 3UREOHP 3\Lf KDV D XQLTXH JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ /HW \ UHSUHVHQW WKLV VROXWLRQ 7KHQ E\ 7KHRUHP \ LV DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RI

PAGE 110

PLQO3ff-\-fVW\f)V f 0 1RWLFH WKDW VLQFH \H < WKH RSWLPDO YDOXH Y RI f VDWLVILHV YJO 7KHUHIRUH HLWKHU YO RU Y O ,I Y WKHQ IURP 7KHRUHP WKHUH H[LVWV VRPH \ H 7 VXFK WKDW J\f J\f 7KHUHIRUH LQ WKLV FDVH \ LV QRW D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP Af ,I Y O WKHQ VLQFH \ LV D QRQH[WUHPH SRLQW RI < WKH OLQHDU SURJUDP f KDV PXOWLSOH RSWLPDO VROXWLRQV LQFOXGLQJ \ ,Q WKLV FDVH E\ 7KHRUHP IRU DQ\ \f r\ WKDW DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU f J\ff J\f PXVW KROG 7KHUHIRUH LQ WKLV FDVH \ LV QRW D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf 6LQFH HLWKHU Y RU Y WKH DUJXPHQWV DERYH LPSO\ WKDW QR QRQH[WUHPH SRLQW RI
PAGE 111

SRLQW RI WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW J\f! J\f $V D UHVXOW E\ 'HILQLWLRQ \ LV D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3 cf DQG WKH SURRI LV FRPSOHWH Â’ 5HFDOO WKDW D SRLQW ] LQ D VHW = F 5 LV FDOOHG DQ LVRODWHG SRLQW RI = ZKHQ LW LV QRW D OLPLW SRLQW RI = )URP 7KHRUHP ZH REWDLQ WKH IROORZLQJ UHVXOW DV DQ LPPHGLDWH FRQVHTXHQFH &RUROODU\ /HW WV GHQRWH WKH VHW RI JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQV IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf 7KHQ HYHU\ SRLQW LQ WV LV DQ LVRODWHG SRLQW RI ]V 7R FRQFOXGH WKLV VHFWLRQ ZH VWDWH WKH IROORZLQJ UHVXOW 7KH SURRI RI WKLV UHVXOW LV LPPHGLDWH E\ GHILQLWLRQ 3URSRVLWLRQ /HW \ EH DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\6f 7KHQ IRU HDFK H[WUHPH SRLQW \VI WKDW LV DGMDFHQW WR \ J\fJ J\f PXVW KROG 2XWFRPH6SDFH &XWWLQJ3ODQH $OJRULWKP 7R DGDSW WKH DSSURDFK RI WKH GHFLVLRQ VHWEDVHG +RUVW7X\ FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ DOJRULWKP +RUVW DQG 7X\ f SS f WR VROYLQJ WKH RXWFRPHVSDFH IRUPXODWLRQ 3\6f RI SUREOHP 3[f WKUHH WDVNV QHHG WR EH LWHUDWLYHO\ H[HFXWHG 7KH ILUVW LV D FHUWDLQ VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ VHDUFK WKH VHFRQG LQYROYHV WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI D FXWWLQJ SODQH DQG WKH WKLUG LV D WHUPLQDWLRQ WHVW %HIRUH JLYLQJ D IRUPDO VWDWHPHQW RI WKH QHZ RXWFRPHVSDFH DOJRULWKP ZH ZLOO GHVFULEH KRZ WKH DOJRULWKP H[HFXWHV HDFK RI WKHVH WKUHH WDVNV

PAGE 112

6WULFW /RFDO 2SWLPDO 6ROXWLRQ 6HDUFK 0RWLYDWHG E\ 3URSRVLWLRQ DQG 7KHRUHPV DQG WKH VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ VHDUFK VHHNV DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW \ RI < WKDW LV D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf DQG VDWLVILHV J\f J\f IRU HDFK H[WUHPH SRLQW \ RI < WKDW LV DGMDFHQW WR \ 7KLV VHDUFK UHOLHV KHDYLO\ XSRQ UHSHDWHGO\ VROYLQJ WKH OLQHDU SURJUDP PrQ O2‹9"f VW \H
PAGE 113

)URP WKHVH UHVXOWV ZH REWDLQ WKH IROORZLQJ SURFHGXUH IRU ILQGLQJ D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ \H \V IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf WKDW VDWLVILHV J\f6 J\f IRU HDFK H[WUHPH SRLQW QHLJKERU \ WR \ LQ

PAGE 114

&XWWLQJ 3ODQH &RQVWUXFWLRQ /HW \ EH D QRQGHJHQHUDWH H[WUHPH SRLQW RI LW\ \nMn]; LV FDOOHG D \YDOLG FXWWLQJ SODQH RU UYDOLG FXIf IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf +RUVW DQG 7X\ f 6LQFH \ LV D QRQGHJHQHUDWH VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\f WKDW VDWLVILHV J\fn J\f IRU HDFK QHLJKERULQJ H[WUHPH SRLQW \ WR \ LQ < VLQFH

PAGE 115

VHW ]f \ DcXf ZKHUH Dc HTXDOV WKH YDOXH RI WKH VXSUHPXP LQ f )RU HDFK c ^O S@ VXFK WKDW f GRHV QRW KROG OHW ]f \DcXf ZKHUH D LVDILQLWH QXPEHU FKRVHQ VR WKDW J]n fV \ 6WHS &RPSXWH NW H74 ZKHUH FH 5S LV WKH FROXPQ YHFWRU RI S RQHV DQG 4 LV WKH S [ S PDWUL[ ZLWK FROXPQ L HTXDO WR ]f \f L S DQG VWRS 7KH OLQHDU LQHTXDOLW\ ^Q\\f!? LV D \YDOLG FXWWLQJ SODQH IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf 1RWLFH WKDW LQ 6WHS RI WKLV SURFHGXUH VLQFH \ LV QRQGHJHQHUDWH WKH S QHLJKERULQJ H[WUHPH SRLQWV GHVFULEHG WKHUH DUH JXDUDQWHHG WR H[LVW )XUWKHUPRUH EHFDXVH < KDV IXOO GLPHQVLRQ L OS DUH OLQHDUO\ LQGHSHQGHQW 0XUW\ SS f 1RWLFH DOVR LQ 6WHS WKDW VLQFH \ LV D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf IRU ZKLFK Jf J\f Ln O S IRU HDFK L OS HLWKHU Dc a RU D ILQLWH QXPEHU FDQ EH FKRVHQ VXFK WKDW J^\ J\f \ 7KH SURFHGXUH LV WKHUHIRUH ZHOO GHILQHG %\ VKRZLQJ D UHVXOW VLPLODU WR 7KHRUHP +, LQ +RUVW DQG 7X\ f WKH SURFHGXUH FDQ DOVR EH VKRZQ WR EH YDOLG :KHQ \ LV GHJHQHUDWH VLQFH < LV IXOO GLPHQVLRQDO \ PD\ KDYH PRUH WKDQ S QHLJKERULQJ H[WUHPH SRLQWV \n L V LQ
PAGE 116

6WHS n )RU HDFK LH ^O L` VXFK WKDW f KROGV VHW D HTXDO WKH YDOXH RI WKH VXSUHPXP LQ f )RU HDFK L f ^ V` VXFK WKDW f GRHV QRW KROG OHW D EH D ILQLWH QXPEHU VXFK WKDW J \ D\ \ 6WHS n /HW Q EH DQ\ EDVLF VROXWLRQ WR WKH V\VWHP AUQnAJODf Ln O V f DQG VWRS 7KH OLQHDU LQHTXDOLW\ U\\fJO LV D \YDOLG FXWWLQJ SODQH IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf 6LQFH
PAGE 117

EH D \YDOLG FXWWLQJ SODQH IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf ZKHUH J\\ DQG IRU VRPH H[WUHPH SRLQW \r RI < J\rf 7KHQ N\\f!? IRU DOO \H

PAGE 118

,OO ,QLWLDOL]DWLRQ 6WHS %\ XVLQJ WKH SURFHGXUH LQ 6HFWLRQ ILQG D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ \r IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf WKDW VDWLVILHV J\fJ J\rf IRU HDFK H[WUHPH SRLQW QHLJKERU \ WR BYr LQ < 6HW \ J\rfDQG
PAGE 119

7KH IROORZLQJ UHVXOW DQG SURRI DUH JXLGHG LQ SDUW E\ 7KHRUHP 9 LQ +RUVW DQG 7X\ f 7KHRUHP 7KH RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf LV ILQLWH ZKHQ WKH VHTXHQFH ^QN` LV ERXQGHG ,I WKH DOJRULWKP VWRSV WKH SRLQW \r IRXQG E\ WKH DOJRULWKP LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\6f 3URRI 7KH DOJRULWKP FRQVLVWV RI D QXPEHU RI JURXSV RU F\FOHVf RI VWHSV 7KH EHJLQQLQJ RI D W\SLFDO F\FOH RI VWHSV RFFXUV ZKHQ IRU VRPH N 6 LQ 6WHS N WKH LQFXPEHQW VROXWLRQ YHFWRU \r LV VHW HTXDO WR \Nr? WKH LQFXPEHQW YDOXH \ LV VHW HTXDO WR b^\0f DQG
PAGE 120

II?\f\ffOe f K N :H DOVR QRWH WKDW O "U?\r\rfO f )URP f f DQG &RUROODU\ ,' LQ +RUVW DQG 7X\ f LI ^WWr` LV ERXQGHG WKHQ WKH OHQJWK RI WKH F\FOH PXVW EH ILQLWH 6LQFH WKH QXPEHU RI F\FOHV LQ WKH DOJRULWKP LV ILQLWH WKLV LPSOLHV WKDW ZKHQ ^WWr` LV ERXQGHG WKH DOJRULWKP PXVW EH ILQLWH 1RZ VXSSRVH WKDW WKH DOJRULWKP VWRSV 7KHQ IRU VRPH Na ZLWK Q QW \ \N DQG
PAGE 121

LH \r LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf ’ ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ ,Q SUDFWLFH E\ PRGHUDWHO\ PRGLI\LQJ WKH SURFHGXUHV DQG WKH WHUPLQDWLRQ WHVW LQ 6HFWLRQV DQG E\ VXEVWLWXWLQJ < IRU < DQG WKH SKUDVH fSUREOHP 3Uff IRU fSUREOHP 3f f WKURXJKRXW WKH VWDWHPHQW RI WKH QHZ RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP ZH REWDLQ DQ DOJRULWKP WKDW JOREDOO\ VROYHV SUREOHP 3Uf LQVWHDG RI SUREOHP 3\cf 6LQFH < F ) FRPSXWDWLRQDO VDYLQJV FDQ JHQHUDOO\ EH H[SHFWHG WR UHVXOW E\ VROYLQJ SUREOHP 3Yf LQVWHDG RI SUREOHP 3\Lf 7KH YDOLGLW\ RI WKLV DSSURDFK UHOLHV LQ SDUW XSRQ WKH IROORZLQJ WZR UHVXOWV 3URSRVLWLRQ /HW \ EH D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf 7KHQ \ H < DQG DQ\ [n H ; VXFK WKDW &[n J \f VDWLVILHV &[n \f LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3[f 3URRI 6LQFH &[ IRU DOO [H ; LW LV HDV\ WR VHH E\ WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI < WKDW WKH JOREDO RSWLPDOLW\ RI \n LQ SUREOHP 3\6f LPSOLHV WKDW LI &[n  \f IRU VRPH [f H ; WKHQ &[n \n $V D UHVXOW \nH< DQG E\ 7KHRUHP [n LV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3[f ’ $ VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3Uf LV GHILQHG DV LQ 'HILQLWLRQ H[FHSW ZLWK < UHSODFLQJ )V LQ WKH GHILQLWLRQ

PAGE 122

3URSRVLWLRQ 3UREOHP 3\f SRVVHVVHV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WKDW LV DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RI < $Q\ JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3Uf PXVW DOVR EH D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3Uf 3URRI )URP 5RFNDIHOODU f < LV D SRO\KHGURQ 6LQFH ; LV QRQHPSW\ DQG FRPSDFW < LV DOVR QRQHPSW\ DQG FRPSDFW )XUWKHUPRUH VLQFH &[ IRU DOO [H ; IF^]H 5nn_] R` 7KHUHIRUH IURP 3URSRVLWLRQ SUREOHP 3Uf KDV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WKDW LV DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RI < $ SURRI WKDW DQ\ JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3Uf PXVW EH D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3f LV JLYHQ E\ WKH SURRI RI 7KHRUHP H[FHSW ZLWK < UHSODFLQJ < LQ WKH SURRI Â’ 5HPDUN )URP 3URSRVLWLRQ ZH PD\ FRQILQH WKH VHDUFK IRU D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3Wf WR < 6WDWHG LQ D GLIIHUHQW ZD\ DQ\ JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP 3Uf LV DOVR D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP 3\Lf %\ 3URSRVLWLRQ SUREOHP 3\f KDV D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WKDW LV DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RI < DQG DQ\ JOREDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP 3\f PXVW EH D VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3Uf 7DNHQ WRJHWKHU VLQFH < LV D QRQHPSW\ FRPSDFW SRO\KHGURQ WKHVH REVHUYDWLRQV LPSO\ WKDW WR JOREDOO\ VROYH SUREOHP 3\Lf ZH PD\ DSSO\ WKH RXWFRPH VSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DSSURDFK JLYHQ LQ 6HFWLRQ WR SUREOHP 3Uf UDWKHU WKDQ WR SUREOHP 3\6f 8VLQJ WKLV DSSURDFK ZH ZLOO ILQG D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP 3\6f %\ 3URSRVLWLRQ D JOREDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP 3[ f FDQ WKHQ EH UHFRYHUHG E\ VROYLQJ D VLQJOH OLQHDU SURJUDP DV H[SODLQHG LQ 6HFWLRQ

PAGE 123

,Q DGGLWLRQ WR VXEVWLWXWLQJ < IRU < DQG WKH SKUDVH fSUREOHP 3Uf f IRU fSUREOHP 3 If f WKURXJKRXW WKH VWDWHPHQW RI WKH QHZ RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP LQ 6HFWLRQ VRPH FKDQJHV DUH QHHGHG WR WKH SURFHGXUHV JLYHQ LQ 6HFWLRQV DQG DQG LQ WKH WHUPLQDWLRQ WHVW LQ 6HFWLRQ LQ RUGHU WR FRQILQH WKH VHDUFK WR < F
PAGE 124

)URP 3URSRVLWLRQV DQG LI ZH UHSODFH
PAGE 125

)URP 0XUW\ SS f WKH YDOXH RI G FRPSXWHG LQ 6WHS n HTXDOV WKH GLPHQVLRQ RI < :KHQ G S WKH FXWWLQJ SODQH FRQVWUXFWLRQ SURFHGXUH JLYHQ LQ 6HFWLRQ FDQ EH GLUHFWO\ XVHG ZKHQ VROYLQJ SUREOHP 3Uf E\ WKH QHZ RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP E\ VLPSO\ UHSODFLQJ
PAGE 126

)URP WKH SUHYLRXV SDUDJUDSK WKH H[LVWHQFH RI WKHVH SURFHGXUHV JXDUDQWHHV WKDW WKH RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP IRU JOREDOO\ VROYLQJ SUREOHP 3Uf FDQ LQGHHG EH LPSOHPHQWHG LQ SUDFWLFH $V D UHVXOW DV ZH KDYH VHHQ D JOREDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ IRU SUREOHP 3[f FDQ EH IRXQG ([DPSOH 7R LOOXVWUDWH WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP WR SUREOHP 3[f FRQVLGHU WKH FDVH ZLWK S DQG ; ^[H 5X?$[ E [6RM ZKHUH E DQG ZKHUH n n F

PAGE 127

,W FDQ EH VKRZQ WKDW LQ WKLV FDVH ; LV D QRQHPSW\ FRPSDFW SRO\KHGURQ DQG &[ IRU DOO [H ; DV UHTXLUHG LQ SUREOHP 3[f 7R VROYH SUREOHP 3[f DV H[SODLQHG SUHYLRXVO\ ZH ZLOO DSSO\ WKH PRGLILHG RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP WR SUREOHP 3\f ,Q WKLV FDVH SUREOHP 3Uf LV JLYHQ E\ PLQ \\ VW 9 nr : [ ?f[ IRU VRPH [H ; $ VXPPDU\ RI WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH PRGLILHG RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP WR SUREOHP 3Uf LQ WKLV FDVH LV JLYHQ EHORZ 7KH PHFKDQLFV XVHG RQ WKH VHW 7 LQFOXGLQJ WKH JHQHUDWLRQ RI DQ LQLWLDO H[WUHPH SRLQW RI g DQG WKH VROXWLRQ RI OLQHDU SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV ZLWK IHDVLEOH UHJLRQV JLYHQ E\ < DUH WDNHQ IURP %HQVRQ Gf DQG %HQVRQ DQG 6XQ f ,QLWLDOL]DWLRQ 6WHS :H H[HFXWH WKH VHDUFK SURFHGXUH JLYHQ LQ 6HFWLRQ EXW DGDSWHG WR SUREOHP 3Uf 7KH LQLWLDO H[WUHPH SRLQW \ RI < WKDW ZH ILQG WKHUHE\ LV JLYHQ E\ \7 O f $V FDOOHG IRU E\ 6WHS n LQ 6HFWLRQ ZH ILQG WKDW WKH H[WUHPH SRLQW QHLJKERUV WR \ LQ < DUH \A O Of DQG \f 7KH PDWUL[ 0 LV WKXV JLYHQ E\ > @ 0 f§ :H VHW G UDQN 0 DQG ZH VDYH G IRU IXWXUH UHIHUHQFH 1H[W ZLWK < UHSODFLQJ
PAGE 128

J\f \O\ WR WKH YDOXHV RI J HYDOXDWHG DW WKH QHLJKERULQJ H[WUHPH SRLQWV \n DQG \ WR \ LQ < :H ILQG WKDW J^\f J\nf DQG J\f J\f 7KH VWULFW ORFDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VHDUFK LV WKHUHIRUH WHUPLQDWHG DQG ZH VHW \r \ ZKHUH \U O Of:HVHW < J\rf
PAGE 129

^]nf ]f 1H[W ZH FRPSXWH NrH74a? ZKHUH 7 4 7KLV \LHOGV >MWr f 7KH \YDOLG FXW DIWHU JDWKHULQJ WHUPV LV WKHQ JLYHQ E\ \ \  6WHS :LWK ML \ \r DQG 7V
PAGE 130

6LQFH J\f ZH SURFHHG WR 6WHS 6WHS 6WHS :H FRQVWUXFW D YDOLG FXW IRU SUREOHP 3Uf ZLWK <
PAGE 131

&RQFOXGLQJ 5HPDUNV %RWK WKHRUHWLFDO DQG HPSLULFDO HYLGHQFH KDYH VKRZQ WKDW JHQHUDOO\ DQ RXWFRPH SRO\KHGURQ FDQ EH H[SHFWHG WR KDYH D VLJQLILFDQWO\ ORZHU GLPHQVLRQ D VLJQLILFDQWO\ VLPSOHU VWUXFWXUH DQG IDU IHZHU H[WUHPH SRLQWV WKDQ WKH XQGHUO\LQJ GHFLVLRQ VHW SRO\KHGURQ )RU WKH FDVH RI WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDP 3rf ZH KDYH LQ WKLV FKDSWHU FRQVWUXFWHG DQG YDOLGDWHG DQ RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP WKDW VHDUFKHV WKH RXWFRPH SRO\KHGURQ UDWKHU WKDQ WKH GHFLVLRQ VHW SRO\KHGURQ IRU D JOREDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ :H H[SHFW WKHUHIRUH WKDW WKH DOJRULWKP SURSRVHG KHUH IRU SUREOHP 3[f ZLOO SRWHQWLDOO\ KDYH FRPSXWDWLRQDO EHQHILWV RYHU WKH GHFLVLRQ VHWEDVHG DOJRULWKPV WKDW KDYH EHHQ SURSRVHG IRU WKH SUREOHP

PAGE 132

&+$37(5 6800$5< $1' )8785( 5(6($5&+ ,QWURGXFWLRQ ,Q WKLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZH KDYH DQDO\]HG WKH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP 3[f )RU WKH OLQHDU FDVH RI SUREOHP 3[f ZH XVHG WKHVH DQDO\VHV WR GHYHORS D KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP WKDW ILQGV D JRRG VROXWLRQ WR WKH SUREOHP DQG WR SUHVHQW D JOREDO VROXWLRQ DOJRULWKP IRU WKH SUREOHP ,Q WKLV FKDSWHU ZH ZLOO H[DPLQH SRWHQWLDO DYHQXHV IRU IXWXUH UHVHDUFK WKDW PLJKW SRWHQWLDOO\ LPSURYH WKH HIILFLHQF\ DQG DFFXUDF\ RI WKH KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP :H DOVR H[DPLQH SRVVLEOH DYHQXHV IRU SRWHQWLDO JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ DOJRULWKPV IRU SUREOHP 3[f EDVHG RQ DQDO\WLFDO UHVXOWV ZH KDYH SUHVHQWHG )XWXUH 5HVHDUFK RQ WKH +HXULVWLF $OJRULWKP ,Q SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU SUHVHQWLQJ RXU KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP IRU WKH OLQHDU FDVH RI SUREOHP 3[f LQ &KDSWHU ZH DQDO\]HG WKH FDVH ZKHQ SUREOHP 3[f LV WKH FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP :H VKRZHG WKDW ZKHQ SUREOHP 3[f LV D FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP ZLWK D FRPSDFW IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ LW KDV DW OHDVW RQH JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WKDW LV DQ HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQW RI WKH DVVRFLDWHG PXOWLSOH REMHFWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP 0203f 90,1 I[? VW[H ; ZKHUH I; f§M S DUH WKH IXQFWLRQV XVHG LQ GHILQLQJ SUREOHP 3[f DQG ZKHUH I[f GHQRWHV WKH YHFWRU

PAGE 133

2XU KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP IRU WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDP ZLWK D FRPSDFW SRO\KHGUDO IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ XVHV WKLV HIILFLHQF\ UHVXOW WR VHDUFK IRU D JRRG VROXWLRQ E\ OLPLWLQJ WKH VHDUFK WR WKH HIILFLHQW VHW RI WKH PXOWLSOHREMHFWLYH OLQHDU SURJUDP 02/3f 90,1 &[ VW[H ; ZKHUH & LV WKH S[Q PDWUL[ ZKRVH \nWK URZ HTXDOV F-fU M S 7KH KHXULVWLF DOJRULWKP ILUVW LGHQWLILHV DQ HIILFLHQW IDFH ;Z RI SUREOHP 02/3f ,W WKHQ VHDUFKHV WKH HIILFLHQW IDFH ;Z IRU DQ JRRG VROXWLRQ WR SUREOHP 3[f E\ RSWLPL]LQJ D OLQHDU DSSUR[LPDWLRQ RI WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI SUREOHP 3[f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
PAGE 134

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f $ SRWHQWLDO RSSRUWXQLW\ WKHUHIRUH H[LVWV WR LPSURYH WKH HIILFLHQF\ RI D FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ PHWKRG IRU VROYLQJ WKH FRQFDYH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP RU WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP E\ OLPLWLQJ WKH VHDUFK WR WKH HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI WKH DVVRFLDWHG PXOWLSOHREMHFWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP 0203f RU 02/3f UHVSHFWLYHO\ )RU H[DPSOH IRU WKH OLQHDU FDVH RI SUREOHP 3[f HQXPHUDWLYH FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ PHWKRGV VXFK DV H[WUHPH SRLQW UDQNLQJ RU FXWWLQJ SODQH PHWKRGV FDQ EH PRGLILHG WR OLPLW WKH VHDUFK WR WKRVH H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI SUREOHP 02/3f WKDW DUH HIILFLHQW )RU WKH FRQFDYH FDVH RI SUREOHP 3[f RXWHU DSSUR[LPDWLRQ DQG EUDQFK DQG ERXQG PHWKRGV PD\ EH PRGLILHG WR OLPLW WKH VHDUFK WR HIILFLHQW H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI SUREOHP 02/3f )RU PRUH LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ PHWKRGV VHH IRU H[DPSOH %HQVRQ f DQG +RUVW DQG 7X\ f

PAGE 135

,Q SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU GHYHORSLQJ RXU RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP IRU WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP LQ &KDSWHU ZH DQDO\]HG WKH RXWFRPHVSDFH UHIRUPXODWLRQ SUREOHP 3\Lf RI WKH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP 3[f 6LQFH WKH UHIRUPXODWLRQ 3Wf ZRUNV LQ D ORZHU GLPHQVLRQHG VSDFH WKDQ WKH VSDFH RI WKH IHDVLEOH GHFLVLRQ VHW ; SRWHQWLDO FRPSXWDWLRQDO VDYLQJV FDQ EH H[SHFWHG E\ VROYLQJ SUREOHP 3\Lf IRU DQ RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ \ H )V $V ZH KDYH VKRZQ D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ UfH; IRU SUREOHP 3[f FDQ WKHQ EH UHFRYHUHG IURP \f ,Q &KDSWHU ZH VKRZHG WKDW ZKHQ SUREOHP 3[f LV D FRQYH[ PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP D JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ \ RI WKH UHIRUPXODWLRQ 3\Lf ZLOO H[LVW RQ WKH ERXQGDU\ RI WKH FRQYH[ RXWFRPH VHW < ,Q DGGLWLRQ ZKHQ WKH FRQYH[ VHW < LV FORVHG DQG KDV DW OHDVW RQH H[WUHPH SRLQW RXU DQDO\VLV VKRZHG WKDW SUREOHP 3Wf KDV DW OHDVW RQH JOREDO RSWLPDO VROXWLRQ WKDW LV DQ H[WUHPH SRLQW RI < :H DOVR VKRZHG WKDW WKH REMHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ RI SUREOHP 3\Lf LV VWULFWO\ SVHXGRFRQFDYH RYHU

