Suresh Chandra - Fuzzy Linear Programming Problem
Suresh Chandra - Fuzzy Linear Programming Problem
by
Suresh Chandra
Suresh Chandra
b,
0,
Suresh Chandra
CRISP MODELING/STOCHASTIC
MODELING/FUZZY MODELLING
Here i = 1, 2, . . . , m and j = 1, 2, . . . , n.
Suresh Chandra
Resources
(RawM aterials)
(i = 1, 2, , m)
P roduction
System
Suresh Chandra
F inishedP roducts
(j = 1, 2, , n)
Suresh Chandra
Available budget is most likely to be Rs. 190 but certainly not more
than Rs. 220. Further, if things do not go the way I am expecting, it
could as low as Rs. 180. In any case I am very sure that it will not be
less than Rs 180, because I have this much amount in the bank for
this purpose.
Suresh Chandra
180
Suresh Chandra
190
220
490
Suresh Chandra
500
P rof it
Suresh Chandra
Suresh Chandra
But
This does not mean, we should not study (crisp) optimization. Because be
it stochastic optimization/ Fuzzy optimization, they will be appropriately
converted to a crisp optimization and then solved. The main challenge is
How to conceptualize the relevant fuzzy model for the given scenario ?
How to conceptualize the meaning of its solution ?
How to construct the appropriate (crisp) optimization problem whose
solution gives the desired solution in the fuzzy scenario and how to
interpret it?
Since in a given situation, some parameters could be prescribed
precisely, some stochastically and some vaguely (fuzzy), how to
aggregate such goals and constraints so that the resulting
mathematical model represents the reality ?
Suresh Chandra
X : Universe
= {(x, (x)) : x X }: Fuzzy Set
A
A
Suresh