PAGE 136

RULJLQDO FRQYH[ PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP VLQFH DV VKRZQ LQ ([DPSOH WKH SUHLPDJH [n H ; RI \n QHHG QRW OLH RQ WKH ERXQGDU\ RI ; )RU PRUH LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ FRQFDYH PLQLPL]DWLRQ PHWKRGV VHH IRU H[DPSOH %HQVRQ f DQG +RUVW DQG 7X\ f ,Q &KDSWHU ZH SUHVHQWHG WKH RXWFRPHVSDFH FXWWLQJSODQH DOJRULWKP IRU VROYLQJ WKH FDVH ZKHQ SUREOHP 3[f LV WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP ,W VROYHV WKH UHIRUPXODWLRQ SUREOHP 3\6f RI SUREOHP 3[f IRU D JOREDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ HI IRU SUREOHP 3\Lf DQG WKHQ UHFRYHUV D JOREDO RSWLPDO H[WUHPH SRLQW VROXWLRQ [nH; RI SUREOHP 3[f 7KH UHIRUPXODWLRQ 3\Lf RI WKH OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHP 3[f RIIHUV DQRWKHU FRPSXWDWLRQDO DGYDQWDJH LQ DGGLWLRQ WR WKDW RI ZRUNLQJ LQ D ORZHU GLPHQVLRQHG VSDFH WKDQ WKH VSDFH RI WKH IHDVLEOH UHJLRQ ; $ ODUJH QXPEHU RI H[WUHPH SRLQWV RI ; FROODSVH LQWR QRQIDFLDO VWUXFWXUHV RU LQWR WKH UHODWLYH LQWHULRUV RI VXEIDFHV RI WKH RXWFRPH VHW
PAGE 137

IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK LV WR FRGH WKH DOJRULWKP DQG WHVW LWV SHUIRUPDQFH DJDLQVW RWKHU DOJRULWKPV IRU VROYLQJ OLQHDU PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURJUDPPLQJ SUREOHPV

PAGE 138

5()(5(1&(6 $QHMD < 3 $JJDUZDO 9 DQG 1DLU 3 2Q D &ODVV RI 4XDGUDWLF 3URJUDPV (XURSHDQ -RXUQDO RI 2SHUDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK SS $YULHO 0 'LHZHUW : ( 6FKDLEOH 6 DQG =DQJ *HQHUDOL]HG &RQFDYLW\ 3OHQXP 1HZ
PAGE 139

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
PAGE 140

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
PAGE 141

.RQQR + DQG .XQR 7 /LQHDU 0XOWLSOLFDWLYH 3URJUDPPLQJ 0DWKHPDWLFDO 3URJUDPPLQJ SS .RQQR + DQG .XQR 7 0XOWLSOLFDWLYH 3URJUDPPLQJ 3UREOHPV +DQGERRN RI *OREDO 2SWLPL]DWLRQ (GLWHG E\ 5 +RUVW DQG 3 0 3DUGDORV .OXZHU 'RUGUHFKW 7KH 1HWKHUODQGV SS .RQQR + .XQR 7f DQG
PAGE 142

0RUVH 1 5HGXFLQJ WKH 6L]H RI WKH 1RQGRPLQDWHG 6HW 3XPLQJ E\ &OXVWHULQJ &RPSXWHUV DQG 2SHUDWLRQV 5HVHDUFK SS 0XUW\ /LQHDU 3URJUDPPLQJ -RKQ :LOH\ 1HZ
PAGE 143

6WHXHU 5 ( 0XOWLSOH &ULWHULD 2SWLPL]DWLRQ 7KHRU\ &RPSXWDWLRQ DQG $SSOLFDWLRQ -RKQ :LOH\ 1HZ
PAGE 144

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

PAGE 145

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

PAGE 146

7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI 'HFLVLRQ DQG ,QIRUPDWLRQ 6FLHQFHV LQ WKH &ROOHJH RI %XVLQHVV $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 'HFHPEHU 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 147

/' L LR0 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


LD
1780
199i
i UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08556 6643



PAGE 1

MULTIPLICATIVE PROGRAMMING: THEORY AND ALGORITHMS By GEORGE BOGER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1999

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my entire supervisory committee Dr. Harold Benson, Dr. Selcuk Erenguc, Dr. Asoo Vakharia, and Dr. Richard Francis for their time and helpful feedback on my dissertation I am especially grateful to my committee chairman, Dr. Benson, for suggesting the topic of multiplicative programming problems and for his tremendous assistance and unending support. Without his help, this dissertation would not have been completed. I would also like to thank Mr. Erijang Sun for proving some theoretical results needed to support my dissertation topic I am also grateful to the DIS department chairman, Dr. Erenguc, for providing an assistantship and for allowing me to teach undergraduate courses during my time at the University of Florida The teaching experience was an enjoyable and rewarding expenence. I would like to thank my family for their encouragement and emotional support. I would also like to thank my colleagues in the Ph.D. program for their friendship and their support. Finally, I am in debt to my master's degree advisor, Dr. Frederick Buoni, at the Florida Institute of Technology, for his guidance. He suggested multiple objective linear programming as a topic for my thesis. While working on the thesis, I met Dr Benson during a visit to FIT to present a talk related to multiple objective linear programming. 11

PAGE 3

Dr. Benson agreed to serve on my master's degree committee and later recruited me for the DIS Ph.D. program. 111

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page S .. AC.KN' 0 WLEDG MENT . ... ........ .. ..... ........ .. .... . ... .... .. . ..... .... .. .... . .. . . ... ................ 11 ABSTRACT ....... ......... .. . .. ...... .. ....... .. .. ..... .. .. . .... ....... .............. .... .. ........ ... ........ .. ... Vl CHAPTERS 1 rnTRODUCTION .. .. ..... ................ ... .. ... . .. ....... ... .. . .......... .... .... ....... ...... .... .... l 1.1. The Multiplicative Programming Problem ........... ........ ..... .. . .. ... .. ...... ... .. 1 1.2 Reformulation s of the Multjplicative Programming Problem . ... ......... ..... 4 1 .3. Purpo se and Or ga nization of the Di sse rtation . . ........ . .. .... ....... . ... . .. .... .. 6 2 A REVIEW OF THE Lfl'ERATURE ON MUL'l'IPLICATIVE PROGRAM.M.IN'G PROBLEMS .. .. .. . .. ..... .. .. .. . ..... .... ... .... .. . ...... ..... 9 2.1. Or ga ni za tion of the Literature Review . .. .. .. .. ...... ...... .. . .. .... . . .. ......... .. . .... 9 2.2. Method s to Solve Problem s (LMP2), (GLMP), and (CLMP) . .. ... ...... ..... 13 2 .2. 1 Method s Based on Quadratic Programming ............ . .......... ........ 15 2.2.2. Method s Ba s ed on Searching the Outcome Set . .. . .. .... ...... ... ...... 17 2.2.3. Method s Based on Solving a Parametric Master Problem .. ........... 22 2.2.4. Method s Based on Polyhedral Annexation .. .... .... .. .... ............... . 28 2 .3. Extensions of Algorithms for Problem (LMP2) to Solve Problem (L MP) when p > 3 .... .. ........ ........ ....... .. ..... . .. ... . .. .. .. .... .. ........ . .... 32 2.4. M e th ods to Sol ve Problems (C MP ), ( GCMP) and (CCMP) . ........ .......... 32 2.4.1. Method s Ba se d on Solving a Reformulated Problem ..................... 33 2.4.2. A Method Based on Outer Approximation .............. .. . ... .... . . . .. .. 37 2.5. M e thod s to Sol ve Problem (LMP) as a Concave Minimization Problem ............................................... .. .......... . .. . .. ........... .... ........... 38 3 CONCAVE MULTIPLICATIVE PROG G PROBLEMS : ANALYSIS AND AN EFFICIENT PO.IN'T SEARCH HEURISTIC FOR THE L.IN'EAR CASE ..... .. ... .. . . .................................................... . 40 3.1. Introdt1ction .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. ..... .. .. . . .. .. ....................................... .... ........ ... 40 3 .2 Analysis .. ..... ..... .. .. .. . .. ..... .. .. .......... .. . ...................... ...... ... ... .. ............. 41 3.3. Efficient Point Search Heuristic .. ....... .. ... .. . ....................... ... ... ............ 52 3.4. Computational Result s ......... . ........ .. .. ..... .. . ......... ...... ... . .. . .. ........... . 62 3 5. Di sc u ss ion ......... ... . .. .. . . . .. .... .. ......... . .. .... . ..... .. .. ..................... . .. . .. . .. 69 IV

PAGE 5

4 A GENERAL MULTIPLICATIVE PROG _.._ G PROBLEM IN OUTCOME-SPACE .. .. ..... ........ . .. .. . .. .. . ... .... ........ ....... . .............. ... .... .. 71 4.1. Introduction ...... . ...... .. ... ... .. .. .......... .. . ............. .. ..... .............. ...... . .......... 71 4 .2 Re s ult s for the General Case of Problem (Py s ) .... ............. ....... .... . ... .. .. 73 4.3 R es ult s for Convex and Polyhedral Cases of Problem (P s) .... . ........... .. 78 Y4 .4. Di sc u ss ion .............................. .... .. ..... ....... .. .. .. .. ... ... ....... . .... .. ...... ......... .. 96 5 AN OUTCOME-SPACE CUTTING-PLANE ALGORITHM FOR LINEAR MULTIPLICATIVE PROGRAMMING ......... ....... ... . .. .. ...... 98 5 1. futroduction .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .............. ..... . .. ..................... . .. ... ........ ......... 98 5 .2. Theoretical Prerequisite s ..... ..... ................. ............. ... .. . ........... .. .. ... 100 5.3 Out comeSpace, Cutting-Plane Algorithm . .. ........ ... . .. ................ . ........ 104 5 .3. 1 Strict Local Optimal Solution Search .............. . ....... ........ .. . ...... 105 5 .3 .2. Cutting PI ane Con s truction ... ... .. . .. .. .. ................. . .... ...... .. ... .... 107 5 .3 .3. Termination Test . ....... .. .. . ........... ......................................... ..... I 09 5 .3.4. Outcome Space Cutting-Plane Algorithm ................ ............ ..... 110 5 4. Implementation .. .. .. .... .. .. ....... ..... .. .. ..... ........... ... .. ... ................... .... .. .. 114 5.5. Example .. ......... ..... .. .......... ........ . .. .. .. ........... ................................... .... 119 5 6. Concluding Remarks ... .. ..... . ......... .. .. .. .......... ... .. ..... ............. ..... .. ........ 124 6 SUMMARY AND FUTURE RESEARCH ............................... .. ........... .. ... .. 125 6.1. Introdu ctio n ... .... ... ........ ....... ... . .. ...... .... ......... .... ...... .. .... . .. . .... . . ....... 125 6 .2 Futur e Research on the Heuristic Algorithm ................ .. ................ . ... . 125 6 3. Futur e Re se arch on an Global Solution Algorithms .............. . .... ......... . 127 REIBREN CBS . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .. ......... .... .. .. . ................................ ...... ............................ 137 V

PAGE 6

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy MULTIPLICATIVE PROGRAMMING: THEORY AND ALGORITHMS By Chairman: Harold P. Benson George Boger December 1999 Major Department: Decision and Information Sciences Multiplicative programming problems are mathematical optimization problems in which the objective function contains a product of several real valued functions defined over a common domain and the feasible decisions are described by a nonempty set. These optimization problems have some important applications in engineering finance, economics, and other fields Multiplicative programming problems, however, are difficult global optimization problems that are known to be NP-hard This dissertation has two purposes. The first is to develop and test a heuristic algorithm that finds a good solution, though not necessarily a globally optimal solution, for the linear multiplicative programming problem. The second purpose is to develop a global solution algorithm for the linear multiplicative programming problem that is potentially more efficient than existing algorithms for this problem VI

PAGE 7

To evaluate the effectiveness in practice of the heuristic algorithm, we have written a FORTRAN computer program and used it to solve 260 randomly generated linear multiplicative programming problems of various sizes. Our experimental results show that the computational requirements of the heuristic algorithm are not overly burdensome when compared to the effort required to solve a linear multiplicative programming problem The framework of the outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm is taken from a pure cutting plane, decision set-based method developed by Horst and Tuy for solving concave minimization problems. By adapting the approach of this method to an outcome space reformulation of the linear multiplicative programming problem, rather than directly applying the method to the original decision set formulation, it is expected that considerable computational savings can potentially be obtained. We also show how additional computational benefits might be obtained by implementing the new algorithm appropriately. To illustrate the new algorithm, we apply it to the solution of a sample problem. VII

PAGE 8

CHAPTER 1 lNTRODUCTION 1.1. The Multiplicative Programming Problem Multiplicative programming problems are mathematical optimization problems in which the objective function contains a product of several real valued functions defmed over a common domain and the feasible decisions are describe by a nonempty set. These problems occur is a wide variety of application areas. For example, Konno and Inori ( 1989 ) studied a bond portfolio optimization problem in which the portfolio's performance is measured by a number of indices such as the average coupon rate, the average terminal yield, and the average length to maturity. The goal of the portfolio manager is to improve the performance of the portfolio by purchasing or selling bonds in the marketplace subject to some limiting constraints. The manager must consider multiple incomparable objectives s uch as maximizing the average ter1ninal yield and minimizing the average maturity time. Konno and Inori choose to optimize several objectives simultaneously by multiplying them together since the objectives do not share a common scale. Another example of a multiplicative programming problem, given in Maling, Mueller and Heller ( 1982), is a packaging problem encountered in designing very large scale integrated circuit (VLSI) chips and laying out building floor plans or manufacturing plant facilities. In the problem, the overall rectangular dimensions of the feasible layout 1

PAGE 9

2 plans are constrained rather than fixed. Different layout plans with differing overall rectangular dimensions are obtained according to how the components of a system are arranged within each plan. The objective is to find the arrangement of components that minimizes the overall layout area subject to certain constraints on the area and the perimeter of the layout. Henderson and Quandt (1971, p. 15) also give an application of multiplicative programming problems. Their example is from microeconomics. In their example, a rational consumer wishes to find a combination of two commodities to purchase from which he will derive the highest possible level of satisfaction. Budgetary constraints and the availability of the commodities limit the quantities the consumer may purchase The consumer's level of satisfaction is captured by his utility function, which is assumed to be the product of the quantities of the two commodities. The rational consumer's problem is then formulated as maximizing his utility function subject to the budgetary and commodity availability constraints. The multiplicative programming problem or, more briefly, the multiplicative program, may be formulated mathematically as /J minh(x)= Ilt 1 (x), s t.xe X, }= I where p 2 is an integer, X Rn, and, for each j = 1, 2, ... p, f 1 : X R satisfies f 1 (x) 0 for all x e X. For simplicity we will assume throughout this proposal that the minimum of problem (Px) is achieved at some point x* e X In addition we will assume that p is significantly less than n since this holds for virtually all applications of

PAGE 10

3 multiplicative programming problems. If f j (x) = 0 for some j E {1, 2, ... p} and some x E X, then clearly x is a global optimal solution. This condition can be checked by solving p minimization problems min {J j (x) x E X }, j = l 2, ... p Therefore we may assume without loss of generality that for each j = 1, 2, ... p, f j (x) > 0 holds for all XE X. The objective function h of problem (Px) is generally not a convex function As a result problem ( P x) belong s to a cla ss of nonconvex programming problems called global optimization problems In contrast to convex programming problem s, there may be many local minima for problem (Px) that are not globally optimal. Conventional local optimization method s based on gradients, subgradients, conjugate directions, or the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions, for instance, are at best guaranteed only to fmd a local minimum. These methods mu s t then terminate, since there is neither a local criterion for certifying the global optimality of a given solution nor a way to deter1nine how to proceed to a better so lution if the solution is not globally optimal. From the perspective of computational complexity, problem (Px) is a difficult problem that is known to be NPhard even when the objective function is simply h(x) = x 1 x 2 and the feasible region X is a polyhedron (Matsui 1996 ). When in addition to the a ss umptions given previously for problem ( P x ), X is a convex set and for each j = l 2, ... p f j : X R is a concave function we obtain the concave case of problem ( P x ), called the concave multiplicative programming problem. The convex case of problem ( P x ), called the convex multiplicative programming

PAGE 11

4 problem, is obtained when, in addition to the assumptions made previously for problem (Px ), X is a convex set and, for each j = 1, 2, ... p, J i : X R is a convex function. A special linear case of problem (Px), called the linear multiplicative programming problem, is obtained when, in addition to the assumptions make previously for problem (Px ), X is a compact polyhedron and, for each j = 1, 2, ... p, Ji : X R is a linear function (Konno and Kuno 1992). 1.2. Reformulations of the Multiplicative Programming Problem During the 1990's there has been a resurgence of interest in problem (Px ). Encouraged by the rapid advances in high speed computing, researchers began developing and testing new methods for solving global optimization problems that arise in practical applications, including problem (Px ). Included among the global optimization methods used to solve problem (Px) for the special case when p = 2 are various parametric simplex method-based algorithms (e.g., Konno and Kuno 1992, Konno and Kuno 1995, Konno, Yajima, and Matsui 1991, and Schaible and Sodini 1995), branch and bound procedures (e.g., Kuno 1996 and Muu and Tam 1992), and various other types of algorithms ( e.g., Konno and Kuno 1990, Pardalos 1990, and Tuy and Tam 1992). When p > 2, globally solving problem (Px) has been shown empirically to require considerably more computational effort than when p = 2 (see, e.g., Ryoo and Sahinidis 1996). A smaller number of the algorithms for solving problem (Px) when

PAGE 12

5 p > 2 solve the problem directly without reforrnulating it as an outcome-space problem. Included among these, for instance, is the polyhedral annexation algorithm of Tuy (1991). Most of the algorithms for solving problem (Px) when p > 2, however, solve the problem indirectly by globally solving an outcome-space reformulation of the problem instead. This is because in practical applications p is routinely much smaller than n, often by two or more orders of magnitude. As a result, working in R P is computationally less challenging than working in R n Let y E R P denote the p-vector with )th entry equal to y j j = I, 2, ... p. For each j = 1 2, .. p, let y j E R satisfy where y j = +oo is po s sible, and let y E R P denote the vector with )th entry equal to y j )=1,2, .. ,p. Let J(x) denote the vector J(x)=l/i(x),J 2 (x), . ,JP(x)] r where f j : X R, j = 1, 2, . p, are the functions used in defining problem (P x ). Thoai (1991) and later Konno and Kuno (1995) based their outer approximation algorithms for respectively solving the convex and linear cases of problem (Px) on one of the more direct refo11nulations of problem (Px) as an outcome-space problem Their reformulation is given by min (I y j s.t. y E y s j= l where y s = {_y ER P J(x)~ y~ y for somexE X }.

PAGE 13

6 Falk and Paloc sa y (1994) based their branch and bound, image space algorithm for the linear case of problem ( P x) on another outcome-space refo11r1ulation that is closely related to problem ( P r ~ ). Their reforr11ulation is given by min [I yi, s .t. ye Y j = l where Y = { y e R P y = Cx forsomexE X J and C is a ( p x n ) matrix who s e row s are c~, j = 1, 2 ... p. 1.3. Purpose and Organization of the Dissertation This dissertation has two main purpo s es The fust is to develop and test a heuristic algorithm that finds a good solution, though not necessarily a globally optimal solution, for the linear case of problem ( P x ). The s econd purpose is to develop an exact global solution algorithm for the linear case of problem (Px) that is potentially more efficient than existing algorithms for this problem. Since the linear multiplicative programming problem is known to be an NP-hard multiextremal global optimization problem, it is inherently more difficult to globally solve than a convex programming problem of the sa me size. In s ome application cases, a solution will adequately meet the requirement s of a user; see, e g ., Konno and Inori (1989). In these cases the use of a heuristic algorithm seems to be appropriate for finding a satisfactory solution. To date however there is no known heuristic algorithm tailored to finding a good solution for the linear multiplicative programming problem In their review of algorithm s for solving problem ( P x ), Konno and Kuno (1995) do not mention

PAGE 14

7 any heuristic algorithms for problem (Px ) and our survey of the literature has revealed none. To develop the heuristic algorithm, we first analyze the concave multiplicative programming problem The analysis yields a new way to write a concave multiplicative programming problem as a concave minimization problem. As a result, a concave multiplicative programming problem can be solved by using any existing concave minimization algorithm without resorting to a reformulation of the problem We also show that some relationships exist between concave multiplicative programming problems and certain multiple-objective mathematical programs. These relationships are exploited to develop the heuristic algorithm for the linear case of problem (Px ). For cases where a linear multiplicative program must be solved for an exact global optimal solution we expect that globally solving the outcome-space refor1r1ulation (P s ) Y instead will result in a significant decrease in the computationa l effort over that required to directly solve the problem. This is because in typical applications of linear multiplicative programs, p is s everal orders of magnitude smaller than n As a result, working in R P should be computationally less challenging than working in R n To globally solve the outcome-space refor111ulation (PY ~ ) of a linear multiplicative program, we develop an outcome-space, pure cutting plane algorithm that works in RP. The framework for the algorithm is taken from a pure cutting plane, decision set-based concave minimization method developed by Horst and Tuy (1993). We show how to adapt this method to solving the reformulation (PY ~ ) of a linear multiplicative program for a global extreme point optimal solution. Once this global solution is found, we can

PAGE 15

8 recover a globally optimal solution for the linear multiplicative program in decision space. As a further computational enhancement, we also show that for purposes of implementation, the mechanics of the outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm can be applied to the smaller problem (Py) instead of problem (PY ~ ). The organization of the proposal is as follows. In Chapter 2 we present a review of the literature on multiplicative programming problems. In Chapter 3 we analyze the concave multiplicative programming problem, apply the results to develop a heuristic algorithm for the linear multiplicative programming problem, and report test results using the heuristic algorithm on some randomly-generated problems. In Chapter 4 we analyze the reformulation problem (PY ~ ) and show that, under certain convexity assumptions on Y ~ problem (P Y ~ ) has a global extreme point optimal solution y* E f ~ We then present a procedure that is guaranteed to find a strict local optimal extreme point solution for the reformulation problem (Pr ~ ) of the linear multiplicative program. In Chapter 5 we present an outcome-space cutting-plane algorithm for globally solving a linear multiplicative program. The algorithm employs the strict local optimal search procedure presented in Chapter 4. We also illustrate the algorithm by applying it to the solution of a sample problem Finally, in Chapter 6, we give an overall summary and conclusions, and we discuss directions for further research.

PAGE 16

CHAPTER2 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON MULTIPLICATIVE PROGRAMMJNG PROBLEMS 2.1. Organization of the Literature Review In this chapter we present a review of the literature on methods proposed for solving multiplicative programming problems. The only known literature review on multiplicative programming problems appears in Konno and Kuno ( 1995 ) In their literature review Konno and Kuno defined multiplicative programming problems as ''a class of minimization problem s containing a product of several convex functions either in its objective function or in its c onstraints They included problems in which the objective function contained the summation of a convex function and the product of convex functions Konno and Kuno ( 1995 ) organized their literature review based on whether the problem data are linear or non] inear and on the number of functions that appear in the objective function They considered solution methods for the following multiplicative programming problems. The first multiplicative programming problem considered by Konno and Kuno is the special case of quadratic programming (LMP2) minf(x) = ((c 1 x)+d 1 )((c 2 ,x)+d 2 ), s.t. XE D where D : = { x E Rn Ax b, x 0} is a non-empty polytope (bounded polyhedron) in 9

PAGE 17

10 which A is an mxn matrix, bE R"', and, for each i = l, 2, c' E R n\ {o} and d; ER. In addition, it is assumed that, for each x E D, ( ci, x) + d; > 0, i = l, 2. The second multiplicative programming problem that they considered is the convex multiplicative programming problem (CMP) min f(x) = Ilt i (x), s.t.xE X, j=I where X Rn is a nonempty, compact, convex set and, for each j = 1, 2, ... p, Ji : Rn R is a convex function that satisfies J i (x) > 0 for all x e X. Konno and Kuno (1995) considered two special cases of problem (CMP): (1) the case where p = 2 and (2) the case where p 2 and the problem data are linear. The second case may be defined as the following extension of problem (LMP2): (LMP) minf(x)= Ii[(c;,x)+d ; ], s.t.xe D, i= l where p 2 is an integer and, for each i = 1, 2, .. p, ( ci, x) + d; > 0 holds for all x e D. Finally, Konno and Kuno (1995) considered three classes of problems related to problem (CMP) In the first class is the following problem: (GCMP) minf(x)=f 0 ( x)+ ft 2 i_ 1 (x)f 2 i (x), s.t.xE X, }=I where, for each j = 0, I, ... 2q, J i : R R is a convex function that satisfies J i (x) > 0 for all xe X. The second class is a special case of (GCMP) in which q = l and the problem data are linear. This class may be defined as the following extension of problem (LMP2) :

PAGE 18

11 (GLMP) minf(x ) =(c 0 ,x)+((c 1 ,x)+d 1 )((c 2 ,x)+d 2 ), s.t.xe D, where c 0 e R 11 and ci, d ;, i = 1, 2, and D are defined as in problem (LMP2). The third class of problems considered by Konno and Kuno (1995) is the minimization of a convex function over a feasible region that includes a product of convex functions in its constraint set. Konno and Kuno's coverage of the literature is not exhaustive. They focused on algorithms that have been demonstrated by computational experiments to be practical for reasonably large problems ( Konno and Kuno 1995, p. 370). Algorithms proposed by Konno, Kuno and their associates have been te s ted on randomly generated problems and the results reported. However, computational results have not been reported by most of the other researchers and therefore their methods were not included in the review Since the publication of the review by Konno and Kuno, two more multiplicative programming problems have been discussed in the literature The first problem adds a convex function to the objective of problem (LMP2) to obtain the problem: (CLMP) minf (x)=g(x )+( (c 1 ,x)+ d 1 )((c 2 ,x)+d 2 ), s.t.xe D, where g : R R is a twice differentiable convex function and ci, d ;, i = 1 2, and D are defined as in problem ( LMP2 ) The second problem adds a convex function to problem (C MP) to obtain the problem: (CC MP ) min f(x)=J 0 (x)+ ]]J i (x), s.t.xE X, j= I where / 0 : R R is a convex function that satisfies / 0 (x) > 0 for all x E X and f j, j = 1, 2, .. p, and X are defined as in problem (CMP).

PAGE 19

12 The emphasis of this review will be on optimization problems in which a product of functions appears in the objective function. Optimization problems with objective functions that are comprised of a summation of a function and the product of functions are also included in the review. Methods proposed for solving these problems may be adapted to solve a problem whose objective function is strictly a product of functions by setting the added function to the null function. The functions that appear in the objective function will be either convex or linear functions since to date these are the only multiplicative programming problems to appear in the literature. In this review we will not consider optimization problems in which a product of functions appears in the constraint set. Like the review of Konno and Kuno (1995), this literature review is organized based on whether the problem data are linear or nonlinear and on the number of functions that appear in the objective function. It is divided into the following four sections. Section 2.2 reviews the methods proposed to solve problems (LMP2), (GLMP), and (CLMP). Section 2.3 reviews the methods to solve problem (LMP) that are extensions of methods for problem (LMP2). Section 2.4 reviews the methods to solve problems (CMP), (GCMP), and (CCMP). Section 2.5 reviews the methods to solve problem (LMP) as a concave minimization problem. The rationale for organizing the literature review in this way is as follows. Historically, the first algorithms for solving multiplicative programming problems were specifically proposed for solving problem (LMP2). Problems (GLMP) and (CLMP) are grouped with problem (LMP2) since they were conceived as extensions of that problem. Several of the algorithms proposed for solving problem (LMP2) can be extended to solve

PAGE 20

13 the problem (LMP), since they do not depend upon having only two functions in the product term of the objective function. Problems (LMP2), (LM P ), (GLMP), and (CLMP) contain linear functions and polyhedral feasible regions. Algorithms for solving these problems are implemented with the aid of the simplex method, which is used to solve linear programming subprob l ems. The problems (CMP), (GCMP), and (CCMP) contain nonlinear data and must rely on other optimization methods to solve nonlinear convex programming problems. The latter three problems are therefore placed in a separate group. Problems (GCMP) and (CCMP) are included in the group with problem (CMP) because only one article addresses each problem, and they were conceived as extensions of problem (CMP). Finally, two articles appeared in the literature that proposed solving problem (LMP) as a concave minimization problem using techniques that the authors had previously developed. Table 2.1 gives a summary of the multiplicative programming problems considered in this literature review along with the assumptions placed on the feasible region and the objective function of each problem. 2.2. Methods to Solve Problems (LMP2), (GLMP), and (CLMP) The methods for so lvin g problem (LMP2), (GLMP), and (CLMP) are further divided into four categories. In the first category are those methods that analyze problem (LMP2) as a special case of quadratic programming. In the second category are algorithms that analyze problem (LMP2) by searching the outcome set. In the third category are the algorithms that solve an easier parametric programming problem rather than directly solving problems (LMP2), (GLMP), and (CLMP). In the last category are

PAGE 21

Table 2.1. Summary of Multiplicative Program Types and Assumptions on Problems Problem Assumptions on the Objective Function Assumptions on the Objective Function Feasible Region LMP2 D is a bounded polyhedron. (c 1 ,x)+d 1 (c 2 ,x)+d 2 ( c;, x) + di > 0, i = 1, 2 for all x E D GLMP D is a bounded polyhedron. (c 0 ,x)+((c 1 ,x)+d 1 )((c 2 ,x)+d 2 ) ( c O x) > 0 and ( c i x) + d ; > 0 i = 1, 2 for all XE D. CLMP D is a bounded polyhedron. g(x )+ (( c 1 x) + d 1 )(( c 2 x) + d 2 ) g: R n R is a twice differentiable convex function and ( ci, x) + d i > 0, i = 1, 2, for all XE D. LMP D is a bounded polyhedron. 11 [(C i X) + d;] (c ; ,x)+d ; >O, i=l,2, ... ,p, for all xE D. i = I ll1 j(x) For each j = 1, 2 ... p, Ji : R 11 R is a CMP X is a compact convex set. convex function that satisfies f i (x) > 0 for all j=I XE X. fo (x) + f f 2 j-t (x )f2i (x) For each j = 0, 1, ... p, f i : R n R is a GCMP X i s a compact convex set. con vex function that satisfies f i (x) > 0 for all j=I XE X. fo(x)+ 111 i (x) For each j = 0, 1, ... p, Ji : R 11 R is a CCMP X is a compact convex set. convex function that satisfies f i (x) > 0 for all j=I XE X.

PAGE 22

15 two algorithms th a t s olve problem (LMP2 ) based on the method of polyhedral annexation. 2.2.1. Methods Based on Quadratic Programming Since the objective fun c tion of problem ( LMP2 ) can be expressed as f(x) = ( (c' ,x) + d )( ( c 2 ,x ) + d )= r Qx + r r x + d 1 d 2 where r E R n and Q i s a real s ymmetric n x n matrix, problem (LMP2) i s a special class of quadratic pro g ramming Swarup ( 1966a and 1966b ) was the first researcher to analyze problem (LMP2 ) in thi s way but he did not propo s e any exact solution algorithms. His two articles are included in the literature review for completeness Pardalo s ( 1990 ) also analyzed problem (LMP2 ) in this way and he proposed an exact global solution algorithm Swarup ( 1966a ) showed that if both linear functions ( c ;, x ) + d ;, i = 1, 2 are positive over the feasible regi o n D the objective function f is quasiconcave over D It i s well known that generally for any local minimizer of a quasiconcave function over a polytope, there exi s t s an extreme point local minimizer over the polytope that has the s ame function value Swarup proposed a s implex based method for finding such a local optimal solution. The key to the algorithm is a test that deterrr1ines if entering a given nonbasic variable into the current simplex ba s i s will lower the objective function value. A simplex basis of a local optimal s olution can be reached by beginning at any feasible basis and moving through a s equence of simplex tableaux by pivoting in qualifying nonba s ic variable s until none r e main Once a local optimal solution is found, the

PAGE 23

16 algorithm stops. No inforrnation is available to either certify the global optimality of the solution or to determine how to proceed to an improved solution. In another work, Swarup (1966b) formulated the following parametric linear program by introducing an auxiliary variable and moving one of the linear functions into the constraint set: (MPl) min F(x;~) = ( c', x) + d 1 s.t. xED, Since ( c 2 x) + d 2 appears in the constraint set, dual pricing information is available to determine the value of ( c 1 x) + d 1 as is set to achievable values of ( c 2 x) + d 2 over D. Swarup derived a test that uses this inforrnation to detern1ine when is set to a level that corresponds to a local optimal solution. All local optimal solutions can then theoretically be found by parametrically solving problem (MPl) over all achievable values of~A global optimal solution x of problem (LMP2) can then be found by identifying a global solution (x, ~) of problem (MPl). Pardalos (1990) observed that if c 1 and c 2 are linearly independent, then the Hessian matrix Q of the objective function of problem (LMP2) has one positive eigenvalue and one negative eigenvalue, and the remaining eigenvalues are equal to zero. By applying the spectral decomposition theorem of linear algebra, the objective function can be rewritten in terms of two variables. The problem can then be solved by examining the vertices of an orthogonal projection of the feasible region D into a two-dimensional

PAGE 24

17 polytope in the space of the two variables used in the rewritten objective function. Pardalos (1990) proposed an algorithm that enumerates all vertices of the two dimensional polytope until an optimal vertex is found The algorithm may require an exponential number of s teps, but its average computational time complexity is bounded by a polynomial 2.2.2. Methods Based on Searching the Outcome Set The objective function of problem (LMP2) can be expressed as the composite lJI(
PAGE 25

18 feasible region. The approximations are used in a series of optimization problems that are easier to solve than the original problem These optimization problems are sequentially solved until a global optimal solution to the original problem is found. The technique has been very useful in solving global optimization problems in which the feasible region Z is a polytope and the global optimal solution is known to be an extreme point of Z In this f ortn of outer approximation, the algorithm begins by finding a simple polytope P 0 :::> Z with an ea s ily defined inequality representation and an easily calculated set of vertices. A s e rie s of a l g orithmic iterations follows that builds a sequence of decreasing polytopes Po :::> Pi :::> :::> Z in which one polytope is generated in each iteration. In an iteration k of the algorithm the original objective function is evaluated at the extreme points of P k to find an optimal solution v k If v k is an extreme point of Z then v k is a global optimal solution to the original problem. Otherwise a portion of JJ,. \ Z is cut off to fortn P k+I The point v k i s part of the region cut off; i.e. vk is not included in the polytope Pk +I The cut is made by adding a constraint called a cutting plane constraint to the con s traint set that defines P k The cutting plane constraint adds additional vertices to ~ + i that were not pre s ent in P k and the ref ore they must be calculated. Aneja Ag g arwal and Nair ( 1984 ) propo s ed an algorithm that examines the solutions associat e d with the bicriterion programming problem: ( BCP ) VMIN ( y 1 = (c 1 x ) + d 1 y 2 = ( c 2 x ) + d 2 ), s.t xe D.

PAGE 26

19 The intent of problem (BCP) is to simultaneously minimize the two criterion functions y 1 and y 2 Conflicts usually exist between the two criterion functions that prevent a single point of D from simultaneously minimizing both functions. The usual notion of an optimal solution used in single objective linear programming is replaced by the concept of efficient solutions when discussing the solutions of problem (BCP). A solution x is an efficient solution of problem (BCP) if x e D and, whenever for each i = 1, 2, ( c;, x) + d ; ( ci, x) + d ; for some x E D then ( c;, x) + di = ( c;, .x) + d i i = 1, 2. The set of efficient points of D is mapped by


PAGE 27

20 algorithm is then repeated using each of the smaller triangles. The algorithm tertninates when there are no more extreme points of the efficient frontier that need to be searched. In the algorithm of Aneja, Aggarwal, a nd Nair (1984), a new vertex must be calculated for each triangle This is easily done by solving two systems of two equations in the unknowns y 1 and y 2 This special technique however, can not be easily extended to handle cases where p > 2. Falk and Palocsay (1994) also proposed a solution algorithm that searches among the extreme points of Y using a modified outer approximation technique. In the first phase of the algorithm the two linear programs l 1 = min(c 1 x) + d 1 and 1 2 = min(c 2 x) + d 2 x eD x eD are solved for optimal solutions x 1 and x 2 respectively. Two initial vertices y 1 and y 2 of Y are then An initial polytope in outcome-space containing an optimal solution for the problem (YP ) 2 min IJy i ye Y I 1 = such that a 1 y 1 + a 2 y 2 = 1 passes through the point k { i I( l J ) ( 2 2 )J Y = ar~n Y Y1 Y 2 Y1 Y 2 1= 1 ,2 In each iteration of the algorithm, values for a 1 and a 2 are updated and a linear program of the form

PAGE 28

21 (YLP) is solved to remove portions of the initial polytope from the search for an optimal solution for problem (YP) The new vertices generated at each iteration are easily calculated since the isovalue contours of problem (YLP) are linear. The algorithm terminates when the optimal value of problem (YLP) is one. The algorithm proposed by Thoai ( 1991) for solving problem (LMP2) uses an outer approximation technique that begins by enclosing the outcome set Yin a rectangle P 0 In an iteration k of the algorithm, the extreme point (v 1 v 2 ) of the outer approximation that yields the lowest value of the product y 1 y 2 is found. A linear program is then used to deterr1tine if the extreme point (v 1 v 2 ) maps to a feasible point x of D. If not, information is obtained from the linear program to generate a cutting plane constraint that slices off the extreme point (v 1 v 2 ) from the polytope Pk The new vertices generated by the cut are then calculated using a conventional approach (see Horst, Pardalos, and Thoai 1995 or Horst and Tuy 1993). Since the method of deter1nining these new vertices is not dependent on the fact that the dimension of the outcome set is two Thoai' s algorithm can be extended to handle cases where p > 2. In the algorithms of Aneja, Aggarwal, and Nair (1984) and Thoai (1991), the only variations in the linear programs used in successive iterations involve changes in objective function coefficients The authors gain some computational efficiency by restarting the simplex method at the optimal solution of the previous iteration. Only a few simplex pivots are then generally needed to produce a new optimal solution.

PAGE 29

22 2.2.3. Methods Based on Solving a Parametric Master Problem The difficulty in solving problem (LMP2) is caused by the product forrn of the objective function. Konno and Kuno (1992) added a parameter g and formed the following problem that they called the master problem: (MP2) min F(x;~) = ~((c' ,x) + d,)+f ((c 2 x) + d2), s.t. xE D, g ~O. Notice that for a fixed value g' of g, problem (MP2) is a linear programming problem. To solve problem (MP2), Konno and Kuno proposed using a parametric objective function simplex method to the find critical values of g at which new bases become optimal. The values of the objective function F are then evaluated at these bases. A global optimal solution (x g ) of problem (MP2) is found by choosing the basis that minimizes F over these values. Konno and Kuno ( 1992) showed that if (x, g) is an optimal solution of problem (MP2), then x* is a global optimal solution of problem (LMP2). Konno and Kuno tested this algorithm on randomly generated problems (LMP2) with nonnegative problem data that ranged in size from (m, n) = (30, 50) to (220, 200). Their computational experiments showed that the amount of computational time needed to solve problem (LMP2) is not much different from that required to solve linear programs of the same size. In Konno and Kuno ( 1995) the authors slightly simplified the above parametric method by redefining the auxiliary parameter so that convex combinations of the two linear functions are used in the objective function of problem (MP2). This modification

PAGE 30

23 makes it easier to find critical parameter values, since the interval [o, 1] over which the auxiliary parameter ranges is bounded. The rest of the method remained the same. Although Konno and Kuno (1992) did not explicitly say it, their algorithm can be viewed as searching the efficient extreme points of problem (BCP) for one that is a global optimal solution of problem (LMP2). Notice that for a sufficiently small value ~,, an extreme point optimal solution (x', ~') to problem (MP2) coincides with an optimal solution x' of the linear program min { ( c 2 x) + d x E D} Similarly, for a sufficiently large value ... an extreme point optimal solution (x..,, ~*) coincides with an optimal solution x'' of the linear program min {(c 1 ,x)+ d 1 XE D} For any fixed value~> 0, the objective function F( x,~) is a composite objective function for1ned by multiplying the two linear functions by positive values and summing the result. It is well known that any extreme point minimizer of such a composite objective function over the feasible region D is an efficient extreme point of the problem (BCP) (Steuer 1986). The efficient extreme points of problem (BCP) are found by solving linear programs for parameter values between ~, and .... As Aneja, Aggarwal and Nair (1984) have shown, the global solution lies at an efficient extreme point of D in problem (BCP). A disadvantage of the algorithm of Konno and Kuno is that it may require many pivots to solve problem (MP2 ) for all possible parameter values. This will especially be true if there is a great conflict between the two linear functions of the objective function. If for example c 2 = c 1 then every extreme point of D is an efficient extreme point of problem (BCP). Since the size of the set of extreme points of the polytope D grows

PAGE 31

24 exponentially with D, the number of optimal solutions to problem (MP2) over the entire range of parameter values grows exponentially with D and is not bounded by a polynomial. Konno and Kuno in fact observed that the computational time increased as the number of local minima increased. An additional disadvantage of the Konno and Kuno algorithm is that many of the pivots performed will be unnecessary when they are to bases that do not improve on a previously found solution. In another paper, Konno and Kuno (1990) added a convex function to the objective function of problem (LMP2) to obtain the problem (CLMP). With this addition, the objective function may no longer be quasiconcave and therefore, the global minimum may not necessarily be attained at an extreme point of the feasible region D To solve problem (CLMP), Konno and Kuno (1990) proposed an algorithm that solves a parametric master problem which, for a fixed parameter value, is a nonlinear convex programming problem. The algorithm involves solving this master problem a finite number of times, once for each of a finite number of prechosen values for the parameter. A troublesome aspect of the algorithm is that it is difficult to determine the proper parameter values to choose. The authors suggested choosing values for the parameter that are equally spaced in the interval of possible parameter values and solving the resulting master problems to determine a neighborhood containing a globally optimal solution to problem (CLMP). A local search is then done in that neighborhood for a globally optimal solution using the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions Care must be taken however, to attempt to define the spacing between the points to be small enough so that a global optimal solution is not missed.

PAGE 32

25 The difficulty that Konno and Kuno ( 1990) encountered in their method in determining parameter values can be eliminated if we assume that the convex function g in the objective function of problem (CLMP) is a linear function. Problem (GLMP) is obtained by making this replacement. Konno, Yajima, and Matsui (1991) considered problem (GLMP), but they assumed that d 1 and d 2 are zero. To solve problem (GLMP), Konno, Yajima, and Matsui formulated the master problem (MP3) min F(x;~) = (c 0 x) + ~( c 2 x), s.t. xe D, Notice that the parameter appears in both the objective function and in a right-hand side of a constraint. Konno, Yajima, and Matsui ( 1991) showed that x is a global solution of problem (GLMP) if (x, ~) is an optimal solution of problem (MP3). Schaible and Sodini (1995) used problem (MP3) to show that a global optima] solution of problem (GLMP) lies on an edge of D. Konno, Yajima, and Matsui (1991) proposed a parametric simplex algorithm that includes a right-hand side analysis and an objective function analysis to detertnine intervals of parameter values for which bases remain both feasible and optimal. The parametric analysis sweeps through parameter values from ~min= min{(c' ,x)lx e D} to ; max = max~ c 1 x) x e D }. The objective function F is then minimized over each of the intervals.

PAGE 33

26 Konno, Yajima, and Matsui (1991) tested their algorithm on randomly generated problems of up to 350 constraints and 300 variables. They found that the problems can be solved in much the same computational time as that of solving linear programs of equal size. The algorithm of Konno, Yajima, and Matsui (1991) suffers from the same disadvantages as the algorithm of Konno and Kuno ( 1992). In particular, its efficiency depends on the number of pivots performed to solve problem (MP3) for all possible parameter values Also many of the pivots perfor1ned will be unnecessary when they yield bases that do not improve on a previously found solution. Schaible and Sodini (1995) improved the algorithm of Konno, Yajima, and Matsui (1991). From a given simplex tableau for problem (MP3), Schaible and Sodini used parametric analysis to derive a for111ula that calculates the value of the objective function Fas the constraint ( c 1 x) = ~, is set to increasing values of g'. As ~, increases, parametric right-hand-side analysis calculates new values for the basic variables. Schaible and Sodini then derived some optimality conditions that detect when the parameter ~, is set to a value such that from an optimal solution (x', g') of problem (MP3), one obtains a local minimum x' of problem (GLMP). By applying these optimality conditions, Schaible and Sodini were able to develop a simplex-based algorithm that solves problem (MP3) in a finite number of primal and/or dual simplex iterations. The algorithm proposed by Schaible and Sodini ( 1995) has three advantages over the algorithm of Konno, Yajima, and Matsui (1991): (1) It may terminate before the maximum possible parameter value grnax has been reached. (2) It is more efficient in that

PAGE 34

27 it may skip over local optimal solutions that do not improve the objective function value. (3) It can be used even when the feasible region is unbounded, and it can detect when problem (GLMP) is unbounded from below. Muu and Tam (1992) also considered problem (CLMP), but in their work, the feasible region Dis relaxed to a compact convex set. They seem to be the only researchers to have considered this generalization of problem (CLMP). The authors however tested their algorithm using a polytope for the feasible region. Muu and Tam (1992) formulated the parametric master problem (MP3') s.t. xeD, ( c 1 x) + d 1 = ~, 0. They proposed a branch and bound algorithm to solve problem (MP3'). Branch and bound is a technique commonly used by algorithms in global optimization. Branching refers to the successive partitioning of the feasible region and bounding refers to the computation of lower and upper bounds on the global optimum over the partitions. Partitions of the feasible region that produce a lower bound on the objective function that exceeds the best upper bound found so far by the algorithm are eliminated from further consideration. Such partitions are said to be fa thorned. A branch and bound algorithm terminates when all of the partitions have been fathomed. In the algorithm of Muu and Tam (1992), partitions of the feasible region are constructed by restricting the value of ( c 1 x) + d 1 to values within an interval. The algorithm begins by finding an interval I O := [g 1 g 2 ] of achievable values of ( c 1 x) + d 1

PAGE 35

28 by solving the two convex programs ~ 1 := min { ( c 1 x) + d 1 x E D} and ~ 2 := max {(c 1 x) + d 1 x ED}. Optimal solutions u 0 and v 0 are then obtained for the two convex programs A lower bound /3 (I O ) over the interval / 0 of the objective function F of problem (MP3') is found by selecting /3 (I O ):= min {/3 (~ 1 ), /3 (~ 2 )} An upper bound a 0 on F is obtained by selecting a 0 := min {t(u 0 ), J(v 0 )}. The interval / 0 is next bisected and the procedure repeated using the two subintervals. A subinterval that produces a lower bound that exceeds the current upper bound is eliminated from further consideration; i.e. that subinterval is considered to be fathomed. The procedure continues bisecting intervals / k to generating a sequence of solutions {xk = 1 that converge to a limit point x that is a global optimal solution. Computational experiments on problems up to (m, n) = (30, 200) showed that the algorithm is very efficient when both vectors c and d are positive. 2.2.4. Methods Based on Polyhedral Annexation A limitation of conventional optimization methods is that they can become trapped at a local minimum, or even a stationary point, if they are applied to a global optimization problem, e.g. see the algorithms proposed by Swamp (1966a, 1966b). The central problem of a global optimization method then is to overcome this limitation by providing a certification test for global optimality, and if a point is not globally optimal, deterrnining how to move to a better solution. Tuy (1991) called this the subproblem of

PAGE 36

29 ''transcending the incumbent'' where the incumbent is the best feasible solution found so far by an algorithm. Let f be the objective function for problem (LMP2), and let x be a vertex of D that represents th e incumbent s olution for this problem. Then, from Tuy ( 1991 ) to transcend the incumbent, one must find a point in x e D such that f (x) < f (x) or else e s tablish that no s uch point exi s ts, i.e. that x is a global optimal solution for problem (LMP2). Let G : = { x e n J(x) '?: J (x)}, where n is a convex set containing D The problem of transcending the incumbent can then be restated as the following problem ( GCP ) Check if D c G and if not, find a point x e D \ G Problem (GCP ) i s known as the Geometric Complementary Problem. Tuy ( 1990 ) deve l oped the method of polyhedral annexation to solve problem ( GCP). In polyhedral annexation a sequence of polytopes Pi_ c P 2 c c P k c is built by adding a vert e x to the polytope P kI of the previous iteration in such a way that a vertex of D i s annexed into the new polytope P k The sequence Pi n D P 2 n D ... forrns an expanding inner approximation of D. When a polytope P h D is found all of the extreme point s of D have been searched and the algorithm terminates. A ss ociated with the sequence of p o lytopes Pi c P 2 c c P c is the sequence of their polars Pi :) P 2 *:) :) ~ :) where a polar E of a convex set E in R 11 is defined as E :={ye R n (y, x) 1 for all x e E } A dual correspondence exists between the facets of a polytope P k and th e vertice s of its polar P "* The subproblem of determining the

PAGE 37

30 inequality representation of P k, after a new vertex has been added can then be solved by solving the easier problem of computing the vertices of P; The termination condition D has the corresponding condition ~ k D For a more detailed description of polyhedral annexation, see the chapters on inner approximation in Horst, Pardalos, and Thoai (1995 ) or in Horst and Tuy (1993). Tuy and Tam (1992) proposed two algorithms that are derived using the polyhedral annexation method with a dualization and dimension reduction technique developed by Tuy ( 1991) Dualization refers to solving the original problem by solving the dual problem of generating a sequence of polars until a polar Ph* k D is found. The key to the dimension reduction technique is the introduction of a cone into problem (GCP). Tuy and Tam ( 1992) assumed that c 1 and c 2 are linearly independent vectors and then forn1ed the c one K := {x E R n ( c ; x) 0, i = 1, 2 }. Cone K is of interest since if .x e D is an incumbent solution, then for any .x E (.x + K) f (x) f (x) In other words, cone K identifies points in R 11 that can do no better than the incumbent solution x. Computational effort might be saved using cone K since a part of the feasible region D can be eliminated from further consideration and the search narrowed to the remaining portion of D The first algorithm proposed by Tuy and Tam (1992) solves problem (LMP2) by solving problem ( GCP) through the dualization process of generating a sequence of polars until a polar P, ; k D is found. Tuy and Tam (1992) showed that the polar K* of cone K is explicitly given a s K = {y E R" y = t 1 c 1 t 2 c 2 for some t 1 0 t 2 0 }. Any

PAGE 38

31 vertex y in a polar ~ lies in the polar cone K*, and the multipliers t 1 and t 2 used to express y are unique, since c 1 and c 2 are linearly independent vectors. Polar cone K* is used to solve the dual problem by building a collapsing sequence of polars Pi* ::, P; ::, ::, P; ::, with each polar being an improved approximation of v. The search is conducted in the two-dimensional space generated by c 1 and c 2 rather than in the original n-dimensional space Solving the linear program (LP(t)) max {-fi(c 1 ,x)-r 2 (c 2 x)xe DJ, where ti and t 2 are the multipliers used to express some vertex x = -Fie' t 2 c 2 of P h* tests for the termination condition Ph* D*. The second algorithm proposed by Tuy and Tam ( 1992) is motivated by the observation that for a fixed value of t = (t,, t 2 ), problem (LP(t)) is equivalent to the linear program (LP(a)) max { (Cl a (c 2 CI X )) X E D} where a= t 2 / (t 2 +t 1 )e [o, 1]. The first algorithm thus reduces to solving a sequence of linear programs (LP( a)) for different values of the parameter a. The second algorithm proposed by Tuy and Tam (1992) is to parametrically solve problem (LP(a)) for all of the critical values of a at which new bases become optimal. The objective function! of problem (LMP2) is evaluated at each basis and a global optimal solution chosen from those bases. The second algorithm of Tuy and Tam (1992) is essentially the same parametric problem (MP2) used by Konno and Kuno (1992).

PAGE 39

32 Tuy and Tam (1992) ran computational experiments using both the first polyhedral annexation algorithm and the second parametric algorithm. Their results showed that for solving problem (LMP2), the parametric algorithm performed better than the polyhedral annexation algorithm. The polyhedral annexation algorithm is not as efficient because more simplex pivots were required than for the parametric algorithm. Tuy and Tam ( 1992) proposed an improved variant of the polyhedral annexation algorithm that reduces the number of pivots and the number of objective function evaluations. The authors observed that the improved algorithm may potentially be more useful for a problem with an objective function that is difficult to evaluate. The computational experiments run using the parametric algorithm on problems of up to (m, n) = (30, 200) and positive problem data were in line with the results reported in Konno and Kuno (1992). 2.3. Extensions of Algorithms for Problem (LMP2) to Solve Problem (LMP) when p~3 The polyhedral annexation method of Tuy and Tam (1992) and the outcome-space algorithms of Thoai (1991) and Falk and Palocsay (1994) can be extended to the more general problem (LMP) where p 3. Although the algorithms remain unchanged, the subproblem of determining the new vertices becomes more difficult as the number of function terms in the objective function increases. 2.4. Methods to Solve Problems (CMP), (GCMP), and (CCMP) Relatively little work has been done in designing exact global solution algorithms that address problems (CMP), (GCMP), and (CCMP). The algorithms that have been

PAGE 40

.. 33 proposed fall into two categories: (1) methods based on solving a refor1nulated problem and (2) a method based on outer approximation. 2.4.1. Methods Based on Solving a Reformulated Problem Konno and Kuno (1992 ) introduced problem (CMP) where p = 2 and for111ulated a master problem by introducing a parameter into the original problem to separate the two functions of the objective function into a summation. This technique of embedding the original problem into a problem in a higher dimensional space is similar to the one used by the authors in the s ame paper to solve problem (LMP2). At the time, Konno and Kuno were not able to give an algorithm for solving the master problem. In Kuno and Konno ( 1991) the authors proposed a branch and bound algorithm along with an underestimation function to solve it. Computational results for problems of up to (m, n) = (200, 180) indicated that the algorithm is efficient when the objective function is the product of a linear function and a quadratic function and the feasible region is a polytope. Kuno Yajima, and Konno (1993) extended the paramaterization technique of Kuno and Konno ( 1991) for problem (CMP) to handle cases where p 2. They showed that a global optimal sol ution to problem (CMP) can be obtained by solving the equivalent problem (MP4 ) mm ~E S where E = ~ER P ]] ~ i 1, 0 For a fixed f EE, let x*(f) denote an optimal j= l solution of min G(x;f)= f ~J i (x). Let h: E R be defined by h(~):= G(x (~); ~) for xeX I 1 =

PAGE 41

34 any c; E 3. Solving problem (MP4) then reduces to solving the problem in RP given by (MP4') mi_!l h(c;). ~ e .::. Kuno, Yajima, and Konno (1993) showed that his a concave function over 3 and therefore a global optimal solution of problem (MP4') exists on the boundary of 3 They proposed an outer approximation method for solving problem (MP4') and tested their algorithm against two subclasses of problem (CMP): (1) problem (LMP) and (2) problems similar those tested in Kuno and Konno (1991) in which the objective function is the product of a linear and a quadratic function and the constraints are linear inequalities. Computational experiments showed that the total computational time is dominated by that needed for solving the convex minimization master problems for each parameter value. The results also showed that the number of cuts and vertices generated increases rapidly as p increased from 2 to 5. The authors asserted that this was due to inefficiencies in computing new vertices, especially when p exceeds 5. However, if p is held constant, these numbers increased very slowly as the number of constraints and variables increased. The authors concluded that their algorithm is reasonably efficient when p is less than 4. Jaumard, Meyer, and Tuy (1997) added a convex function to the objective function of problem (CMP) to for1n problem (CCMP). The authors showed that problem (CCMP) can be reduced to a quasiconcave minimization problem in RP that is a generalization of problem (MP4') used by Kuno, Yajima, and Konno (1993). In the special case where / 0 = 0 in problem (CCMP), the reduced quasiconcave minimization problem in Jaumard, Meyer and Tuy (1997) can be shown to be equivalent to the one

PAGE 42

35 used by Kuno, Yajima and Konno (1993). Jaumard, Meyer, and Tuy (1997) find a global solution of problem (CCMP) by finding an optimal solution to the quasiconcave minimization problem in R P using a conical branch and bound method. They ran computational experiments using their algorithm on test problems similar to those used by Kuno, Yajima and Konno (1993) and Thoai (1991). The authors report that their results are very sensitive to the magnitude of p and not as sensitive to the size (m, n ) of the constraint matrix. Sniedovich and Findlay ( 1995) analyzed problem (CMP) from the perspective of c-programming but did not give a complete algorithm for solving it. C-programming is a technique developed by Sniedovich (1984) for solving an optimization problem of the form ( CP ) q := min l/f(cp(x )), xeX where X is some nonempty set


PAGE 43

36 For problem (CMP), the objective function can be expressed as the composite 1/f( 0 }. Since problem (CMP) satisfies the requirements of c-programming, it can be solved by solving the parametric problem (MPS') q(~):= rninf ~;/;(x), ~ES, ~ X i= I where S is any subset of R P such that V 1/f(
PAGE 44

37 objective function of problem (GCMP) The master problem is a convex minimization problem in the space R 11 + 2 q and is solved using an outer approximation algorithm. Computational experiments conducted using a polyhedron for the feasible region showed that for q = 1, this algorithm required less than half the computational time required by the branch and bound with underestimation function algorithm proposed in Konno and Kuno (1992) to solve problem (CMP). Tuy (1992 ) gave problem (CMP) as an example of an optimization problem that can be formulated as a Geometric Complementary Problem and solved it using a parametric programming problem. The parametric programming problem is a convex minimization problem in which a positive parameter vector is used to build a composite objective function from the convex functions in the objective function of problem (CMP). A complete algorithm that includes solving the parametric program was not given. 2.4.2. A Method Based on Outer Approximation Thoai ( 1991) extended the algorithm based on the outer approximation technique that he proposed for solving problem (LMP2) to address the solution of problem (CMP) when p = 2. The main idea is to build a sequence of decreasing polytopes P 0 :::) Pi :::) :::) X of the convex feasible region X and a sequence of decreasing ~ ~ polytopes S 0 :::) S 1 :::) :::) Y of the outcome set Y, where Problem (CMP) is then solved by applying a modified version of the algorithm for problem (LMP2). In any iteration k, up to two cuts are introduced, one for Pk and one for S k to obtain tighter approximating sets.

PAGE 45

38 Since the algorithm does not depend on tl1e actual value of p it can be extended to handle cases where p 3 2.5. Methods to Solve Problem (LMP) as a Concave Minimization Problem Konno and Kuno (1992) showed that the objective function of problem (LMP) is not a convex function over the feasible set D Therefore, problem (LMP) is not a convex programming problem. However, since the natural logarithm function In is a strictly increasing concave function on (0, 00 ), it is easy to show that the function defined for all x e D is a concave function. In addition, the optimal solution set of the concave minimization problem (CMIN) min F(x), s.t.xe D, is identical to the optimal solution set of problem (LMP). Therefore, any concave minimization method may be applied to problem (LMP) if the objective function is replaced by its logarithmic equivalent. Using the above transformation modification, Tuy (1991) showed that problem (LMP) could be solved in a reduced dimension space using polyhedral annexation and the dualization and dimension reduction technique. The algorithm presented in Tuy and Tam ( 1992) is essentially an improvement of the one in Tuy ( 1991 ). Ryoo and Sahinidis (1996) also converted problem (LMP) into the problem (CMIN). To solve problem (CMIN), they employed a branch and bound algorithm that incorporates the use of valid inequalities to accelerate convergence. Branch and bound

PAGE 46

39 algorithms may slowly converge to an optimal solution when the gap between the initial upper and lower bounds is large. A valid inequality is a inequality constraint that does not exclude any solution that yields an objective function value lower than the current best upper bound. By introducing valid inequalities into the constraint set, inferior parts of the feasible region may be removed from further consideration without eliminating possible global optimal solutions. A second use of valid inequalities is to reduce the range of values that the variables in the problem can assume. Ryoo and Sahinidis referred to these two uses of valid inequalities as range reduction mechanisms. The performance of the bounding procedure in the branch and bound algorithm is improved by using these range reduction mechanisms, since smaller-sized partitions of the feasible region are used and the variables are restricted to reduced ranges of values. Ryoo and Sahinidis implemented the branch and bound algorithm along with the range reduction mechanisms in a computer program called BARON (Branch-And-Reduce Optimization Navigator). To more easily calculate lower bounds on the objective function F of problem (CMIN) over a partition of the feasible region, the authors replaced F by a linear underestimating function. Lower bounds were then calculated by solving linear programs. The authors tested randomly-generated problems in sizes from (m, n) = (50, 50) to (200, 200), with p ranging from 2 to 5. They reported that only a small fraction of the total CPU time is consumed in the range reduction mechanisms and that there seemed to be a low-order polynomial relationship between the CPU time and the value of p

PAGE 47

CHAPTER3 CONCA VE~MULTIPLICATNE PROGRAMMING PROBLEMS: ANALYSIS AND AN EFFICJENT POINT SEARCH HEURISTIC FOR THE LINEAR CASE 3.1. Introduction An important, but little re s earched area that deserves more attention, is the development of heuri s tic algorithms for finding a good solution for multiplicative programming problem s In s ome applications a good, though not nece ss arily globally optimal solution may adequately meet the requirements of a u s er (Konno and Inori 1989 ) In these ca s es s ince multiplicative programming problems are known to be NP hard the expenditure of computational effort required to globally solve them may not be needed. Thi s chapt e r has two purpose s. The first is to pre s ent an analysis of problem ( P x) when problem ( P x) i s a conca v e multiplicative programming problem. The second purpose is to propo s e a heuristic algorithm de s igned for the case where problem ( P x) is a linear multiplicative programming problem. The analy s i s of the concave multiplicative programming problem i s presented in Section 3 2 This a naly s is show s a new way to write a concave multiplicative programming problem as a concave minimization problem and s ome theoretical consequence s of this. It also s hows some relationships between concave multiplicative programs and certain multiple-objective mathematical programs. In Section 3 3 by using some of the re s ult s of Section 3.2, we present and explain the workings of an efficient40

PAGE 48

41 point search heuristic algorithm that we have developed for the linear multiplicative programming problem. Section 3.4 reports and analyzes some statistics summarizing the computational re s ults that we obtained by coding the heuristic algorithm and applying it to 260 randomly-generated linear multiplicative programs. In Section 3.4 we also report the results of applying the heuristic algorithm to a multiplicative programming problem fo1med from a decision situation using real data. In Section 3.5, we discuss the major results of thi s chapter. 3.2. Analysis Assume in problem ( P x) that X i s a convex set and that, for each j = 1 2, ... p, f j : X R is a concave function; i e., assume that problem (Px) is a concave multiplicative programming problem Consider the function g : X R defined for each XE X by g(x)=log g(x) Then, it is a simple matter to s how that g : X R is a concave function and that the optimal solution s et to the concave minimization problem ming(x), s t xe X, ( 3.1) is identical to the optimal solution set of problem ( Px ) Thus, any concave multiplicative programming problem of the for1n of problem ( Px ), if rewritten in the fortn (3 1), can be solved by applying any appropriate general-purpose concave minimization algorithm to (3.1). For discussions and reviews of concave minimization algorithms, s ee, for instance, Benson ( 1995 ), B e n s on ( 1996 ) Horst and Tuy ( 1993), and Pardalos and Rosen (1987 ).

PAGE 49

42 It is interesting and useful in both practice and theory to observe that, in addition to (3.1), there is at least one other way to rewrite a concave multiplicative programming problem as a concave minimization problem. To show how this can be accomplished, we will first prove the following preliminary result Lemma 3.2.1. Let a E R P satisfy a > 0, and consider the nonlinear programming problem v=min(a,A), s.t.AEA, (3.2) where A= A E R P [[ A j 1, A~ 0 Then, vis finite and problem (3.2) has at least one J = I optimal solution. Proof. Notice that, if AE A, then A> 0 and (a,1) > 0. Therefore, v > 0. This, combined with the fact that A :t 0, implies that v is finite. Now, suppose that, for each j = 1, 2, ... there exists a vector 1 1 E A such that where { e j 4 1 is a strictly decreasing sequence of positive real numbers such that l ime 1 = 0. Then the sequence { A j l i is either bounded or unbounded. J oo J Case 1: { A j h =1 is bounded. Then, for some bounded set A k A, A j E A for each j = 1, 2, ... Therefore by passing to an appropriate subsequence { A1 }je, of { Aj 1 1 if t A necessary, we can guarantee that A = lim A1 exists. Further1r1ore, since A1 E A k A for }e l each j E I, and A is a closed set, A belongs to A By assumption, (3.3)

PAGE 50

43 for each j E J. By talcing the limits over j E J on both sides of (3.3), we conclude that ( a, I)~ v Since IE A, this implies that I is an optimal solution to (3.2). Case 2: { Al h = t is unbounded. Then, for some subsequence { ). / 1eJ of {Al};: 1 and for some k E { 1, 2, ... p }, l im A-{ = + 00 For each j E J, since ).,i E A, ).,i > 0. 00 Combined with the fact that a > 0 implies that for each j E J, ( 3.4) By assumption, for each j E J, ( 3.5) From (3.4) and (3.5), we obtain ( 3.6) for each j E J. By taking the limits over j E J on both sides of (3.6), we conclude that + oo = v, which is a contradiction. Therefore, this case cannot hold, and the proof is complete. Using Lemma 3.2.1, we may now establish the following theorem. Theorem 3.2.1. Assume in problem (Px) that X is a convex set and that Ji : X R, j = 1, 2 .. p, are concave functions. Let g: X R be defined for each x e X by p g(x) = p IT 1 1 (x) 1 /p j=I Then g : X R is a concave function.

PAGE 51

44 Proof. C o nsider the function h : X R defined for each x E X by h( x ) = min f A ifJ (x ) s .t. A EA ( 3.7 ) j=I where A is as de f ined in Lemma 3.2.1. From Lemma 3 2.1 since J i is s trictly positive on X for each j = 1 2, ... p it follows that the minimum in ( 3.7) exist s and i s finite for each x E X. If f o r each A E A we define a function h ). : X R by h ;t (x)= f i 1 J i (x) j = l then for each x E X h(x) may also be written as h(x) = min h ;t ( x ). ..leA ( 3.8 ) Notice that for each A E A h i : X R is a concave function. From this and ( 3.8 ), we conclude that h: X R i s al s o a concave function (Rockafellar 1970 ). To complete the proof we will show that, for each x E X h(x) = g ( x ) Toward this end, fix x E X and let A( x )e X denote an optimal solution to problem (3 7 ) From the Karush-Kuhn Tucker necessary condition s for this problem ( Bazaraa Sherali, and Shetty 1993 ), s ince A(x) > 0, it follows that there exists a nonnegative constant 0 (x) such that p J j ( x )-e(x) rri k ( x ) A j (x)=O, j=l,2 .. p. ( 3.9) k = l Since A(x )e X i s an optimal solution to problem ( 3.7 ) it is easy to see that

PAGE 52

45 Together with (3.9), this implies that A1 (x )J 1 (x) = 0(x ), j = l, 2, ... p. From (3.10), it follows that A 1 (x)=0(x)/ J 1 (x), j = I, 2, ... ,p. By substitution in this implies that 1/p 0(x) = 11 f 1 (x) j=l From equations (3.10) and (3.11), we see that 1/ p f A 1 (x)J 1 (x )= p [IJ 1 (x) j= I }=I (3.10) (3.11) (3.12) Since x e X and A(x )e X is an optimal solution to (3.7), the left-hand-side of equation (3.12) coincides with h(x). By definition of g, the right-hand-side of equation (3.12) equals g(x ), so that the proof is complete. Theorem 3.2.1 can also be proven by using a composite function approach and showing several preliminary results ( Avriel, Diewert, Schaible, and Zang 1987). We offer the proof here, because it is more direct and because we will use it below to help derive a corollary of interest.

PAGE 53

46 Notice from Theorem 3.2.1 that, when problem (Px) is a concave multiplicative program, the optimal solution set of problem (Px) is identical to the optimal solution set of the concave minimization problem min g(x), s.t. xe X, where g: X R is defined for each x E X by g(x)= p[g(x)] 1 1 P. (3.13) In practice, this implies that any concave multiplicative program (Px ), if rewritten in the fotm (3.13), can be solved by app lying any suitable concave minimization algorithm to (3.13). Notice also that problem (3.13) is a simpler reformulation of problem (Px) for the concave case than the typical refor1r1ulation used in the literature to solve problem (Px) in the convex case (see e.g., Konno and Kuno 1992, Kuno and Konno 1991, Thoai 1991, and Kuno, Yajima, and Konno 1993). Theorem 3.2.1 also has some interesting theoretical implications concerning the product of functions. For instance, for any finite set of concave functions fj, j = 1, 2, ... p, each defined on a common nonempty convex domain X R n and each strictly positive on this domain, it is known that the function g : X R defined by their product is not necessarily concave, convex, or quasiconvex on X (Kuno, Yajima and Konno 1993 and Avriel, Diewert, Schaible and Zang 1988). However, from Theorem 3.2 .1 the function f : X R given by J(x) = [g(x )] 1 1 P for each x e X is a concave function on X

PAGE 54

47 In addition, Theorem 3.2.1 implies the following result concerning the product of a set of concave functions. Corollary 3.2.1. Let X and f j j = 1, 2, ... p, be defined as in Theorem 3.2.1, and suppose that g : X R is defined for each x E X by g(x) = fI f 1 (x). j=I Then g: X R is a quasiconcave function. Proof. Choose a e R and let La = {x E X g (x) a}. If a~ 0, La = X is a convex set. If a> 0, then from Theorem 3.2.1 and Rockafellar (1970), the set [ 13 = {xe X p[g(x)] 1 1 P /3} is a convex set, where /3 = pa 1 IP. Since [ 13 =L a this implies that La is a convex set. Therefore, we have shown that for any a E R, La is a convex set. This is equivalent to showing that g : X R is a quasiconcave function (Bazaraa, Sherali, and Shetty 1993), so that the proof is complete. It fol]ows from Corollai y 3.2.1 that any concave multiplicative programming problem (Px) is a problem involving the minimization of a quasiconcave function over a convex set. Many of the most popular algorithms for minimizing a concave function over a convex set are equally suitable for minimizing quasiconcave functions over convex sets (Horst and Tuy 1993 and Benson 1995). As a result, we see that any concave

PAGE 55

48 multiplicative program (Px) can be solved by applying any number of suitable concave minimization algorithms directly to problem (Px ). In particular, no refo1rnulations of problem (Px) are needed to apply these algorithms. Remark 3.2.1. Corollary 3.2.1 has been previously shown to hold for the special case where p = 2, X is a nonempty, compact polyhedron, and / 1 and / 2 are linear functions (see, e.g., Konno and Kuno 1992). The next corollary of Theorem 3.2.1 concerns the minimization problem (3.7) used in the proof of the theorem. Possible uses for this corollary may include the construction of methods for finding local optimal solutions to concave multiplicative programs, although we will not investigate this here. Corollary 3.2.2. Let X and J i j = 1, 2, ... p, be defined as in Theorem 3.2.1, and let A be defined as in Lemma 3 .2 .1. Then, A is a convex set and, for each x E X, the unique optimal sol ution l(x) to problem (3.7) is given by 1 / p \(x)= Ii ti(x) fk(x), k=l,2, .. ,p. j = I Proof. Notice that A may be rewritten according to the relation 1 / p A = ;t E int R : p Ii Ai p (3.14) j = 1 where It is easy to see that, for each j = 1, 2, ... p, h i : int R : R defined for each ;t E int R : by

PAGE 56

is a concave function on int R : that satisfies Therefore, by Theorem 3 .2.1, the function m : int R: R defined for each A E int R: by 1 / p is a concave function. This implies that is a convex set (Rockafellar 1970). By (3.14), this proves that A is a convex set. Now, fix xe X, and let A(x)e A denote an optimal solution to problem (3.7). From the proof of Theorem 3.2.1, this implies that, for each k = 1, 2, ... p, where e(x) is given by (3.11 ), so that the corollary is proven. In addition to its relationships to concave minimization, a concave multiplicative program also has some interesting ties to multiple-objective mathematical programming. In the remainder of this section, we will show some of the theoretical relationships between concave multiplicative programs and certain multiple-objective mathematical programs. In the next section, some practical benefits of those relationships will be demonstrated. Let J(x) denote the vector Vi (x ), f 2 (x ), ... J P (x )]r,

PAGE 57

50 where J 1 : X R, j = I, 2, ... p, are the functions used in defining problem (Px ). Then, the components of the vector f (x) are generally conflicting, in the sense that the infima over X of J 1 (x ), j = 1 2, ... p, are generally not simultaneously achieved at the same point in X. As a result, inherent trade offs in the achievable values of the components of f (x) over x e X are present. To account for these tradeoffs, and to seek what decision makers call a most preferred solution in situations where the goal is to attempt to simultaneously minimize J 1 (x ), j = 1, 2, ... p, over X, one of the most popular approaches is to consider the associated multiple-objective mathematical program VMIN J(x ), s.t. xe X. (3.15) In particular, in typical situations, a most preferred solution in X will exist that is also an efficient solution for (3.15), where an efficient solution is defined as follows. Definition 3.2.1 A point x 0 E Rn is called an efficient solution for (3.15) when x 0 E X and, whenever f (x)~ f (x 0 ) for some xE X, then J(x) = J(x 0 ). An efficient solution is also called a nondominated or Pareto-optimal solution. By generating or searching the set XE of the efficient solutions for (3 .15), decision makers are able to observe the inherent tradeoffs among the objective functions J 1 j = 1, 2, ... p, that are available over X and are often able to choose from XE a most preferred solution. For further discussions on multiple-objective mathematical programming and its applications, the reader may consult, for instance, Cohon (1978), Evans (1984), Luc

PAGE 58

51 (1989 ) Sawaragi Nakayama a nd Tanino (1985 ), Stadler (1979 ), Steuer ( 1986 ) Yu ( 1985), Zeleny ( 1982 ) and references therein. The fir s t relationship between multiplicative programming and multiple-objective mathematical programming is given in the following re s ult. The proof of this result is an elementary exercise Proposition 3 2 1 Any optim a l s olution to problem ( P x) must belong to the efficient set X E of the multiple-objective mathematical programming problem (3.15 ). Notice that Pr o position 3.2.1 holds for arbitrary multiplicative programming problems ( P x ) The next result however is re s tricted to certain types of concave multiplicative program s. Proposition 3 2 2 A ss ume in problem ( P x ) that X is a compact, convex s et and that J i : X R j = 1 2, . p ar e concave functions Then there exists an optimal solution to problem ( P x) which i s an extreme point of X. Proof From Theorem 3 2 1 problem ( P x) can be solved by finding an optimal solution to the concav e minimization problem ( 3 13 ), where g: X R i s the concave function defined by p g(x) = p IJJ i (x) 1 / p j= I for each xe X Since X i s a nonempty compact convex set, from Horst and Tuy ( 1993) problem ( 3.1 3) ha s an optimal s olution that is an extreme point of X. The s e two observations together prove th e de s ired re s ult

PAGE 59

52 Taken together, Proposition 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 imply that any concave multiplicative programming problem with a compact feasible region has at least one optimal solution that is an efficient extreme point solution to the multiple-objective mathematical programming problem (3.15). Special cases of this observations have been alluded to in the literature (see, e.g., Aneja, Aggarwal and Nair 1984 and Sniedovich and Findlay, 1995). In the next section, we put this observation to practical use. 3.3. Efficient Point Search Heuristic Assume in this section that, in problem (Px ), X = {x E R 11 Ax b} is a compact polyhedron, where A is an m x n matrix and b E Rn', and that for each j=l,2, ... ,p, J j (x)=(c j, x), where c j ER 11 foreach j=l,2, ... ,p. Then problem (Px) is a linear multiplicative programming problem or, more briefly, a linear multiplicative program (Konno and Kuno 1992). We have designed and tested a heuristic algorithm for this problem, based in part on some of the results in the previous section. In this section, we will formally state this heuristic algorithm and explain its workings. The multiple-objective program (3.15) associated with a linear multiplicative problem may be written as VMIN Cx, s.t. Ax~ b, (3.16) where C is the p x n matrix whosejth row equals (c j f, j = 1, 2, ... p. Problem (3.16) is a multiple-objective linear programming problem (Steuer 1986 and Yu 1985). Let X ex denote the set of extreme point s of

PAGE 60

53 X = { x E Rn Ax b }. Then, by Proposition 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, an optimal solution to the linear multiplicative programming problem can be found in the set of efficient extreme points of problem (3.16). The set X E ,e x is finite, and various procedures have been developed for generating it in its entirety (see, e.g. Steuer 1986, Yu 1985 and Steuer 1983). It follows that in theory at least, a global optimal solution to a linear multiplicative problem can be found by completely enumerating the set X E,ex of efficient extreme points of the associated multiple-objective linear programming problem (3.16) and, from this set, choosing the point(s) with the smallest value of (see, e.g. Sniedovich and Findlay 1995). Unfortunately, as we shall see Jater, in practice the exponential growth in the size of X E,ex as a function of problem size (Steuer 1986) renders this approach impractical for many cases. The approach of the heuristic algorithm is to efficiently search a dispersed, carefully chosen sample of candidate points from X E,ex in order to find an attractive solution to the linear multiplicative programming problem. To describe and explain the workings of the heuristic, we must first present some theoretical background from the theory of multiple-objective linear programming. Let

PAGE 61

54 W = {w E RP ( e, w) M, w e }, where e E R P is a vector with each entry equal to 1.0, and Mis a positive real number. For sufficiently large M, from Philip (1972) it is known that a point x 0 belongs to the efficient set XE of (3.16) if and only if x 0 is an optimal solution to the weighted-sum problem (3.17) for some w = w 0 E W We will assume henceforth that Mis chosen to be large enough to guarantee that this property bolds. It is also well known that the efficient set XE for (3.16) is given by where, for each w E W, Xi v denotes the optimal solution set of the linear program (3 .17) (Steuer 1986 and Yu 1985) Since the optimal solution set to (3.17) for any w E W is a face of it follows that the efficient set XE for (3.16) is equal to the union of the faces Xi v, we W, of X. Although X E is a connected set (Yu 1985), it is generally nonconvex. The heuristic algorithm will individually identify efficient faces Xw, we W, of X, and find an approximately-optimal extreme point solution to the problem p min IJ (ci,x), s.t.xE X 1 v (3.18) j=l for each efficient face X w that it finds.

PAGE 62

55 Let Y = { y e R P y = C x, for somexe X }, y >= { y eR P y ~ y, forsome y eY} To aid in its search, the heuri s tic algorithm will solve the linear program s t. Cx y Ax~b ( 3.19a ) (3 19b) (3.19c ) for various value s of y E y > and w E W The heuristic relies in part upon the properties of problem (3.19 ) given in the next three results The first two results follow easily from Benson ( 1978 ) Theorem 3.3.1. Suppose that x 0 E R n and let y 0 = Cx 0 Then, x 0 is an efficient solution for (3.16 ) if and only if with y = y 0 x 0 is an optimal solution to (3.19 ) for every weW Theorem 3.3 2 If y E y > and w E W, then (3 19 ) bas at least one optimal solution and any optimal s olution for (3 19 ) is an efficient solution for (3 16). Theorem 3.3.3. Suppose in (3 19 ) that w = w 0 E W and that y = y 0 = Cx 0 where x 0 is an efficient solution for ( 3.16 ) Let (u 0 r z 0 r) denote any optimal solution to linear programming dual of ( 3.19 ) where u 0 repre s ents the dual variables corresponding to the constraints C x y 0 of ( 3 19 ). Let w 0 = u 0 + w 0 and let v 0 = (w 0 J Cx 0 Then x 0 belongs to the efficient face X :-cc-0 of X and X :-cc-0 can be represented as IV W

PAGE 63

56 X w = {x E X (w 0 r Cx = Vo Proof. To prove the theorem, we will show that, with w = w 0 x 0 is an optimal solution to problem (3.17). Suppose in (3.19) that w= w 0 e W and that y = y 0 = Cx 0 where x 0 is an efficient solution for (3.16) given in the theorem. The dual linear program to (3.19) is then given by max-(y 0 ,u)-(b,z), C T AT er 0 s.t. u z = w u,z 0. From Theorem 3.3.1, x 0 is an optimal solution to (3.19) when w= w 0 and y = y 0 By the duality theory of linear programming (Murty 1983), since (u 0 r, zor) is an optimal solution to the linear programming dual of (3.19) when w = w 0 and y = y 0 this implies that (wo)r Cxo =-(yo,uo)-(b,zo). By rearranging this equation and using the definitions of y 0 and w 0 we obtain (w 0 f Cx 0 = -(b, z 0 ). With w = w 0 the dual linear program to (3.17) may be written as max-(b, z), A T cT-0 s.t. z = w z ~O. (3.20) (3.21a) (3.21b) (3.21c) Let z denote an arbitrary feasible solution to problem (3.21). From the definitions of u 0

PAGE 64

57 and w 0 this implie s that (u 0 r, zr ) is a feasible solution to the dual linear program of (3 19 ) Since (u 0 T, z 0 r ) is an optimal solution to the latter problem, it follow s that -(yo, u o) ( b, zo) ~ ( y o u o) ( b, z ) or equivalently -( b z 0 ) ( b z). Notice that since (u 0 r zor ) i s an optimal s olution to the dual linear program to ( 3 19 ) z 0 i s a feasible s oluti o n to ( 3.21 ). By the choice of z, the preceding two s tatements imply that z 0 is an optimal s olution to ( 3.21) Since x 0 is an efficient solution for (3 16 ) with w = w 0 x 0 i s a fea s ible s olution for ( 3.17 ). From ( 3.20) and the duality theory of linear programming ( Murty 1983 ) s ince z 0 is an optimal s olution to (3.21) this implies that, with w = w 0 x 0 i s an optimal s olution to ( 3 17 ), and the proof is complete Notice in Theorem 3 3 3 that, for any t > 0, X = = X 0 This implies that in tw w Theorem 3 3 3 when w 0 W there exist s a t E (0 1) such that tw 0 E W and X 0 = X 0 Thu s, in Theorem 3.3 3 when w 0 W X 0 has an alternate representation tl V lV lV X =o for which w 0 E W For s implicity we may and will assume without loss of I V generality that in Theorem 3. 3 3 w 0 E W. To generat e various p o ints y E Y ~ for u s e in problem (3.19) the heurist i c algorithm will rel y upon the two concepts defined in the next two definitions (s ee e.g., Zeleny 1982 ).

PAGE 65

58 Definition 3.3.1. The point y 1 E R P is called the ideal point of Y when, for each j = 1, 2, ... p, y equals the minimum value of y j over Y. Definition 3.3.2. The point yAI E R P is called the anti-ideal point of Y when, for each j = 1, 2 ... p y; 1 equals the maximum value of y j over Y. Notice that y~ and y; 1 generally do not belong to Y. The algorithm uses these two points as anchor point s in an initialization procedure whose goal is, in part to generate a dispersed sample of points from Y ~ The heuristic algorithm may be stated as follows. Algorithm 3 3.1 Efficient Point Search Heuristic Algorithm Initialization Phase. See Step s 1 through 5 below. Step 1. Find the ideal and anti-ideal points y 1 and yAI of Y. Step 2. Find an optimal solution l(x ) r ,a J E R n+ t to the linear program max a, a~O Step 3. Choose a positive integer S and, for each i = 1, 2, .. S, let Step 4. Choose a positive integer N such that 1 N M p + 1, let w 0 = e ER P, and, for each j = 1, 2, ... p define w 1 E R P by

PAGE 66

. w != I Step 5. Set UB = + 00 i = 0 and j = 0. 59 1, if i i= j, N, if i = j. Efficient Point Search Phase. See Steps 1 through 6 below. Step 1. Set y = y; and w = w i, and find any optimal solution x ii to linear program (3.19). Step 2. Set y = Cxij and w = w i in (3.19), and compute any optimal solution l(u ij f, ( zii f j to the dual linear program to (3.19), where u ii denotes the optimal dual variables corresponding to the constraints Cx y of (3.19). Step 3 Let w ij = u ii + w i. If w ij is a positive multiple of w i'i' for some i' i and j' j such that (i' j') i= (i, j ), then go to Step 6. Otherwise, continue. Step 4. Let v i} = (w ij f Cx ij. For each h = 1, 2, .. n, calculate a h according to the formula II ( ij) r k] a h = L c 'x LC h k= I t-1:k (3.22) .. and find any basic optimal solution x' 1 to the linear program min ( a ,x), (3.23a) (3.23b) Ax~b (3 23c) Step 5. If TI ( c k ,xii)~ UB go to Step 6. Otherwise set x = x ij, and UB = n (ck ,x), k=I k=I and go to Step 6.

PAGE 67

60 Step 6. Set j = j + 1 If j?. p go to Step 1 Otherwise, set i = i + 1 and j = 0. If i S go to Step 1. Otherwi s e, Stop : x E X E.ex is the recommended solution to the linear multiplicative programming problem. In the initialization pha s e of the algorithm s amples of points from Y ~ and from Ware generated. To g enerate the sample of points from Y ~ Step 2 of thi s phase determines the point y* between yA 1 and y 1 such that, of all line segments with endpoints yAJ and y that lie in Y ~ and for which y lies on the line segment connecting y AJ and y 1 the line s egment L connecting yAJ and y has maximum norm. The sample { y; i = 1 2, .. S} of points from Y ~ i s then generated in Step 3 of this phase by partitioning L into S line segments of equal length, where S is a positive integer chosen by the user In Step 4, a sample of p + 1 all integer vectors from W is generated, where for p of the s e vectors the value N of one of the components is chosen by the user from the set { I, 2, ... M p + I} Each iteration of the efficient point search phase of the heuristic executes two key operations. First, it identifies an efficient face X (J of X Second, unless this face has \\I .. been previously identified during an earlier execution of this phase, with w = w u in problem (3.18 ) by u s ing a first-order linear approximation to the objective function of this problem, it finds an extreme point xif of X in this efficient face that i s an approximate optimal solution to ( 3.18 ) Steps 1 thr o ugh 3 of the efficient point s earch phase of the algorithm identify an efficient face of X In Step 1 with y = y; E y > and w = w j E W, the linear program

PAGE 68

61 (3.19) is solved for any optimal solution x lj By Theorem 3.3.2, this optimal solution .. must exist and is an efficient solution for (3.16). In Steps 2 and 3, with y = Cx 1 and w = w 1 in (3.19 ), the dual linear program to (3.19) is solved to yield the vector uil E R P . . and the weighting vector w lj = u 1 + w 1 is computed. From Theorem 3.3.3, the face X w; 1 corresponding to this weighting vector is an efficient face for (3 .16) and contains x ii. Furthermore, from the same theorem, this face can be written as (3.24) where v ii = (w ii f Cx iJ. Step 3 checks whether or not X wu has been identified during a previous execution of this phase of the algorithm. If so, the algorithm proceeds to Step 6 to prepare for another possible iteration of the efficient point search phase of the heuristic. Otherwise control shifts to Steps 4-5. In Steps 4-5 of the efficient point search phase, problem (3.18) is approximately solved using a new efficient face X w as the feasible region. In particular, in Step 4, (3.22 ) is first used to construct the nonconstant portion of a first-order Taylor series linear approximation ( a,x ) of the objective function of problem (3.18) at x = x iJ E X wu Next, using the representation (3.24 ) of the efficient face X u an extreme point minimizer x ii w of (a, x ) over X \V ij is found by solving the linear program (3.23). Notice that x ii E X E,l! x .. (see Rockafellar 1970 ). In Step 5 the value achieved by x lj in the objective function of the linear multiplicative problem is compared to the smallest value UB found thus far for .. this objective function by the search. If x 1 achieves a smaller objective function value

PAGE 69

62 . than UB, xi) becomes the new incumbent solution x and UB is reduced in value accordingly. Notice that the perforrnance of the heuristic algorithm depends in part upon the number, locations and dimensions of the efficient faces (3 24) that are searched via problem (3.23). This, in tum, is partially dependent upon the sizes of the parameters S and N chosen by the user. The goa l is to search as many points of X E ex as possible by generating a variety of distinct efficient faces (3.24) of large dimensions that are dispersed widely throughout XE. Notice that, since each efficient face identified by the heuristic is given in the form (3.24) and searched by solving linear program (3.23), the individual points in X E e .x that are searched by the algorithm are searched implicitly rather than explicitly, i.e., they do not need to be explicitly enumerated. 3.4. Computational Results The heuristic a lgorithm described in Section 3.3 has the following attractive characteristics: (a) it can be implemented using only linear programming methods; (b) it generally implicitly searches many efficient extreme points of (3.16) at once by optimizing over entire efficient faces of (3.16), rather than by explicitly examining individual efficient extreme points of (3.16); ( c) it allows the user to manipulate the nature and extent of the efficient face search through the choices for the input parameters S and N; (d) it finds efficient faces of (3.16) by attempting to globally sample from a variety of regions of the efficient set.

PAGE 70

63 To evaluate the effectiveness in practice of the heuristic algorithm and its features, we have written a VS FORTRAN computer code for the algorithm and used it to solve 260 linear multiplicative programming problems of various sizes. To execute the code on these 260 problem s we used an IBM ES/9000 model 831 mainframe computer. As a further illustration of the effectiveness in practice of the heuristic algorithm we solved a multiple-object linear programming problem in forest management that was derived from a real decision situation using real data To implement Step 3 of the initialization phase of the algorithm, we chose to set S = 4, so that a sample of five points lying between yAJ and y 1 in Y ~ is always generated in this step. We used a value of N = 9 in Step 4 of the initialization phase to help generate the s ample of p + l points from W. To solve the linear programming problems called for by the heuristic, the computer code use s the simplex method procedures given in the subroutines of the Optimization Subroutine Library (International Business Machines 1990). These subroutines employ anticycling rules to handle degeneracy as needed. Therefore, they are especially appropriate for solving instances of problem (3.23), since these problems always contain degenerate extreme points Let and suppose that k is a positive integer. To generate the 260 test problems, we used the following random procedure First for each j = 1 2, ... p, we generated the elements of the vector ci E R n by randomly drawing elements from the set {1, 2, .. 10} Next, we

PAGE 71

64 generated a nonempty, compact polyhedral feasible region X k int R ;. This region can be written as X J R" P > 1 < < 1 2 } -1:XE x=q, =x i =q,J-, ... ,n, where P is a k x n matrix, q E R k, and CJ E R. To accomplish this, first the elements of P were generated by randomly choosing elements from the set { 1, 2, ... 10}. Next, for each i = 1, 2, ... k, the formula II qi= LP i j= I was used to calculate q ; and, finally, CJ was chosen according to the rule q = max {q ; ji = 1, 2, .. k }. Each test problem was constructed to belong to one of four categories, where a category is defmed by the number p of linear functions used in the objective function Ii ( c 1 x) of the test problem. The values p = 2, 3, 4, 5 were chosen to define these J = l categories. We chose these categories in this way because empirical evidence seems to indicate that the complexity of these problems is more sensitive to the magnitude of p than to the magnitudes of k or n (Kuna, Y ajima and Konno 1993). Within each category, the test problems were classified into subcategories of 10 problems, each defined by the values of the ordered pair (k, n). To help evaluate the attractiveness of the solutions found by the heuristic algorithm, we found a global optimal solution for each test problem by completely enumerating all of the efficient extreme points of the associated multiple-objective linear

PAGE 72

65 program (3.16). To accomplish this, we use the ADBASE computer code developed by Steuer (1983) Some stati s tic s summarizing the results of these computations are presented in Tables 3.1-3 4. In each table, each row gives average statistics for a subcategory (k, n) of 10 problems a measure of the worst case perfor111ance of the heuristic, and the number of problems in a category for which a global optimal solution was found. The first statistic is the average number of efficient extreme point s found by ADBASE in solving the problem s by complete enumeration. In some sense, the magnitudes of the s e numbers correspond to the average relative difficulties, by subcategory of each group of 10 linear multiplicative programs in a subcategory The s econd statistic is the average efficiency rating r given by r = 1 [( z H Z mi n )/( zmax Z min )], where z H i s the objective function value returned by the heuristic and where z min and Zmax are the global minimum and maximum values of the objective function of the test problem over the corre s ponding s et of efficient extreme points of (3.16). Thus 0 r 1 and the closer r i s to 1.0 the more attractive the value z H returned by the heuristic is relative to the actual g lobal minimum value zmin The third statistic given for each subcategory in the s e tables i s the average CPU time ( seconds) that the heuristic needed to solve a problem in the s ubcategory. The fourth statistic shows the lowest efficiency rating calculated for a problem in the subcategory It gives a measure of the wor s t case performance of the heuri s tic algorithm when applied to the 10 problems in a subcategory.

PAGE 73

66 Table 3 1 Computational Results : p = 2. Subcategory Avg No. Avg. Eff. Avg. Solutions Lowest Eff No. Exact k n Eff Points Rating r Time ( sec ) Rating r Solutions 25 20 28.8 1 000 0 227 1.000 10 25 30 2 8.8 1 000 0 241 1 000 10 30 40 4 7 9 1 000 0 389 1.000 10 40 30 2 8 2 1.000 0 328 1.000 10 40 50 47.0 0 999 0 504 0 996 8 50 40 3 5 1 0 999 0 453 0 999 9 50 60 29 2 1.000 0 556 1 000 10 60 70 62 3 1.000 1 070 1.000 10 The fifth statistic i s th e number of pr o blem s in a category for which the h e uristic algorithm found a global optimal solution. These four tables show that the solution s returned by the heuristic algorithm give, on the avera g e, quite accurate estimate s of the actual global minimum values for the 260 linear multiplicative te s t problems generated. This i s indicated by the fact that average efficiency rating s by s ubcategory always were a t least 0 920 and in approximately 96 % of the subcategories e x ceeded 0 950 It i s noteworthy that, for these problem s, these ratings r by s ubcategory do not s eem to decline s ignificantly as p, k, and n increase in Table 3.2. Computational Result s : p = 3. Subcategory A v g No. Eff. Avg Eff. Avg. Solutions Lowest Eff. No Exact k n E xt. Point s Rating r Time ( sec .) Rating r Solutions 25 20 33 0 6 0 985 0.321 0.951 4 25 3 0 896.8 0 960 0.469 0 708 5 30 40 873 3 0.987 0.543 0 884 7 40 30 949.3 0.993 0 609 0 968 6 40 50 2 0 7 3 7 0 920 0 967 0 806 4 50 40 1484 9 0 993 0 908 0 961 7 50 60 2846 3 0 995 1 298 0 978 6 60 70 5867.5 0.969 2.495 0.799 2

PAGE 74

67 Table 3.3. Computational Results: p = 4. Subcategory Avg. No. Eff. Avg Eff. Avg. Solutions Lowest Eff. No. Exact k n Ext Points Rating r Time (sec.) Rating r Solutions 25 20 2789.5 0 998 0 426 0.993 4 25 30 7245.9 0.992 0.598 0.945 5 30 40 23656 0.986 1 019 0.947 1 40 30 19034 0.978 0.998 0.923 2 40 50 50889 0.969 1.539 0.918 0 50 40 59443 0.969 1.587 0.843 2 50 50 83780 0.981 1.901 0.890 3 value. In addition, wjth the exception of one subcategory, a global optimal solution was found for at least one problem in each subcategory. The average solution times by subcategories shown in the four tables indicate that, for these test problems, the computational effort required by the heuristic was rather small. In fact these average times were always less than 2.50 seconds. In comparison to exact algorithms that have been used in test situations to globally solve linear multiplicative problems, these times are generally either at least as small or much smaller (see, e.g., Kuno Yajima, Konno 1993 and Ryoo and Sahinidjs 1996). Furthermore, in contrast to solution times for exact algorithms, these average solution times seem much less sensitive to increases in p n, k or to increases in the average number of efficient Table 3.4. Computational Results: p = 5. Subcategory Avg. No. Eff Avg. Eff. Avg. Solutions Lowest Eff. No. Exact k n Ext. Points Rating r Time t'sec.) Rating r Solutions 10 20 1331.4 0.993 0.353 0.941 5 20 10 527 1 0 .9 98 0.294 0.993 2 25 30 57115 0.995 0.962 0.992 2

PAGE 75

68 extreme points that exist in the corresponding problems (3.16); see Kuno, Yajima, Konno (1993) and Ryoo and Sahinidis, (1996). Finally, it is worth noting that we were able to apply the heuristic to much larger problems than those reported in Tables 3.1-3.4. However, the number of efficient extreme points in the associated multiple-objective linear programming problems (3.16) for these cases always exceeded 200,000. Since the ADBASE code cannot be used to find all of the efficient extreme points for such problems, we were unable to completely enumerate the sets of efficient extreme points to find zmin and r values for these problems. Thus, we are as yet not able to draw conclusions concerning the accuracy of the heuristic for any problems larger than those reported in Tables 3.1-3.4. To further illustrate the effectiveness in practice of the heuristic algorithm, we solved a real application problem in forest management that was studied in Steuer and Schuler (1978) as a multiple-objective linear programming problem. The problem involves the allocation of land and budget monies in a way that seeks to maximize objectives in timber production, hunting and cattle grazing in the Swan Creek subunit of the Mark Twain National Forest Steuer and Schuler (1978) provide actual data used to for1nulate their multiple-objective linear programming problem. The problem contains 31 decision variables, 5 linear objective functions, and 13 constraints. Our multiplicative programming problem was formed from this problem by multiplying the 5 linear objective functions together to form a single objective function. The heuristic was then used to search for an approximate solution that maximizes this single objective function subject to the constraints of the forest management multiple-objective linear programming problem.

PAGE 76

69 To help evaluate the attractivenes s of the solution found by the heuristic algorithm we found a global optimal solution by enumerating the 83 efficient extreme points of the as s ociated forest management multiple-objective linear program using the ADBASE computer code An efficiency rating of r = 0.999 was calculated using the slightly modified equation r = 1 [( zmax Z H )/( z max Z min )] since this multiplicative programming problem is a maximization problem rather than a minimization problem This efficiency rating indicates that the heuristic algorithm returned an attractive value zH relative to the actual global maximum value Zmax 3.5. Discussion The result s of this chapter imply that there are at least two ways to rewrite a concave multiplicative programming problem as a concave minimization problem. It f ol]ow s that concave minimization theory and methods can be used in these ways to analyze and s olve concave multiplicative programs. The results also imply that a concave multiplicative programming problem can be analyzed and solved directly without any reformulation, as a qua s iconcave minimization problem over a convex set Furthermore the analysis in the chapter implies that any concave multiplicative programming problem (P x ) with a compact feasible region has at least one optimal solution that is an efficient extreme point solution of the a s sociated multiple-objective mathematical programming problem ( 3.15 ). Therefore the opportunity exists for devising s olution methods for such problems (P x) that search am o ng the efficient extreme points of the associated multiple objective problem s ( 3 15 ) The c hapter proposes a heuristic algorithm that takes this

PAGE 77

70 approach for solving linear multiplicative programs. From the computational results presented for this heuristic algorithm, we conclude that its features and perfor1nance offer significant potential for conveniently finding very attractive solutions with relatively little computational effort to the various applications using linear multiplicative programming encountered in practice Thus, the theoretical and algorithmic results presented in this chapter offer some potential new avenues for more effectively analyzing and solving multiplicative programming problems of various types

PAGE 78

CHAPTER4 A GENERAL MULTIPLICATNE PROGRAMMING PROBLEM IN OUTCOME SPACE 4.1. Introduction Recall from Chapter 1 that the multiplicative programming problem is given by v x =min Ilt 1 (x),s.t xe X, J= l where p 2 is an integer, X is a nonempty set in Rn, and, for each j = 1, 2, ... p, J 1 : X R satisfies J 1 (x) > 0 for all x e X. For simplicity, we assume that the minimum v x in problem (Px) is achieved. For any x e R ", let J(x) denote the p-vector withjth entry equal to J 1 (x), j = 1, 2, ... p. Let ye RP denote the p-vector withjth entry equal to y 1 j = 1, 2, .. p. For each j = 1 2 . p, let S, 1 e R satisfy where y 1 = + 00 is possible, and ]et ye RP denote the vector withjth entry equal to y 1 j = 1, 2, ... p. Although various outcome-space reformulations of problem (Px) have been proposed for solution purposes, one of the most common reformulations is given by the problem v Y = min g(y), s.t. ye Y ~ 71

PAGE 79

72 where Y ~ = ~ E R P J(x)~y~ y for somexE X ], ( 4.1) and where for e ac h y E Y ~ g : Y ~ R is defined by ( 4.2 ) For example problem ( P Y ~ ) i s essentially the reformulation of problem ( P x ) used in the algorithm s of Ben s on ( 1998c ), Falk and Palocsay ( 1994 ) and Thoai (1991 ). Notice that since X is nonempty Y ~ i s a nonempty s et. By con s tructing appropriate global s olution algorithms for problem ( P Y ~ ), this problem provides us with the opportunity to solve problem ( P x) by working in the outcomes pace R P of the problem, rather than in the decision s pace R 11 which i s generally much larger than R P. In order to globally s olve problem ( P Y ~ ), it is important to understand the properties of the set Y ~ defined by ( 4.1 ) of the function g defined by ( 4.2 ), and of problem ( PY ~ ) itself. This chapter undertake s a mathematical analy s is of the outcome-space reformulation ( P y s ) of problem ( P x ). The analysi s is organized accordin g to whether or not the outcome -s pace problem s atisfies conditions for the general ca se, the convex case, or the polyhedral ca s e. For the g eneral ca s e we show for instance that globally s olving either problem ( P x) or problem ( P Y ~ ) e ss entially also globally solves the other problem, and that for any f e a s ible point y for problem ( P y s ), either g ( y ) < g( y ) for some y E Y ~ or y satisfies a c ondition that i s nece ss ary but not sufficient, for it to be a local optimal s olution for probl e m ( P Y ~ ). F o r the convex and polyhedral cases we s how s tronger

PAGE 80

73 results. For example we show for the convex case that any global optimal solution for problem (PY ~ ) must lie on the boundary of Y ~ that the objective function g in problem (P s ) is strictly pseudoconcave on Y ~ and, when Y ~ is closed and contains at least one Y extreme point, that problem (P Y~ ) has an extreme point global optimal solution. The analysis of the general case of problem (PY ~ ) is given in Section 4.2. Section 4.3 provides analytical results for both the convex and polyhedral cases of problem (PY ~ ). 4.2. Results for the General Case of Problem (Py f ) Notice under the assumptions made in Section 4.1 for problem (Px) that Y ~ is a nonempty subset of R : := { z E R P z > 0 }. When y s satisfies this condition, we obtain what we will call the general case of problem (PY ~ ). It is important to establish that by solving the general case outcome-space for1r1ulation (Py f ) of problem (Px ), a global optimal solution for problem (Px) can be recovered. The following result, by showing that problems (Px) and (Pr ~ ) are equivalent in a certain sense, immediately establishes this fact. Theorem 4.2.1. (a) If x is a global optimal solution for problem (Px ), then y = J(x) is a global optimal solution for problem (Pr ~ ). Further1nore, v >' = v x (b) Problem (P Y~ ) has at least one global optimal solution Further1nore, if y* is a global optimal solution for problem (Pr ~ ), then any x* E X such that J(x )~ y is a global optimal solution for problem (Px ).

PAGE 81

74 Proof. (a) Let x be a global optimal solution for problem (Px ) and set y = J(x ). From (4.1) and (4.2) this implies that y* E Y ~ and that Therefore, v Y ~v x If g(y)< v x were to hold for some yE Y~, then, from (4.1) and (4.2), there would exist an x E X such that 0< I11 j (x)~g(y)< v x j= I which contradicts the definition of v x Therefore, g(y )~ v x for all y E Y ~ This implies th > s. < ( ) d y ~ C ll th ( ) d at v Y = v x mce v Y = v x g y an y E 1t 10 ows at v Y -vx g y an y 1s a global optimal solution for problem (PY ~ ). (b) By assumption, we may choose a global optimal solution for problem (Px ). From part (a), this implies that problem (Pr ~ ) has at least one global optimal solution. Suppose that y is a global optimal solution for problem (Pr ~ ). Since y E f f (4.1) implies that we may choose an arbitrary x E X such that J(x )~ y Then, from ( 4.2), since O < f (x ), Since x E X and y is a global optimal solution for problem (Pr ~ ), this implies that V x 11 f j (x )~V y (4.3) j= I

PAGE 82

75 From part (a ) v -" = v x By (4 3 ), this implies that Ii f j (x )= v x Since x E X it follows }= 1 that x is a global optimal solution for problem (Px ). Suppose in the general case of problem ( Pr ~ ) that a point y E f ~ has been generated For algorithmic purposes, it may be valuable to have a tool for finding an alternate point y E f ~ that sati s fies g(y) < g( y ), if such a point exists. The next result gives an idea for potentially helping to create such a tool. To prove this re s ult we need the following lemma. This lemma will also be u s eful in proving several other results later in this chapter. Lemma 4.2 1. A ss ume that y E f ~. Then for any y E Y ~ (1 / p ) ( V g(y) y) = g(y)(1 / p )f (y j /y j ), J= I and g ( y )(l / p )f (y l /yj ) ~ g (y)[g(y )/ g(y)]l /p }= 1 with equality holding in the latter relationship iff, for some constant M > 0 y 1 = M y 1 j=l,2 ... ,p Proof Choo se an arbitrary point y E Y < Suppose that yE Y ~ Then by ( 4 2 ) since Y ~ R : g ( y ) > 0. By definition of g, (1 / p) ( Vg( y ) y )= (l / p)f ITYk J }= I k~j

PAGE 83

76 (4.4) Since (1/ p )'?:.0, (y i /y 1 )> 0 for each j = 1, 2, . p, and p(l/ p) = 1, the arithmeticgeometric mean inequality (Duffin, Peterson, and 2.ener 1967) implies that j= l with equality holding iff for some constant M > 0, y i = M yi for each j = 1, 2, ... p. Together with (4.4), since g(y)'?:_O, this implies the desired results. Theorem 4.2.2. Assume that y E y s If 1. o > in~ (1/ p) t (y j / y j ) JE Y j =I (4 5) then g(y )< g(y) for some yE y s In particular, if y achieves the infimum in (4.5), then g(y)< g(y). Proof Suppose that y E y < If ( 4.5) holds, then for some y E Y ~ 1. o > ( 1/ p) t (y j / y j ) (4.6) j= l Since g(y) > 0, this implies that g(y) > g(y)(l/ P )t (Y1 /Yi). (4.7) }= 1 From Lemma 4.2.1, since y E Y ~ we know that g(y )(1/ p )t (yi /yi )~ g(y)[g(y)/ g(y)]' I P_ (4.8) j= I Since g(y) > 0, together (4.7) and (4.8) imply that

PAGE 84

77 1.0 > [g(y)/ g(y)]l/p. Because g (y) > 0, this implies that g (y) < g (y). The ref ore, g (y) < g (y) for some y E ys. Since, for any point y that achieves the infimum in ( 4.5), ( 4.6) is also satisfied, the argument above also implies that if y achieves the infimum in (4.5), then g(y)< g(y). Notice that when y E Y ~ the infimum in ( 4 5) is either less than 1.0 or equal to 1.0. From Theorem 4.2.2, when this infimum is less than 1.0, a point y in y s such that g(y) < g(y) exists. In particular, in this case y is not a global optimal solution for problem (PY ~ ). The next result covers the case when the infimum in (4.5) equals 1.0. Theorem 4.2.3. Assume that y E Y ~ If (4.9) then y is an optimal solution to vd =min(Vg(y),y-y), ye Y ~ (4.10) Proof From ( 4.9), since y E Y ~ the infimum in ( 4.9) is achieved at y = y. By Lemma 4 2.1, since g(y) is a positive constant, tbjs implies that y also mjnimizes (1/ p )(V g(y), y) over y s Since (1/ p) is a positive constant and -(V g(y), y) is a constant, it is easy to see that this implies that y is an optimal solution to ( 4.10) and

PAGE 85

78 A point y E y s is a local optimal solution for problem (PY ~ ) when there exists an > 0 such that for each yE Y ~ for which llyy ~, g(y )~ g(y). From Theorem 4.2.3, when y E y and ( 4.9 ) hold s, then for any y E y s if there is a o > 0 such that d := (y y ) sati s fies y + Ad E Y ~ for all A such that O < A~ o, the directional derivative of g at y in the direction d will be nonnegative i.e ( Vg(y),d)~O. From Bazaraa, Sherali and Shetty ( 1993), thi s is a necessary but not sufficient condition for y to be a local (or global ) optimal s olution for problem (PY ~ ). 4.3. Results for Convex and Polyhedral Cases of Problem (PY ~ ) When y s in addition to being a nonempty subset of R:, is a convex set, then we obtain what we will call the convex case of problem (Pr ~ ). Similarly, when y s in addition to being a nonempty subset of R : is a polyhedron, then we obtain what we will call the polyhedral ca s e of problem ( Pr ~ ) Each of these types of outcome-space versions of problem ( P x ) arise s from a broad class of decision space problems, as s hown by the next result. Theorem 4 3 1 When X is a convex set and, for each j = 1, 2, ... p, f j i s a convex function on X we obtain the convex case of problem ( PY ~ ). When X i s a polyhedron and, for each j = I 2 .. p f j is linear on R ", we obtain the polyhedral case of problem ( P y s ). Proof A ss ume in addition to the assumptions made in Section 4.1 on X and on f j j = 1, 2 .. p that X i s a convex set and that, for each j = 1 2 ... p f j is a

PAGE 86

79 convex function on X. We will show that y < is a convex set. Choose any y 1 y 2 E Y~. From (4.1), since y 1 y 2 E y s, we may choose x 1 x 2 E X such that fj (x 1 )~ y 1 and J j (x 2 )~y 2 }=1,2, ... p. Suppose that le Rand O~l~l. Then,since A~O and (1-l)~O, for each }=1,2, ... ,p, l 1 (x 1 )+ (1l )Jj (x 2 )~;., y 1 + (1l )y 2 By the convexity of f j j = 1, 2, ... p, on the convex set X, if we set x = Ax 1 + (1A )x 2 then XE X, and, for each j = 1, 2 . p, ( 4.11) (4.12) ( 4.13) From(4 ll)-(4.13 ), J(x)~ly 1 +(I-l)y 2 where .xE X .Since y 1 ,y 2 E y s, y; ~Y holds for each i = 1, 2. As a result, since A, (1A)~ 0, A y 1 + {1A )y 2 y The conditions for A y 1 + (1-A )y 2 to belong to Y ~ are thus satisfied. By the choices of y 1 y 2 and A, this implies that Y is a convex set. Now suppose, in addition to the assumptions made in Section 4. I on X and on fj, j = 1, 2 ... p that X is a polyhedron and that, for each j = 1, 2, ... p, fj is a linear function on R n We will show that Y ~ is a polyhedron By definition, since X is a polyhedron, there exists a finite number q of linear functions g 1 j = 1, 2, ... q, on Rn, and real numbers b j, j = 1, 2, .. q, such that X = {xE R n g j (x)~b j, j = 1, 2, ... ,q}.

PAGE 87

80 Let Z R n+p be defined as th e se t of all s olutions ( x, y ) to the system of linear inequalities ( 4.14 ) ( 4.16 ) given by )=1,2, ... ,p, ( 4.14 ) j = 1, 2, ... p, ( 4 15 ) gj(x ) < b = J' j = 1 2, ... q. ( 4.16 ) Then by definition Z i s a polyhedron in R "+P Let A be the p x (n + p) matrix whose first n columns each equal O E R P and whose last p columns together form the p x p identity matrix. Then from (4 1 ) and the definition of Z, Y = AZ From Rockafellar (1970, Theorem 19.3 ), Y ~ i s a polyhedron in R P. In convex cases of problem (PY ~ ) ( and thus, in polyhedral cases as well ) certain locations within y s for s eeking global optimal solutions can be specified. For instance we have the following re s ult Theorem 4.3.2. Suppose that problem ( P r ~ ) satisfies the conditions for the convex case. Then: (a) Any g lobal optimal so lution for problem (Py s ) belongs to the boundary of r s. (b) If y s is closed and contains at lea s t one extreme point, then there exists at least one global optimal solution for problem ( P y s ) that is an extreme point of y s Proof. A ss ume that y s in addition to being a nonempty subset of R :, is a convex set, i .e., that we have th e convex case for problem (Pr ~ ) Then from Theorem 4 .2. 1, problem ( P Y ~ ) has at lea s t one global optimal solution.

PAGE 88

81 (a) To show this part of the theorem let y denote an arbitrary global optimal solution to problem (Pr f ). Suppose that y is not on the boundary of Y $. By the choice of y and since Y ~ i s a convex set, y s has a nonempty interior. Therefore y must belong to the interior of Y ~ From ( 4.1), thi s implies that for some xE X, f(x)< y must hold. By assumption, since x EX, J(x)> 0. Therefore, if we set y = f(x), it follows that y E Y ~ and From (4.2), this contradicts the global optimality of y in problem (Py f ). Therefore y* must belong to the boundary of y s (b) From the discussion in Section 3.2 s ince Y ~ is a nonempty convex set and, for each j = 1 2, ... p, the function h i ( y) = y i is positive and concave on Y ~, the global optimal s olution se t for problem ( Pr f ) is identical to the global optimal solution set for the problem where for each y E Y ~ g : Y ~ R is the concave function defined by 1/p Since y s is a nonempty clo se d convex set with at least one extreme point from Rockafellar ( 1970 Corollary 18.5.3), it is easy to see that Y ~ can contain no lines ,.. Further1nore s ince problem ( P rf) has at least one global optimal solution problem ( P rs)

PAGE 89

82 also bas at least one global optimal solution. By Rockafellar (1970, Corollary 32.3 1), since g is a concave function on Y s; the latter two statements imply that problem (PY~) has at least one global optimal solution y that is an extreme point of Y ~ Because the optimal solution sets of problems (Pr ~ ) and (PY ~ ) coincide, this completes the proof. Suppose that Y ~ is a nonempty, closed convex subset of R !, and that y f contains at least one extreme point. Then, from Theorem 4 3.2, there will exist at least one global optimal solution for problem (PY ~ ) that is an extreme point of Y ~ and all global optimal solutions for problem (Pr ~ ) will lie on the boundary of Y ~ Neither of these properties however is necessarily shared by the decision set-based problem (Px) whose outcome-space reformulation yields problem (PY ~ ). The following example demonstrates this and in problem ( P x ). Then X is a nonempty, convex set and for each i = l, 2, / ; is a convex, positively -va lu e d function on X Therefore, by Theorem 4.3.1, the problem (Pr ~ ) obtained by formulating the outcome-space version of problem (Px) is guaranteed to satisfy the conditions of the convex case for problem (PY ~ )Furthermore, it is not difficult to show in this case, that Y ~ is compact. Thus, Y s; is closed and contains at

PAGE 90

83 least one extreme point. It is easy to see that the unique global optimal solution to problem (P r~ ) is (y f = (1, 1) which, as guaranteed by Theorem 4.3.2, is an extreme point of y s (and is thus on the boundary of Y ~ ). On the other hand, the only global optimal solution to problem (P x ) is (x f = (1, 2 ), yet x is neither on the boundary of X nor is it an extreme point of X. To present the next result, we need to define two types of functions. Definition 4.3.1. Let Z R 11 be a nonempty convex set, and let h: Z R. The function h is said to be guasiconcave on Z when for each z', z 2 e Z and A e R such that o
PAGE 91

84 Theorem 4.3.3. Suppose that problem (P Y~ ) satisfies the conditions for the convex case. Then, in this problem, g is a strictly pseudoconcave function over the convex set y < Proof. The set y < is a convex set by definition of the convex case for problem (PY ~ ). To show that g is strictly pseudoconcave over Y ~ notice first that by ( 4.2), g can be considered to be well defined over the open set R:. Also notice that g is differentiable over R : and, thus over Y ~ k R : Suppose now that y 1 and y 2 are distinct points in Y ~ that satisfy (v g(y 1 ), y 2 y 1 ) 0 Then from ( 4.2), we obtain o ~( v g ( y1 ), y2 Y 1) = f IJ y~ y ; -y!) k = I j'#-k =t k= l j= I By multiplying both sides of ( 4 17 ) by (1 / p) and rearranging, we obtain that g ( y ) ~ g(yl )( 1 / P )t (y ; / Y! ). k= l From Lemma 4.2.1 ( 4.17) ( 4.18 ) ( 4.19)

PAGE 92

85 with equality holding iff, for some M > 0, y; =MY!, k = 1, 2, ... p. There are two cases to consider. Case (i): There is no M > 0 such that Yi =MY!, k = 1, 2, ... p. Then, in ( 4.19), strict inequality holds, so that from ( 4.18) and ( 4.19), Since g(y')>O, this implies that g(y 2 )< g(y 1 ). Case (ii): For some M > 0, Yi= MY!, k = 1, 2, . p. If we choose such an M, then (4.19) holds as an equality. Thus, from (4.19) and the choice of M, we obtain that 1/p g(yl )(1/ p )L (y; I Y! )= g(yl )~(y 2 )/ g(yl )] (4.20) k= l and that (4.21) respectively. Since g(y 1 )> 0, together (4.18), (4.20) and (4.21) imply that Dividing through by g(y 1 )> 0 yields M ~1. Notice that M "I= 1, since, by assumption, y 1 and y 2 are distinct. Therefore M < 1. By (4.21), since g(y 1 ), g(y 2 )> 0, this implies that g(y 2 )< g(y 1 ), and the proof is complete. Remark 4.3 1. Theorem 4 3.3 justifies and strengthens the claim of Sniedovich and Findlay (1995, p. 317) that when Y ~ is a convex subset of R!, g : Y ~ R defined by ( 4.2) is differentiable and pseudoconcave on Y ~

PAGE 93

86 From Theorem 4.3.3, in the convex case, problem (Pr ~ ) is a global optimization problem involving the minimization of a strictly pseudoconcave function over a convex set Y ~ Therefore, as in the general case, multiple local optimal solutions for problem (P s ) will generally exist that are not globally optimal. Y From Theorem 3 2.1, we know that when Y ~ is a nonempty, convex subset of R:, the function g: Y ~ R defined, as in the proof of Theorem 4.3.2, by g(y) = [g(y )]1 /p (4.22) is concave where g : f ~ R is given by (2). By the next result, when the domain of g is restricted to an appropriate subset of Y ~, a stronger statement can be made. Theorem 4.3.4. Assume that Y ~ is a nonempty, compact, convex subset of R:. For any ae RP and beR such that a>O and b>O, let Z(a,b)=Y ~ n {yeR P( a,y)=b}. Then g: Z(a,b) R defined for each ye Z(a,b) by (4.22) is a strictly concave function for any a e RP and be R such that a > 0 and b > 0. Proof. Assume that y 1 y 2 e Z(a,b) and y 1 -:t y 2 where ae RP, be R, a> 0, and b > 0. Since Z(a,b) is an intersection of two convex sets, it is itself a convex set. Therefore, if we choo s e A e R such that O < A < 1 then z :=Ay 1 +(1-A)y 2 e Z(a,b). Also, by (2) and ( 4.22 ), 1 /p g(z)= IT [;t, y~ + (1-A )y ~ ] (4.23) j= I From Polya and Szego (1972),

PAGE 94

87 p 1 /p p fI [1 y~ + (1-A)y ~ ] AFIJ y~ I / p p + (1-1)"IJy } 1 / p (4.24) j = l j= I j=l with equality holding iff A y~ = K(1-A )y ~, j = 1, 2, .. p, for some positive constant K. Since and 1/p = (1-A )g(y 2 ), (4.23) and (4.24) will imply the desired result if we can show that no K > 0 exists such that A y~ = K(l A )y ~, j = l, 2, ... p. (4.25) Notice that since y 1 =Iy 2 K ;. := [1 / (1A)] does not satisfy ( 4.25). Suppose, to the contrary that for some K > 0, (4.25) is satisfied. Then from ( 4.25) it follows that y' = K[(1-1)/1]y 2 (4.26) Since y 1 y 2 E Z(a,b ), (4.27) Substituting for y 1 in ( 4.27) via ( 4 26), we obtain K[(l A)/ A]( a, y 2 ) = ( a, y 2 ) = b.

PAGE 95

88 Solving here for K, we obtain that K = [i/(1A)]. Since K = K.,. = [i/(1A)] does not satisfy ( 4.25), this contradiction concludes the proof. It is important to notice that the counterpart of Theorem 4.3.4 in the decision space does not hold, even in the polyhedral case. In particular, suppose that X k R n is a nonempty, compact polyhedron and, for each j = 1, 2, ... p, that there exists a c i e Rn such that J i (x) = ( c i, x) > 0 for all x e X. Then, although the function h : X R defined for each x e X by 1 /p p h(x)= I1 (ci' x) j=1 is concave (see Theorem 3.2.1), the function h: X(a,b ) R need not be strictly concave, where a e R P, be R a> 0, b > 0, and X (a b) = x e X f a i ( c 1 x) = b j=l The foil owing example illustrates this observation. Example 4.3.2. Let (4.28) and let J i (x 1 x 2 ) = ( (1, 1 ), (x,, x 2 )), j = 1, 2. Then X is a nonempty, compact polyhedron and, for each j = 1 2, Ji is po s itive and linear on X As guaranteed by Theorem 3.2 1, h: X R, which by ( 4.28 ), i s given by

PAGE 96

89 is concave However, if for example, a 1 = a 2 = 1 and b = 4, then h is not strictly concave on Con s ider now problem ( Py ~ ) when the conditions of the polyhedral case hold Assume also that Y ~ i s a compact set and that y E Y ~ For algorithmic purposes, it may be quite useful in thi s case to develop tools for finding local optimal s olutions for problem ( P r ~ ). The s e tools could then potentially be used to construct global s olution algorithms for the problem that repeatedly move from a local optimal solution to an improved local optimal solution until a global optimal solution is found. The remaining results in thi s section are motivated in part by the de s ire to find such tool s. Notice th a t in the polyhedral case the optimization problem in (9 ) i s a linear program given by p ( LP ) min (1 / p )L ( y j /y j ) s t. y E Y ~ j= I Problem ( LP ) will have an optimal solution y* that can be found, for instance by the simplex method Since y E y < the minimum value vmin in problem (LP ) sati s fies vmin 1.0. As a result, ther e are three pos s ible ca s es for problem (LP). First, vmin < 1.0 may hold. Second vmin = 1.0 may hold with y being the unique optimal solution to problem ( LP). Third vmin = 1 0 may hold, with problem ( LP ) having multiple optimal solutions In the fir s t case from Theorem 4 2 2 it follow s that g ( y ) < g( y ) wher e y* i s any optimal solution t o problem ( LP ), so that a more attractive feasible s olution y to

PAGE 97

90 problem (Pr ~ ) than y has been found. To analyze the second case, we need the following two definitions and lemma. Definition 4 3 3. A point y E Y ~ is a strict local optimal solution for problem (PY ~ ) when there exists an E > 0 such that for each y E y s for which y y and y y < e, g(y )> g(y). Definition 4.3.4. Let Z be a nonempty convex set in Rn, and let h: Z R The function h is said to be strongly quasiconcave on Z when for each z 1 z 2 E Z with z' z 2 we have for each A such that O
PAGE 98

91 and that y = y i s th e unique optimal s olution to problem ( LP ) Then y i s a strict local optimal solution f o r problem ( P r i ). Proof Sinc e g ( y ) > 0 and y = y i s the unique optimal solution to the problem y = y must al s o be the unique optimal solution to the problem p mi~ g ( y ) (1 / p) L ( y j I y j ) } eY J = I Therefore, by Lemm a 4 2.1, y = y i s the unique optimal solution to the problem min(l / p ) ( V g( y ), y) yeY 1 Since (1 / p) > 0 a nd ( V g ( y ) y) i s a con s tant thi s implies that y = y i s the unique optimal solutjon to th e problem min ( V g ( y ) y y). y eY ~ ( 4.29 ) Therefore the optimal value of problem ( 4.29 ) i s 0 and for all ye Y ~ s u c h that y :;:. y, ( V g ( y ), yy) > 0 ( 4 30 ) Let d 1 d 2 . d k repre s ent th e directions of the edges of y s emanating from the extreme point y o ff & From ( 4 30 ), for all i = 1 2 ... k. By Theor e m 4.1.2 in B az araa Sherali, and Shetty ( 1993 ) this implies that there exi s t po s iti ve real s 8 ; i = l 2 ... k s uch that ( 4.31)

PAGE 99

92 for each A ; E (o, o j ) Let 8 = 1 / 2 min { o i l i = l 2, ... k }, and consider the points y and &l l &l 2 &l k y+ y+ .. y+ Then by definition of 8 and (4. 31 ), g ( y +&Ji)> g(y) ( 4.32) for each i = 1 2, . k. Let z be any element of the convex hull of y, y + &1 ;, i = 1 2, ... k such that z :t y and, for each i = 1 2, ... k, z :t y +&J i. Since g is a strictly pseudoconcave function on Y ~ it is al s o a strongly quasiconcave function on Y ~ (Bazaraa, Sherali Shetty 1993 ). As a result by Lemma 4.3.1, g(z ) > min {g( y1 g(y +&Li), i = 1, 2, .. ,k }. ( 4.33 ) From (4.32) and ( 4 33 ), g(z)> g(y). Since 8 > 0, this implies that there exists an e > 0 sufficiently small so that if ZE Y s lz y <, and z :t y, then g(z)> g(y). Under the assumptions of Theorem 4.3.5 if vmin = 1.0 but y = y i s one of two or more optimal solutions to problem ( LP ), then y need not be a strict local optimal solution for problem ( P r ~ ). The following example illustrates this point. Example 4.3 3. Let and let yr= (4, 4 f. Then y < i s a nonempty compact polyhedron in R ; and the assumptions of Theor e m 4 .3. 5 are s atisfied In this case, y E y s and y i s an optimal solution to problem ( LP). However, since (y 8 ) = (4+ 8 4-of E y s and g(y 8 )< g(y) for all values of 8 such that O < 8 3, by Definition 4.3.3, y is not a strict local optimal

PAGE 100

93 solution for problem (Pr s ). (In fact, y is not even a local optimal solution for problem (Py f ). ) Notice that problem (LP) in this case has multiple optimal solutions. In the third case of problem (LP), vmin = 1.0 and problem (LP) has multiple optimal solutions. In this case, by the next result, as in the first case, an improved feasible solution for problem (Pr s ) is at hand. The proof of this result relies crucially on Theorem 4.3.4. Theorem 4.3.6. Assume that problem (Pr f ) satisfies the conditions for the polyhedral case, and that Y ~ is compact. Suppose that y is an optimal solution for problem (LP), and suppose that problem (LP) has multiple optimal solutions. Then, for any y :;= y that is an optimal solution for problem (LP), g(y )< g(y) must hold. Proof. Let y :;= y be an optimal solution to problem (LP) Then, since g(y)> 0, y is also an optimal solution for the problem p min g(y) (1/ p )L (y j /yj ), s.t. y E Y ~ j=I By Lemma 4.2.1, since y E y s this implies that y is an optimal solution to the problem min (1/ p )(V g(y ), y ), s.t. y E Y ~ Since (1/ p )(V g (y ), y) is a fixed number, it follows that y is an optimal solution to the problem min (1/ p )(V g(y), yy), s.t. y E Y ~ (4.34) By assumption, y is an optimal solution for problem (LP). Therefore, the optimal value of problem (LP) equals 1.0. From Theorem 4.2.3, this implies that the optimal value of

PAGE 101

94 problem (4.34) equals 0. As a result, since y* is an optimal solution for problem (4.34), (v g(y), y y) = 0. By the choice of y*, it follows that y*(LP)k{ye Yj(Vg(y),y-y)=o}, (4.35) where y (LP) denotes the optimal solution set for problem (LP) From Theorem 4.3.4, since V g(y) > 0 and (V g(y), y) > 0, the function g defined by (4.22) over the set y := (y ~ n {ye RP (V g(y), y) = (V g(y), y) }) is strictly concave. Notice, in addition, that g is differentiable on Rt. By ( 4.35), y and y* both belong to r. From Bazaraa, Sherali, and Shetty (1993), since y* :t y, the latter three sentences together imply that From (2) and ( 4.22), this implies that ~(y )]1 /p < [g(y)]l /p + (1/ p )i:k(y)l / p /yj](y; yj) j = I = [g(y)]l / p + k(y)l / p Ip ]t[(y;yj)/yj] j = I = [g(y)]l /p + [g(y)][ ( 1 p)/p](1/ P )(v g(y), y Y) ( _)l / p = g y where the last equation follows from the fact that y e y. As a result, g (y ) < g (y). Remark 4.3.2. Suppose that problem (Pr ~ ) satisfies the conditions for the polyhedral case and that Y 5: is compact. Then, by using Theorem 4.3.6 and the discussion preceding it, a

PAGE 102

95 finite guaranteed method can be described for finding a strict local optimal extreme point solution for problem ( PY ~ ) For instance, one such method is as follows Algorithm 4.3 1. Strict Local Optimal Extreme Point Solution Search Initialization Step. Find an initial extreme point y of Y ~ Step 1. Find the optimal value vmin for linear program (LP). If vmin < 1.0, go to Step 2. If vmin = 1.0 go to Step 3. Step 2. Find any optimal extreme point solution y for problem (LP). Set y = y and return to Step 1. Step 3. If y i s the unique optimal solution for problem (LP), then stop: The point y is a strict local optimal solution for problem ( Py ~ ) If problem (LP) has multiple optimal solution s, then continue. Step 4. Find any optimal extreme point solution y "# y for problem (LP). Set y = y and return to Step 1 The method is finite because Y ~ must have a finite number of extreme points. The methods of Ben s on ( 1998d ) and Benson and Sun ( 1998) can be shown to be suitable for executing the initialization step and for solving the linear program (LP) in Steps 1, 2 and 4. Notice that the counterpart to this method for the decision set-based problem (Px) is not guaranteed to succeed This is shown by the following example. Example 4.3.4. Let X = {(x 1 ,x 2 )r E R 2 0 5~x 1 x 2 ~3.0, x 1 + x 2 ~2.0], and, for each x E R 2 let

PAGE 103

96 J 1 ( x )=x 1 +x 2 J 2 (x) = 4x 1 +4x 2 Then X is a nonempty, compact polyhedron, and, for each j = l 2 J i ( x ) is a linear function with po s itiv e values for all x EX If we generate the initial extreme point (x 1 f = (1 5, 0 5) of X for example then the linear program 2 min (1 / 2 )L [r i ( x ) / J i (x )] s.t. x E X j=I has optimal value 1 0 and it ha s exactly two extreme point optimal solution s These are x 1 and (x 2 r = (0 5 l 5) Sin c e f j ( x 1 )= f j ( x 2 ), j = l 2 the counterpart procedure to the above method w o uld in thi s case cycle without tennination between g enerating the extreme point x 1 and generating the extreme point x 2 Neither of these extreme points is a strict local optimal s olution for problem (P x ), where the definition of a s trict local optimal s olution x f o r probl e m ( P x) i s g iven by Definition 4.3.3 with x, X ( P x ), x and IT1 i repla c in g y, Y ~, ( P r~ ), y and g, re s pectively j = I 4.4. Discussion The analy s i s o f the out c omes pace problem fortnulation ( P r i ) of the multiplicative programming problem ( P x) yield s s everal results. The key o ne s are a s follows. First sin ce globally s olving problem ( P r i ) al s o essentially globally s olves problem ( P x), and s in c e Y ~ ge nerally lie s in a significantly smaller space than X there could be great comput a tional ga in to b e d e rived by con s tructing global opt i mization

PAGE 104

97 algorithms for problem (Px) that work directly 011 problem (Py ~ ) instead of on problem (Px). Second, the potential to create global solution algorithms for problem (Pr ~ ) is quite high. For instance, in the convex case where Y ~ is closed and has at least one extreme point, the analysis has shown that problem (PY ~ ) possesses at least one global optimal solution that is an extreme point of Y ~ This result could potentially allow researchers to create algorithms for solving problem (PY ~ ) that concentrate on searching among the extreme points of y < in ways similar to those used in existing global optimization algorithms for other non convex programming problems (Horst and Tuy 1993). Third, it appears potentially possible to construct global solution algorithms for problem (PY ~ ) that are based, at least in part, upon local optimal solution searches. Indeed, the analysis shows, for example, the potential to create search mechanisms for finding strict local optimal solutions for problem (Pr ~ ) in the polyhedral case if Y ~ is bounded Combined with ideas from global optimization such as relief indicator functions or cutting planes (Horst and Tuy 1993), this suggests that global solution algorithms for problem (PY ~ ) might be possible wherein successive local optimal solutions of smaller and smaller objective function values are found until a global optimal solution is found and the search tenninates.

PAGE 105

CHAPTERS AN OUTCOME-SPACE CUTTING-PLANE ALGORITHM FOR LINEAR MULTIPLICATIVE PROGRAMMING 5.1. Introduction The linear multiplicative programming problem may be written p ( P x) minf(x) = Il ( c j, x ), s.t. xeX, j=l where X k R n i s a nonempty compact polyhedron p 2 is an integer, and for each j=l,2 .. p c jE R n s ati s fie s (cj ,x )> O for all X E X. For each j = l 2 ... p let y j E R sati s fy and let y E R P denote the vector with jth entry equal to y j j = 1 2, ... p Let C denote the p x n matrix who s e jth row equal s c;, j = 1 2 ... p. Recall from Chapter 1 that one of the more direct reformulation s of problem ( P x) as an outcome-space problem is given by ( P r ~ ) min g ( y )= Ii yj, s .t y E y s, j=l where Y ~ = { y E R P C x y y for some x E X }. Closely related to this refor1r1ulation i s the problem 98

PAGE 106

99 p (Py) min g(y )= IJ yi, s.t. ye Y, j= I where Y={ye R P y=Cx forsomexe xJ. In this chapter we develop an outcome -s pace, cutting-plane algorithm for globally solving the linear multiplicative programming problem (Px ). To accomplish this, we use the framework of a pure cutting plane, decision set-based concave minimization method of Horst and Tuy ( 1993, pp 175-184). We show how to adapt this method to solving the outcome-space formulation ( P Y ~ ) of problem (Px) for a global, extreme point optimal solution. Because p i s almo s t always smaller than n, often by several orders of magnitude, we expect that potentially considerable computational savings could be obtained by using the new outcome-space, pure cutting plane algorithm in s tead of a decision set-based approach. As a further computational enhancement, we also show that for purposes of implementation, the mechanics of the outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm can be applied to the s maller problem ( Pr) instead of to problem (PY ~ ). The next sec tion gives so me theoretical prerequisites that will help to present and justify the steps of the new algorithm. The new outcome-space, pure cutting plane algorithm for globally so lving problem ( P x) is presented and analyzed in Section 5 3. Section 5 4 shows that to further enhance computational efficiency, in practice the new algorithm can b e applied to the outcome-space reformulation (Py) instead of to problem ( PY ~ ). A sample problem is globally so lved with the new algorithm in Section 5 5, and some concluding remarks are g iven in the la s t section.

PAGE 107

100 5.2. Theoretical Prerequisites The outcome-space algorithm uses extreme point search and cutting planes to find a global optimal extreme point sol ution to problem (Pr ~ ) From this solution, a global optimal extreme point solution to the original multiplicative programming problem (Px) can be easily recovered, as we shall see. The approach of the new algorithm relies on several theoretical results. In this section, we review or develop the necessary results of this type. The theoretical prerequisites concern problems (Px) and (Pr ~ ) and their relationships to one another. Before presenting these prerequisites, we must give some preliminary definitions. Definition 5.2.1 Let W be an open set in R n that contains Z ~Rn, and let h: W R. The function h is called strictly pseudoconcave over Z when h is differentiable over Z and, for each pair of distinct points z 1 z 2 E Z, if (Vh(z 1 ), z 2 z 1 ) 0, then h(z 2 )< h(z 1 ). From Bazaraa, Sherali, and Shetty (1993), a strictly pseudoconcave function h: Z R defined over a convex set Z is both pseudoconcave and quasiconcave over Z. The converse to this statement, however, is not true. For details, see Bazaraa, Sherali, and Shetty (1993). Definition 5.2.2. (Bazaraa, Sherali, and Shetty 1993). A point y E Y~ is called a strict local optimal solution for problem (Pr ~ ) when there exists an > 0 such that for each y E Y$ for which y :t= y and yyj < g(y) > g(y). Each of the next five results either is taken directly from or follows easily from results in Chapters 3 and 4. For each result, the appropriate reference is given.

PAGE 108

101 Proposition 5.2.1 (Theorem 4.3.1). The feasible region Y ~ for problem (Py :; ) is a nonempty polyhedral subset of R t := {y E R P y > 0 J Proposition 5.2.2. (Proposition 3.2 2). Problem (Px) possesses a global optimal solution that is an extreme point of X. Theorem 5.2.1. (T heorem 4.3.2). Problem (Py s ) possesses a global optimal solution that is an extreme point of Y ~ Theorem 5.2.2. (Theorem 4 .2. 1 ). If y is a global optimal solution for problem (Py :; ), then any x E X such that ex ~ y is a global optimal solution for problem (Px ). Furthermore the global optimal values of problems (Px) and (Py:;) are equal. Theorem 5.2.3. (T heorem 4.3.3 ). The objective function g of problem (Py ) is a strictly pseudoconcave function over R t Notice also in Proposition 5 .2 .1 that Y ~ is full dimensional and bounded. Additionally notice in Theorem 5.2.2 that given y* as defined there, for any x E X such that ex~ y, x not only is a global optimal solution for problem (Px ), but it also satisfies ex= y *. Together with Theorem 5.2.2 and an observation given in Benson and Sun (1998), this implies that if y* is a global optimal solution for problem (Pr s ), then the linear program min fu ; i= l s. t. ex u = y *, u 0, XE X,

PAGE 109

102 will have at least one optimal solution, and for any optimal basic solution (x, u )= (x ,0 )e Rn +p to this linear program, x is an extreme point global optimal solution for problem (Px ). Thus, given a global optimal solution for problem (Py l! ), a global optimal extreme point solution for problem (Px) can be easily recovered by solving a single linear program for a basic optimal solution. Based upon Theorem 5 2.1, the outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm to be presented confines its search to extreme points of the nonempty, compact polyhedron Y ~ In fact, the algorithm searches only within a certain subset of the set of extreme points of Y ~. This is justified in part by the following result Theorem 5.2.4. Any point that is a global optimal solution for problem (Py ~ ) must also be an extreme point of y f and a strict local optimal solution for problem (PY ~ ). Proof. Either (i) problem (PY ~ ) has a unique global optimal solution or (ii) problem (P r ~ ) has multiple global optimal solutions. Case (i): Problem (Pr ~ ) has a unique global optimal solution. Let y represent this solution Then, by Theorem 5.2.1, y is an extreme point of Y :;;; Since y is the unique global optimal solution for problem (Py s ), g(y )> g(y) for all ye y s such that y i= y. Therefore, for all > 0 and for each y E Y :;;; such that y i= y and I yYI < g(y )> g(y). By Definition 5.2.2, this completes the proof for this case Case (ii): Problem (P y ~ ) has multiple global optimal solutions Let y be any nonextreme point of Y ~. Consider the linear programming problem

PAGE 110

103 min (1/ p )f (y j /y j } s t. y E Y ~. (5.1) j = I Notice that since y E y s, the optimal value v of ( 5 .1) satisfies v 1. Therefore, either v < 1 or v = 1. If v < 1 then, from Theorem 4.2.2, there exists some y E Y ~ such that g (y) < g (y). Therefore, in thi s case, y is not a global optimal solution for problem If v = 1 then since y is a nonextreme point of Y ~ the linear program (5.1) has multiple optimal solutions, including y. In this case by Theorem 4.3.6, for any y* -:;; y that an optimal solution for (5 1), g(y* )< g(y) must hold. Therefore, in this case, y is not a global optimal solution for problem (P Y~ ). Since either v < 1 or v = 1, the arguments above imply that no nonextreme point of y s can be a global optimal s olution for problem (PY ~ ). Therefore, each of the global optimal solutions for problem ( Py s ) must be an extreme point of Y ~ Let y be an extreme point optimal solution for problem (Pr s ). Then, since the number of extreme points of y s is finite (see Murty (1983), for e.g.), there must exist an > 0 such that if y y < y -:;; y, and y E Y s then y is not an extreme point of y s Choose such an and let y '# y satisfy y y < y E y s Then y is not an extreme point of y s Since each global optimal solution for problem (Pr i. ) must be an extreme

PAGE 111

104 point of y s, this implies that g(y) > g(y). As a result, by Definition 5.2.2 y is a strict local optimal solution for problem (PY ~ ), and the proof is complete. Recall that a point z in a set Z k R i s called an isolated point of Z when it is not a limit point of Z. From Theorem 5 .2. 4, we obtain the following result as an immediate consequence Corollary 5.2.1 Let (y s ) denote the set of global optimal solutions for problem (Pr ~ ). Then every point in (y s ) is an isolated point of (y ~ ). To conclude this section we state the following result. The proof of this result is immediate by definition. Proposition 5 .2 .3 Let y be an extreme point global optimal solution for problem (PY ~ ). Then, for each extreme point y E y s that i s adjacent to y, g(y) g(y) must hold 5.3. Outcome-Space, Cutting-Plane Algorithm To adapt the approach of the decision se t-based Horst-Tuy concave minimization algorithm ( Hor st and Tuy (1993), pp. 175-184 ) to solving the outcome-space for1nulation ( P Y ~ ) of problem ( P x ), three tasks need to be iteratively executed. The first i s a certain strict local optimal solution search, the second involve s the construction of a cutting plane and the third i s a termination test. Before giving a formal statement of the new outcome-space algorithm, we will describe how the algorithm executes each of these three tasks

PAGE 112

105 5.3.1. Strict Local Optimal Solution Search Motivated by Proposition 5.2.3 and Theorems 5 2.1 and 5.2.4, the strict local optimal solution search seeks an extreme point y of Y ~ that is a strict local optimal solution for problem (Pr ~ ) and satisfies g(y )~ g(y) for each extreme point y of Y ~ that is adjacent to y. This search relies heavily upon repeatedly solving the linear program min (1/ p )f (y i /Y i ), s.t. ye y < (5.2) j= I as y is set equal to the values of various extreme points of Y ~ The linear program (5.2) was first proposed and studied in Chapter 4. The next three results for problem (5.2) follow immediately from Chapter 4. For each result, the appropriate reference is given. Theorem 5.3.1.1. ( Theorem4.2.2). Assume that ye Y s If the optimal value of linear program (5.2) is less than 1.0, then g(y )< g(y) for any optimal solution y of problem (5.2). Theorem 5.3.1.2. (Theorem 4.3.5). Assume that _y E y s If y is the unique optimal so]ution to linear program (5.2), then y is a strict local optimal solution for problem Theorem 5.3.1.3. (Theorem 4.3 6). Assume that y E f ~ If y is an optimal solution for linear program (5.2) and this linear program has multiple optimal solutions, then for any optimal solution y -:/= y for problem (5.2), g(y )< g(y) must hold.

PAGE 113

106 From these results, we obtain the following procedure for finding a strict local optimal extreme point solution y E Y ~ for problem (PY ~ ) that satisfies g(y) g(y) for each extreme point neighbor y to y in y s Algorithm 5.3.1.1. Strict Local Optimal Solution Search Procedure. Step 1 Find an initial extreme point y of y s Step 2. Compute the optimal value v for linear program (5.2). If v < 1 0, go to Step 3. If v=l.O, go to Step 4 Step 3. Deter1nine any optimal extreme point solution y for problem (5.2). Set y = y* and return to Step 2. Step 4. If problem ( 5.2 ) has multiple optimal solutions, go to Step 5. Otherwise, determine whether or not g ( y ) < g (y) for some extreme point neighbor y to y in y s If so, find any such neighbor y, set y = y, and return to Step 2. If not, then stop: The point y is a strict local optimal extreme point solution for problem (Py ) that satisfies g(y )~ g(y) for each extreme point neighbor y to y in Y ~ Step 5. Find any optimal extreme point solution y for problem (5.2) that is distinct from y. Set y = y and return to Step 2. By using Proposition 5.2.1 and Theorems 5.3.1.1-5.3.1.3, it is easy to see that this search procedure is guaranteed to be finite and to find a strict local optimal extreme point solution y for problem ( Py ) s uch that g(y )~ g(y) for each extreme point neighbor y to y in Y ~

PAGE 114

107 5.3.2. Cutting Plane Construction Let y be a nondegenerate extreme point of Y ~ that is a strict local optimal solution for problem ( PY ~ ) and satisfies g(y) g(y) for each extreme point neighbor y to y in Y $ and let r E R satisfy r g (y). Given y the new algorithm will seek to find a vector re E R P such that (5.3) When re satisfies ( 5.3 ) the linear inequality (re, yy)~l is called a '.}':valid cutting plane (or '.}':valid cut) for problem (P Y ~ ) (Horst and Tuy 1993). Since y i s a nondegenerate, strict local optimal extreme point solution for problem ( PY ~ ) that satisfies g (y) g (y) for each neighboring extreme point y to y in Y s; since Y ~ has full dimension, and since g is strictly pseudoconcave on R! (cf. Theorem 5.2.3), it follows that an approach used by Horst and Tuy (1993, pp. 85-91) can be used to find a vector re E R P that yields a y-valid cut. The following procedure applies this approach to problem (P Y ~ ). Algorithm 5.3.2.1. Procedure for Cutting Plane Construction. Step 1. Determine the p neighboring extreme points y;, i = 1, 2, ... p, to y in y s: Let I I l 2 u=y-y,z=, ... p. Step 2. For each i E { I 2, .. p} such that (5.4)

PAGE 115

108 set z; = y +a i u ; where a ; eqt1als the value of the supremum in (5.4). For each i e {1, 2, ... p} such that (5.4) does not hold, let z; = y +a;u;, where a ; > 0 is a finite number chosen so that g(z ; )~ y. Step 3. Compute nr = er Q 1 where e ERP is the column vector of p ones, and Q is the p x p matrix with column i equal to (z ; y ), i = 1, 2, ... p, and stop: The linear inequality (n,yy)~l is a ,'-Valid cutting plane for problem (Pr ~ ). Notice that in Step 1 of this procedure, since y is nondegenerate, the p neighboring extreme points described there are guaranteed to exist. Further111ore, because Y ~ has full dimension, u ; i = l, 2, .. p, are linearly independent (Murty ( 1983, pp. 138). Notice also in Step 2 that since y is a strict local optimal solution for problem (Py f ) for which g(y ; )~g(y) i=l,2, ... ,p, foreach i=l,2, ... ,p, either O

PAGE 116

109 Step 2' For each i E { 1, 2, ... s} such that (5.4) holds, set a 1 equal the value of the supremum in (5.4). For each iE {1, 2, ... ,s} s uch that (5.4) does not hold, let a 1 > 0 be a finite number such that g(y+a ; u;)~r. Step 3' Let 1C be any basic solution to the system ( 5.5) and stop: The linear inequality ( 1e, y-y)~ l is a y-valid cutting plane for problem (PY ~ ). Since y s ha s full dimen s ion and y is an extreme point of Y ~, by logic similar to that used in the proof of Lemma ID 1 in Horst and Tuy ( 1993 ), it can be shown that in Step 3', (5.5) has at least one basic solution. Further1nore, by showing a result similar to Proposition ID 1 in Horst and Tuy ( 1993) the modifications to the cutting plane construction procedure described above can be shown to be appropriate for generating a y-valid cutting plane for problem ( P Y ~ ) when y is degenerate 5.3.3. Termination Test The linear programming-based termination test for the outcome-space, cuttingplane algorithm is contained in the following result. Proposition 5 .3.3.1. Let y be an extreme point of ys that is a strict local optimal solution for probl em ( P r ~ ) and sa ti sfies g (y) g (y) for each extreme point neighbor y to y in ys_ Let ( 1e, yy)~ t

PAGE 117

110 be a y-valid cutting plane for problem ( PY ~), where g(y) r and, for some extreme point y 0 of Y ~, r = g(y 0 ). Then ( n yy) > I for all ye Y ~ such that g(y )< y. Hence, if 1 max ( n yy), s.t. ye Y ~ then y 0 is a global optimal solution for problem (Py ~ ). (5.6) Proof. Since (n, y y) 1 is a y-valid cutting plane for problem (PY ~ ), we know from (5.3) that ( n ,y-y)~ l holds for all ye Y ~ such that g(y) 1 can be shown to hold for all ye Y ~ such that g(y )< y. It is easy to see that this implies that if (5.6) holds, then y 0 is a global optimal solution for problem (PY ~ ). 5.3.4. Outcome-Space, Cutting-Plane Algorithm By incorporating the strict local optimal solution search procedure of Section 5.3.1, the cutting plane construction procedure of Section 5.3.2, and the termination test of Section 5.3.3 into the framework of a decision set-based, cutting plane method for concave minimization proposed by Horst and Tuy (1993, pp. 175-184), we obtain the following pure cutting plane algorithm for globally solving problem (Py f ). As shown in Section 5.2, from the global solution for problem (Py ~ ) obtained via this algorithm, a global optimal extreme point solution for problem (Px) can be easily recovered by solving a single linear program Algorithm 5.3.4.1. Outcome-Space, Cutting-Plane Algorithm.

PAGE 118

111 Initialization Step. By using the procedure in Section 5.3. l, find a strict local optimal extreme point solution y 0 for problem (Pr ~ ) that satisfies g(y) g(y 0 ) for each extreme point neighbor y to y 0 in y s Set r = g(y 0 ) and Y 0 = Y ~ Go to Step 0. Step k, k 0 Step k. l. By using the procedure in Section 5.3.2, with Y ~ = Yk, construct a y.valid cut Step k.2. Set n: = n: k, y = yk, and y s = y k in the linear program in (5.6), and compute a basic optimal solution yk to this linear program If (n:k, yk yk )~l, stop : The point y 0 is a global optimal extreme point solution for problem (Pr ~ ), and r is the global optimal value for problem ( P r ~ ) Otherwise, continue. Step k.3. Let Starting from yk, use the procedure in Section 5 3.1 to find a strict local optimal extreme point solution yk +I for the problem ( ) yk+I nung y, s.t. ye that satisfies g ( y) g ( yk+i ) for each extreme point neighbor y to yk+t in y k+i If g(y k+l )< r, then se t y = g(yk +I ) y 0 = yk + I and Y 0 = yk +I, and go to Step 0. Otherwise, go to Step k + 1.

PAGE 119

112 The following result and proof are guided in part by Theorem V .2 in Horst and Tuy (1993). Theorem 5.3.4.1. The outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm for problem (PY ~ ) is finite when the sequence { n k } is bounded. If the algorithm stops, the point y 0 found by the algorithm is a global optimal extreme point solution for problem (Pr ~ ). Proof. The algorithm consists of a number of groups (or cycles) of steps. The beginning of a typical cycle of steps occurs when for some k 0, in Step k.3 the incumbent solution vector y 0 is set equal to yk + I, the incumbent value r is set equal to g(yk+l ), and y 0 i s set equal to yk + i. During the cycle of steps, one or more '}'-valid cuts is added to Y 0 but the incumbent solution y 0 and the incumbent value r remain unchanged. The cycle ter1ninates when a point yk+t is found such that g(y k +t )< y. In view of Proposition 5.3.3.1 this implies that yk + i strictly satisfies all of the '}'-valid cutting planes created thus far by the algorithm. As a result, yk+I is an extreme point of y s and it is distinct from all extreme points of Y ~ previously encountered. By Proposition 5.2.1 y s has a finite number of extreme points Therefore, the number of cycles in the algorithm must be finite. During a typical cycle one or more '}'-valid cuts of the form (7th' y ,Yh) 1, where h 0 is an integer, is added to the current polyhedron Y 0 k y s. For a typical k 1, from Step h .3 of the algorithm, we know that

PAGE 120

113 ( 5 7 ) h = 0, 1 2, .. k 1 We also note that 1 ( k -k k) } 0 = 'JC ,y -y < ( 5 8) From (5.7 ) ( 5 8 ) and Corollary ill 2 in Horst and Tuy (1993 ) if { n } is bounded, then the length of the cycle mu s t be finite Since the number of cycles in the algorithm is finite, this implie s that when { n } i s bounded the algorithm must be finite. Now s upp ose th a t the a l g orithm stop s. Then for some k 0, with 'JC = n ", y = yk and Y ~ = y k, inequality ( 5.6 ) becom es satisfied after which the algorithm immediately stops. Furthermore a t the time the algorithm stop s, it has found at the beginning of the current cycle of s t e p s an extreme point y 0 of y f and of Y k that is the incumbent solution and s ati s fi es r = g( y 0 ) ~ g ( yk ) In addition, yk i s a strict local optimal extreme point s olution for th e problem min g ( y ) s. t y E Y k that satisfies g ( y ) g ( yk ) for e ach extreme point neighbor y to y k in Y k. Taken together the s e obser v ations imply that we may apply Proposition 5.3.3 1 with n ='!C k, y = yk, y 0 = y, a nd Y ~ = Y k t o conclude that y 0 is a global minimizer of g o ver y k If y E y < and y e y k, then Step k.3 implies that for some f -valid cut ( n j y yj)~ l where f y ( n i yy j ) < 1 mu s t hold By ( 5 3 ), s ince r ~ f thi s implie s that g( y ) ~ r r Sin ce r = g ( y 0 ) it follow s that g ( y ) ~ g ( y 0 ) for all ye Y k LJ { ye Y ~ j y e y k },

PAGE 121

114 i.e., y 0 is a global optimal extreme point solution for problem (Pr ~ ) 5.4. Implementation In practice, by moderately modifying the procedures and the termination test in Sections 5.3.1-5.3.3 and by substituting Y for y f and the phrase ''problem (Py)'' for ''problem (Pr ~ )'' throughout the statement of the new outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm we obtain an algorithm that globally solves problem (Py) instead of problem (P Y~). Since Y k y < computational savings can generally be expected to result by solving problem (Py) instead of problem (Pr ~ ). The validity of this approach relies in part upon the following two results. Proposition 5 .4.1. Let y be a global optimal solution for problem (PY ~ ). Then y e Y, and any x e X such that Cx y satisfies Cx = y is a global optimal solution for problem (Px ). Proof. Since Cx > 0 for all xe X, it is easy to see by the definition of Y ~ that the global optimality of y in problem (Py ~ ) implies that if Cx y* for some x e X, then ex= y*. As a result, y "' e Y, and, by Theorem 5.2.2, x is a global optimal solution for problem (Px ). A strict local optimal solution for problem (Py) is defined as in Definition 5.2.2, except with Y replacing Y ~ in the definition.

PAGE 122

115 Proposition 5 4 2. Problem (P y) possesses a global optimal solution that i s an extreme point of Y. Any g lobal optimal solution for problem (Py ) must also be a s tric t local optimal s olution for problem ( Py ) Proof From Rockafellar ( 1970 ), Y is a polyhedron Since X is nonempty and compact Y i s al s o nonempty and compact. Ft1rther1nore since Cx > 0 for all x e X, Y { z e R P z > 0 }. Therefore, from Proposition 3 2.2, problem (P y ) has a global optimal solution that is an extreme point of Y A proof that any global optimal solution for problem ( P y) mu s t be a s trict local optimal solution for problem ( P y) i s given by the proof of Theorem 5 .2 4 except with Y repla c ing y s in the proof. Remark 5.4.1. From Propo s ition 5.4 1 we may confine the search for a global optimal solution for probl e m ( P Y ~ ) to Y Stated in a different way, any global optimal solution to problem ( Pr ) i s al s o a global optimal solution to problem (Py ~ ). By Proposition 5.4.2, problem ( P y) ha s a global optimal s olution that is an extreme point of Y, and any global optimal extreme p o int s olution to problem ( P y) must be a strict local optimal solution for problem ( Py ) Taken together since Y is a nonempty compact polyhedron these observations imply that to globally s olve problem ( P y s ) we may apply the outcomespace, cutting plane approach given in Section 5 3 to problem (Pr), rather than to problem ( P Y ~ ). U s ing thi s approach we will find a global optimal solution to problem (P r s ). By Propo s ition 5 4.1 a g lobal optimal extreme point solution to problem ( P x) can then be recovered by s olving a s ingle linear program as explained in Section 5.2.

PAGE 123

116 In addition to s ubstituting Y for Y ~ and the phrase ' problem ( P r)'' for ''problem (P r~) '' throughout th e statement of the new outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm in Section 5.3, some changes are needed to the procedures given in Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 and in the termination te s t in Section 5 3 3 in order to confine the search to Y y s Let us now explain these change s. The following two re s ult s help to explain the changes needed in the s trict local optimal solution s earch procedure given in Section 5.3.1 to confine the search to Y. The proof of the fir s t r es ult is immediate from the definitions. Proposition 5.4.3 An y strict local optimal solution for problem (Pr ~ ) i s also a strict local optimal solution for problem ( P r). Proposition 5 4.4. As s ume that y E Y. Then any optimal solution for linear program ( 5.2 ) belongs to Y Proof Suppo s e that y i s an optimal s olution to problem (5.2 ), but y* Y. Then, since y E Y ~ but y Y there exists some point x E X such that Cx y* but C x "# y Let y ** = C x *. Then y E y s Further1nore, since y > 0, y y and y ** "# y it follow s that j=l j1 Since y "',. E y <, thi s in e quality contradict s that y"' is an optimal solution to problem ( 5.2 ) Therefore y Y cannot hold and the proof i s complete.

PAGE 124

117 From Propo s ition s 5 4 3 and 5 4 4, if we replace Y ~ with Y in problem (5.2 ) and throughout the strict local optimal solution search procedure of Section 5 3 .1, and if we replace the phrase ' problem ( P y ~ )' by ''problem (Py)'' in the procedure then the modified procedure i s guaranteed to find a strict local optimal extreme point solution y for problem ( P y) that s atisfie s g ( y )~ g( y ) for each extreme point neighbor y to y in f. Thus, to apply the lo c al search procedure in Section 5.3.1 to problem (P y), we need only to replace Y ~ with Y in linear program ( 5 2 ) and throughout the statement of the procedure and to change the phra s e '' problem (P y ~ ) '' to ''problem (Py)'' in Step 4 of the procedure. The cutting plane construction procedure given in Section 5.3.2 relies on the fact that at least p ed g e s of y < will emanate from every extreme point y of Y ~ where p is the dimension of Y ~ The dimension d of Y, however may be less that or equal to p. As a prerequisite to applying the cutting plane construction procedure when problem ( P y) is being solved instead of problem (Pr s ), a knowledge of the value of the dimension d of Y i s required A convenient way to find d is to insert the following step between Steps 1 and 2 of the strict local optimal solution search procedure given in Section 5.3 1 Step l Find all neighboring extreme points y; i = l, 2, ... t, to y in Y. Compute and s ave the rank d of the t x p matrix M, where row i of M is equal to I 1 2 y-y l =, . t

PAGE 125

118 From Murty (1983, pp. 138), the value of d computed in Step 1' equals the dimension of Y. When d = p, the cutting plane construction procedure given in Section 5.3.2 can be directly used when solving problem (Py) by the new outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm by simply replacing Y ~ by Y and replacing the phrase ''problem (Pr ~ )'' with ''problem (Py)'' throughout the procedure. When d < p, a recent generalized cutting plane procedure given in Benson (1999) can be used instead of the procedure given in Section 5.3.2. The termination test that is needed to adapt the outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm for problem (PY ~ ) to problem (Py) is obtained by replacing Y ~ in (5.6) by Y. The validity of this change can be supported by proving a result for problem (Pr) that is analogous to Proposition 5.3.3.1. To implement the changes called for in this section to the new outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm given in Section 5.3.4, mechanics must be available for finding an initial extreme point of Y and, given an extreme point y of Y, for finding all neighboring extreme points in Y to y Given these mechanics, one can then carry out all of operations called for by the revised outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm, including the solution of all of the required linear programming problems over Y and the construction and incorporation into Y of all required '}'-valid cuts. A finite linear programming-based algorithm guaranteed to find an initial extreme point of Y is given in Benson (1998d). In Benson and Sun (1998), the mechanics are given for finding all extreme points of Y that are adjacent to a given extreme point of Y.

PAGE 126

119 From the previous paragraph, the existence of these procedures guarantees that the outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm for globally solving problem (Py) can, indeed, be implemented in practice. As a result, as we have seen, a global optimal extreme point solution for problem (Px) can be found. 5.5. Example To illustrate the application of the outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm to problem (Px ), consider the case with p = 2 and X = {xe R 11 Ax= b, x O }, where 9 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 8 1 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 1 8 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 72 7 I 1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 9 A= b= 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 9 I I 7 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 and where I 0 0 I 1/9 1/9 0 0 0 0 Cl= 0 C2 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 127

120 It can be shown that, in this case, X is a nonempty, compact polyhedron, and Cx > 0 for all xE X, as required in problem (Px ). To solve problem (Px ), as explained previously, we will apply the modified outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm to problem (Py). In this case, problem (Py) is given by Xi+ (1/9 )~ X 2 + (1/9 )x 3 for somexe X. A summary of the application of the modified outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm to problem (Py) in this case is given below. The mechanics used on the set Y, including the generation of an initial extreme point of Y and the solution of linear programming problems with feasible regions given by Y, are taken from Benson (1998d) and Benson and Sun (1998). Initialization Step. We execute the search procedure given in Section 5.3.1, but adapted to problem (Py). The initial extreme point y of Y that we find thereby is given by y 7 = (1/9, 8 1/9). As called for by Step 1' in Section 5.4, we find that the extreme point neighbors to y in Y are (y 1 r = (1, 1) and (y 2 f = (9/10, 8 1/10). The matrix M is thus given by M= 8/9 71/90 -7 1/9 -1/90 We set d = rank M = 2, and we save d = 2 for future reference. Next, with Y replacing Y $ in (5.2), the optimal value of linear program (5.2) is found to be v = 1.0, and we find that y is the unique optimal solution to this problem. Therefore, we compare

PAGE 128

121 g (y) = y 1 y 2 = 73/81 to the values of g evaluated at the neighboring extreme points y 1 and y 2 to y in Y. We find that g(y) = 73/81 < g(y 1 )= 1.0 and g(y)= 73/81 < g(y 2 )= 7.29. The strict local optimal extreme point search is therefore terminated, and we set y 0 = y, where yr =(1/9,8 1/9). We set r=g(y 0 )=73/81, Y 0 =Y, andproceedtoStepO. Step 0. Step 0.1. We construct a r-valid cut for problem (Py) with Y = Y 0 at y 0 We accomplish this by executing the procedure given in Section 5.3.2, but adapted to problem (Py) with Y = Y 0 In particular, we first deter111ine whether y 0 has exactly d or more than d neighboring extreme points in Y. In this case, we know from the initialization step that y 0 has exactly d = 2 neighboring extreme points in Y. Therefore, y 0 is nondegenerate, and we will execute the cutting plane procedure given in Section 5.3.2 for the nondegenerate case, modified for problem (Py). Towards this end, we set (u 1 ) = (8/9, -7 1/9) and (u 2 ) = (71/90, -1/90 ). Next, we compute sup {ei > 0 g(y + 0 ; ui )~ r }, i = 1, 2, and we find that for i = 1, this supremum is finite and equals 1.015625 and, for i = 2, this supremum is finite and equals 729.85915. Therefore, we set a 1 = 1.015625 and . a 2 = 729.85915. Then, for each i = 1, 2, we set z' = y +a;u', which results in the values

PAGE 129

122 (z 1 r = (1.013888, 0.888888), ( z 2 j = (575.888888, 0.001565). Next, we compute ( rc 0 f = er Q 1 where 0.902777 Q = 7 .222222 575.777777 8.109546 This yields (rc 0 ) = (-0.0002138, -0.1384883). They-valid cut, after gathering terms, is then given by 0 0002138y 1 +0.1384883y 2 ~0.1233175. Step 0 2. With re= ( n f y = y 0 and Y ~ = Y 0 the linear program in (5.6) is found to have y 0 as a basic optimal solution, where (y 0 J =(73/9,1/9), and an optimal value of 1.1064. Since 1.1064> 1.0000, we continue to Step 0.3 Step 0.3 We first set Y 1 = Y 0 n{yE R 2 0.0002138yl + 0.1384883y 2 ~0.1233175}. Next, starting from y 0 we execute the search procedure given in Section 5.3.1, but adapted to problem (Py) with Y = Y 1 in order to find a strict local optimal extreme point solution y 1 for the problem min g(y ), s .t. y E Y 1 that satisfies g(y) g(y 1 ) for each extreme point neighbor y to y 1 in Y 1 This results in (f 1 r =(8 1 /9, 1/9).

PAGE 130

123 Since g (y 1 )= 73/81 r, we proceed to Step 1. Step 1. Step 1.1. We construct a r-valid cut for problem (Py) with Y = Y 1 at y 1 To do so, we use the procedure in Section 5.3.2, but adapted to problem (Py) with Y = Y 1 We find that y 1 has exactly d = 2 neighboring extreme points in Y 1 so that y 1 is nondegenerate. The resulting r-valid cut is, after gathering terms, 0.1384833y 1 +0.0002138y 2 ~0.1233175. Step 1.2. With n = n 1 y = y 1 and Y 5 = Y 1 we find that the linear program in (5.6) has the point y 2 given by ( y 2 ) T = (1.9003173, 0.8874603) as a basic optimal solution, and that it has an optimal value of 0.8599391. Since 0.8599391 < 1.0, the algorithm stops, since it has found the global optimal solution y 0 for problem (Py), where (y 0 ) = ( 1/9 8 1/9) and r = 73/81 is the global optimal value for problem (Py). As explained in Remark 5.4.1 and Section 5.2, by solving a single linear program, an extreme point global optimal solution to problem (Px) can be recovered from y 0 in the sample problem By solving this linear program, we obtain the extreme point global optimal solution (x) = (0 0, 8.0, 1.0) for problem (Px ).

PAGE 131

124 5.6. Concluding Remarks Both theoretical and empirical evidence have shown that generally an outcome polyhedron can be expected to have a significantly lower dimension, a significantly simpler structure, and far fewer extreme points than the underlying decision set polyhedron. For the case of the linear multiplicative program (Px ), we have in this chapter constructed and validated an outcomes pace, cutting-plane algorithm that searches the outcome polyhedron, rather than the decision set polyhedron for a global optimal extreme point solution. We expect, therefore, that the algorithm proposed here for problem ( Px) will potentially have computational benefits over the decision set-based algorithms that have been proposed for the problem.

PAGE 132

CHAPTER6 SUMMARY AND FUTURE RESEARCH 6.1. Introduction In this dissertation, we have analyzed the multiplicative programming problem (Px). For the linear case of problem (Px), we used these analyses to develop a heuristic algorithm that find s a good solution to the problem and to present a global solution algorithm for the problem. In this chapter we will examine potential avenues for future research that might potentially improve the efficiency and accuracy of the heuristic algorithm We also examine possible avenues for potential global optimal solution algorithms for problem ( P x) based on analytical results we have presented. 6.2. Future Research on the Heuristic Algorithm In preparation for presenting our heuristic algorithm for the linear case of problem (Px) in Chapter 3, we analyzed the case when problem ( Px) is the concave multiplicative programming problem We showed that when problem (P x ) is a concave multiplicative programming problem with a compact feasible region, it has at least one global optimal solution that is an efficient extreme point of the associated multiple objective programming problem ( MOMP ) VMIN J(x ) s.t. xe X where f j : X R j = 1 2 ... p, are the functions used in defining problem ( Px ) and where f ( x ) denote s the vector 125

PAGE 133

126 [J 1 (x ), / 2 (x ), . J P (x )]r. Our heuristic algorithm for the linear multiplicative program with a compact polyhedral feasible region, uses this efficiency result to search for a good solution by limiting the search to the efficient s et of the multiple-objective linear program ( MOLP ) VMIN C x, s.t xe X, where C is the p x n matrix whose jth row equals (c i ) r j = 1, 2, ... p. The heuristic algorithm first id e ntifies an efficient face X 1 11 of problem (MOLP). It then searches the efficient face X 111 for a n good s olution to problem ( P x) by optimizing a linear approximation of the objective function of problem ( P x ) over X w Our experimental results show that the c omputational requirement s of the heuristic algorithm are not overly burdensome when compared to the effort required to solve a linear multiplicative programming problem The performance of the heuristic algorithm depends in part upon the number location s, and dimen s ion s of the efficient face s found in the Efficient Point Search Phase. The user can manipulate the location and number of efficient faces found by selecting values for the parameter s N u se d for the weighting of the functions in the objective function and S th e number of s ample objective function values from Y ~. A topic for further research would be to identify criteria and methods for choosing good values for these parameters s o that a variety of regions of the efficient set are searched for a good solution for problem ( P x ) In Step 1 of th e Efficient Point Search Pha s e, an efficient extreme point is used to identify an effici e nt face X 111 on which that extreme point lies. Currently there is no

PAGE 134

127 known procedure that can be used to find an efficient face of maximal dimension on which an extreme point lies. Since the perf orrr1ance of the heuristic algorithm can be improved by searching maximal efficient faces for good solutio ns, a topic for further research would be to find such a procedure. 6.3. Future Research on an Global Solution Algorithms In Chapter 3 we showed that a concave multiplicative programming problem can be solved as a quasiconcave minimization problem or reformulated as a concave minimization problem. We also showed that a concave multiplicative programming problem with a compact feasible region has a globally optimal solution that is an efficient extreme point of the associated multiple-objective programming problem (MOMP). A potential opportunity therefore exists to improve the efficiency of a concave minimization method for solving the concave multiplicative programming problem or the linear multiplicative programming problem by limiting the search to the efficient extreme points of the associated multiple-objective programming problem (MOM P ) or (MOLP) respectively. For example, for the linear case of problem (Px), enumerative concave minimization methods such as extreme point ranking or cutting plane methods can be modified to limit the search to those extreme points of problem (MOLP) that are efficient. For the concave case of problem (Px), outer approximation and branch and bound methods may be modified to limit the search to efficient extreme points of problem (MOLP). For more information on concave minimization methods, see, for example, Benson (1995) and Horst and Tuy (1993).

PAGE 135

128 In preparation for developing our outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm for the linear multiplicative programming problem in Chapter 4, we analyzed the outcome-space reformulation problem (Pr ~ ) of the multiplicative programming problem (Px). Since the reformulation (PY ~ ) works in a lower dimensioned space than the space of the feasible decision set X, potential computational savings can be expected by solving problem (PY ~ ) for an optimal solution y* E Y ~ As we have shown, a global optimal solution x* EX for problem (Px) can then be recovered from y*. In Chapter 4 we showed that when problem (Px) is a convex multiplicative programming problem, a global optimal solution y of the reformulation (PY ~ ) will exist on the boundary of the convex outcome set Y ~ In addition, when the convex set Y ~ is closed and has at least one extreme point, our analysis showed that problem (Pr ~ ) has at least one global optimal solution that is an extreme point of y s We also showed that the objective function of problem (PY ~ ) is strictly pseudoconcave over y s Since pseudoconcave functions defined over convex sets are also quasiconcave functions, many of the most popular algorithms for minimizing concave functions over a convex sets are equally suitable for minimizing quasiconcave functions over convex sets (Horst and Tuy 1993 and Benson 1995). Our results thus provide possible avenues for proposing implementable solution methods for the convex multiplicative programming problem that solve instead the reformulation (Pr s: ) using existing concave minimization methods. For example, outer approximation can be used to search the boundary of Y~ for a global optimal y* solution for problem (Pr s: ). This method cannot be applied directly to the

PAGE 136

129 original convex multiplicative programming problem since, as shown in Example 4.3.1, the preimage x EX of y need not lie on the boundary of X. For more info1111ation on concave minimization method s see, for example, Benson ( 1995) and Horst and Tuy (1993). In Chapter 5 we presented the outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm for solving the case when problem (P x ) is the linear multiplicative programming problem It solves the reformulation problem (PY ~ ) of problem (Px) for a global optimal extreme point solution y E Y $ for problem (PY ~ ), and then recovers a global optimal extreme point solution x EX of problem (P x ) The refor1nulation (PY ~ ) of the linear multiplicative programming problem (Px) offers another computational advantage in addition to that of working in a lower dimensioned space than the space of the feasible region X A large number of extreme points of X collapse into nonfacial structures or into the relative interiors of subfa c e s of the outcome set Y ~ but not vice versa (Benson 1995a). Since the outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm searches only those extreme points of Y ~ that are the image of extreme points and faces of X under the mapping of the functions in the objective function of problem ( Px), many non-optimal extreme points of X are implicitly bypassed in the algorithm's search We therefore expect that the outcome space, cutting-plane algorithm will potentially have computational benefits over the decision set-based algorithms that have been proposed for the linear multiplicative programming problem. To aid in the implementation of the outcome-space, cutting-plane algorithm, the algorithm can be implemented using only linear programming methods. A topic for

PAGE 137

130 further research is to code the algorithm and test its perforn1ance against other algorithms for solving linear multiplicative programming problems.

PAGE 138

REFERENCES Aneja, Y. P., Aggarwal, V., and Nair, K. P. K. On a Class of Quadratic Programs, European Journal of Operational Research, 18, pp. 62-56, 1984. Avriel, M., Diewert W. E., Schaible, S ., and Zang, I. Generalized Concavity, Plenum, New York 1988. Bazaraa, M. S. Sherali, H. D., and Shetty C M. Nonlinear Programming: Theory and Algorithms, 2nd Ed., John Wiley, New York, 1993. Benson, H. P. Existence of Efficient Solutions for Vector Maximization Problems, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 26, pp. 569-580, 1978. Benson, H.P An All Linear Programming Relaxation Algorithm for Optimizing Over the Efficient Set, Journal of Global Optimization, 1, pp. 83-104, 1991. Benson, H P A Geometric Analysis of the Efficient Outcome Set in Multiple Objective Convex Programs with Linear Criterion Functions, Journal of Global Optimization 6, pp. 231-251, 1995a. Benson, H. P. Concave Minimization: Theory, Applications, and Algorithms, Handbook of Global Optimization Edited by R. Hor s t and P. M Pardalos, Kluwer Dordre c ht The Netherlands, pp 43-148, 1995b. Benson, H. P. Deterrruni s tic Algorithm s for Constrained Concave Minimization: A Unified Critical Survey Naval Research Logistics, 43, pp. 765-795, 1996. Benson, H. P A Hybrid Approach for Solving Multiple Objective Linear Programs in Outcome Space, Journal of Optimization Theory and Application s, 98, pp 17-35, 1998a Benson H P. An Outer Approximation Algorithm for Generating All Efficient Extreme Point s in the Outcome Set of a Multiple Objective Linear Programming Problem, Journal of Gl o bal Optimization 13 pp 1 -2 4, 1998b. Benson H.P An Outcome Space Branch and Bound-Outer Approximation Algorithm for Convex Multiplicative Programming to appear in a Special I ss ue in Honor of the 70 th Birthday of H Tuy 1998c 131

PAGE 139

132 Benson, H. P. Pivoting in an Outcome Polyhedron: Part I Motivation and Initialization, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, Department of Decision and Information Sciences, Working Paper, May, 1998d. Benson, H.P. A Generalized Gamma-Valid Cut Procedure, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 102, pp. 289-298, 1999. Benson, H.P. and Sayin, S. Towards Finding Global Representations of Efficient Sets in Multiple Objective Mathematical Programming, Naval Research Logistics, 44, pp. 47-67, 1997. Benson, H.P. and Sun, E. Pivoting in an Outcome Polyhedron: Part IIExecuting the Pivot Process, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, Department of Decision and Information Sciences, Working Paper, May, 1998. Carvajal-Moreno, R. Minimization of Concave Functions Subject to Linear Constraints, Operations Research Center Report ORC 72-3, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1972. Cohon, J. L. Multiobjective Programming and Planning, Academic, New York, 1978. Dauer, J.P. On Degenaracy and Collapsing in the Construction of the Set of Objective Values in a Multiple Objective Linear Programs, Annals of Operations Research, 47,pp.279-292, 1993. Dauer, J. P. and Liu, Y, H. Solving Multiple Objective Linear Programs in Objective Space, European Journal of Operational Research, 46, pp.350-357, 1990. Dauer, J.P. and Saleh, 0. A. Constructing the Set of Efficient Objective Values in Multiple Objective Linear Programs, European Journal of Operational Research, 46, pp. 358-365, 1990. Davis, C. Theory of Positive Linear Dependence, American Journal of Mathematics, 76, pp. 733-746, 1954. Duffin, R. J., Peterson, E. L., and Zener, C. Geometric Programming-Theory and Application, John Wiley, New York, 1967. Ecker, J. G. and Kouada, I. A Finding All Efficient Extreme Points for Multiple Objective Linear Programs, Mathematical Programming, 14, pp.249-261, 1978. Evans, G. W. An Overview of Techniques for Solving Multiobjective Mathematical Programs, Management Science, 30, pp. 1268-1282, 1984.

PAGE 140

133 Falk, J.E. and Palocsay, S. W. Image Space Analysis of Generalized Fractional Programs, Journal of Global Optimization, 4, pp. 63-88, 1994. Fang, S. C. and Puthenpura, S. Linear Optimization and Extensions, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993. Gal, T. and Geue, F. A New Pivoting Rule for Solving Various Degeneracy Problems, Operations Research Letters, 11, pp.23-32, 1992. Gallagher, R. J. and Saleh, 0. A. A Representation of an Efficiency Equivalent Polyhedron for the Objective Set of a Multiple Objective Linear Program, European Journal of Operational Research, 80, pp. 204-212, 1995. Geoffrion, A. M. Solving Bicriterion Mathematical Programs, Operations Research, 15, pp. 39-54, 1967. Geoffrion, A. M. Proper Efficiency and the Theory of Vector Maximization, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 22, pp. 618-630, 1968. Geue, F. An Improved N-tree Algorithm for Enumeration of All Neighbors of a Degenerate Vertex, Annals of Operations Research, 47, pp. 361-391, 1993. Henderson, J.M. and Quandt, R. E. Microeconomic Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971. Horst, R. and Tuy, H. Global Optimization: Deterministic Approaches, 2nd Ed., Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1993. International Business Machines, Optimization Subroutine Library Guide and Reference, International Business Machines, Mechanicsburg, PA, 1990. Isermann, H. The Enumeration of the Set of All Efficient Solutions for a Linear Multiple Objective Program, Operations Research Quarterly, 28, pp.711-725, 1977. Jaumard, B., Meyer, C., and Tuy, H. Generalized Convex Multiplicative Programming via Quasiconcave Minimization, Journal of Global Optimization, 10, pp. 229-256, 1997. Konno, H. and Inori, M. Bond Portfolio Optimization by Bilinear Fractional Programming, Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan, 32, pp. 143158, 1989. Konno, H. and Kuno, T. Generalized Linear Multiplicative and Fractional Programming, Annals of Operations Research, 25, pp. 147-161, 1990.

PAGE 141

134 Konno H. and Kun o, T Linear Multiplicative Programming, Mathematical Programming 56 pp. 51-64, 1992. Konno H. and Kuno T Multiplicative Programming Problems Handbook of Global Optimi z ation Edited by R. Horst and P. M Pardalos, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherland s, pp 369-405 1995 Konno H ., Kun o T ., a nd Yajima Y Parametric Simplex Algorithms for a Cl as s of NP Complete Pr o blem s Who s e Average Number of Steps is Polynomial, Computati o n a l Optimiz a tion and Applications, 1 pp. 227-239, 1992. Konno H. Kuno T a nd Yajima Y Global Minimization of a Generalized Convex Multiplic a tiv e Function Journal of Global Optimization, 4 pp. 47-62, 1994. Konno H ., Yajim a Y ., and Mat s ui T Parametric Simplex Algorithms for Solving a Special Cl ass of Nonconvex Minimization Problems, Journal of Global Optimization 1 pp. 65-81, 1991. Kru s e, H J Deg e n e r a cy Graph s and the Neighborhood Problem Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1986 Kuno T A Pract ica l Al g orithm for Minimizing a Rank-Two Saddle Function on a Polytope J o urnal of th e Operations Re s earch Society of Japan 39, pp. 63-76 1996. Kuno T and Konno H A Parametric Succes s ive Underestimation Method for Convex Multiplicati ve Programnting Problem s Journal of Global Optimization, 1, pp. 267-285 1 99 1 Kuno, T ., Yajim a, Y a nd Konno H. An Outer Approximation Method for Minimizing the Produ c t of S ev eral Convex Fun c tions on a Convex Set Journal of Global Optimizati o n 3, pp 325-335 1993 Luc, D T. Theory of Vector Optimization Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1989 Maling K. Muell e r S H ., and Hell e r, W. R On Finding Most Optimal Rectangular Packa g e Pl a n s Proceedings of 19th De s ign Automation Conference Institute of Electrical and El ec troni cs En g ineer s, N e w York pp. 663-670 1982 Martos B Th e Dir ec t P o wer o f Adjac e nt Vertex Programming Methods Management Scien ce, 1 2 pp 24 1-25 2, 1965 Matsui T. NP-Har d n e s s of Lin e ar Multiplicative Programming and Related Problem s, Journ a l of Gl oba l Optimization 9 pp 113-119 1996.

PAGE 142

135 Morse, J. N. Reducin g the Size of the Nondominated Set : Purning by Clu ste ring Computers and Operations Research, 7, pp. 55-66, 1980. Murty, K. G Linear Programming, John Wiley New York, 1983 Muu, L. D and Tam, B T Minimizing the Sum of a Convex Function and the Product of Two Affine Functions over a Convex Set, Optimization, 24, pp. 57 62, 1992. Pardalos P. M Polyn o mial Time Algorithms for Some Classes of Constrained Nonconvex Quadratic Problems, Optimization, 21, pp. 843-853, 1990. Pardalos P M and Ro se n, J. B Constrained Global Optimization: Algorithms and Application s, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987. Philip, J Algorithm s fo r the Vector Maximization Problems, Mathematical Programming 2, pp 207-229, 1972. Polya, G and Szego, G. Problem s and Theorems in Analysis, 1, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1972. Quesada, I. and Gro ss mann I. A Global Optimization Algorithm for Linear Fractional and Bilinear Program s, Journal of Global Optimization, 6, pp. 39 -76, 1995. Rockafellar, R. T Convex Analysis, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1970 Ryoo, H. S and Sahinidis, N. V A Branch-and-Reduce Approach to Global Optimization Journal of Global Optimization, 8, pp. 107-138, 1996 Sawaragi Y. Nakayama, H., and Tanino, T Theory of Multiobjective Optimization, Academic Orlando, FL, 1985. Schaible, S. and Sodini, C. Finite Algorithm for Generalized Linear Multiplicative Programming Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 87, pp. 441-455, 1995. Shin, W S. and Ravindran, A. Interactive Multiple Objective Optimization: Survey Continuous Case, Computers and Operations Research, 18, pp. 97-114, 1991. Sniedovich, M and Findlay, S. Solving a Class of Multiplicative Programming Problems via C-Programming, Journal of Global Optimization 6, pp 313-319, 1995. Stadler, W. A Survey of Multicriteria Optimization or the Vector Maximum Problem, Part I: 1776-1960 Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 29, pp 1-52, 1979.

PAGE 143

136 Steuer, R. E. Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation, and Application, John Wiley, New York, 1986. Steuer, R. E. Operating Manual for the ADBASE Multiple-Objective Linear Programming Package, College of Business Administration, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 1989. Steuer, R. E. and Schuler, A. T. An Interactive Multiple-Objective Linear Programming Approach to a Problem in Forest Management, Operations Research, 26, No. 2, pp. 254-269, 1978. Strijbosch, L. W. G., Van Doome, A.G. M., and Selen, W. J. A Simplified MOLP Algorithm: the MOLP-S Procedure, Computers and Operations Research, 18, pp. 709-716, 1991. Swamp, K. Quadratic Programming, Cahiers du Centre d'Etudes de Recherche Operationnelle, 8, No. 4, pp. 223-234, 1966a. Swarup, K. Indefinite Quadratic Programming, Cahiers du Centre d'Etudes de Rechercbe Operationnelle, 8, No. 4, pp. 217-222, 1966b. Thoai, N. V. A Global Optimization Approach for Solving the Convex Multiplicative Programming Problem, Journal of Global Optimization, 1, pp. 341-357, 1991. Tuy, H. Polyhedral Annexation, Dualization and Dimension Reduction Technique in Global Optimization, Journal of Global Optimization, 1, pp. 229-244, 1991. Tuy, H. and Tam, B T. An Efficient Solution Method for Rank-Two Quasiconcave Minimization Problems, Optimization, 24, pp. 43-56, 1992 Wets, J.B. and Witzgall Algorithms for Frames and Lineality Spaces of Cones, Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, 7 lB, pp. 1-7, 1967. Yu, P. L. Multiple-Criteria Decision Making, Plenum, New York, 1985. 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, pp. 430-468, 1975. Zeleny, M. Multiple-Criteria Decision Making, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982.

PAGE 144

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH George Boger received his Bachelor of Science in Mathematics in 1973 from the University of Central Florida. Following graduation he worked in the federal civil service for NASA and the U.S. Navy. In 1992 he received a Master of Science in Operations Research from the Florida Institute of Technology and entered the Ph.D. program in the Department of Decision and Info11nation Sciences at the University of Florida. After graduation, George plans to work in academia, teaching and conducting research 137

PAGE 145

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Harold P. Benson, Chairman Professor of Decision and Information Sciences I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standard s of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in s cope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ision and Information Sciences I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. s o J. Vakharia A sociate Professor of Decision and formation Sciences I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standard s of scholarly presentation and i s fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dis s ertation for the degree of Doctor of Philo s ophy. Richard L. Francis Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering

PAGE 146

This dissertation was s ubmitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Deci s ion and Infor1nation Sci e nce s in the College of Bu s iness Admini s tration and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirement s for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 1999 Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 147

LO 1780 199g 1$(o1t.~


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E65TJAL2Y_OD5NKM INGEST_TIME 2013-03-27T15:21:06Z PACKAGE AA00013619_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES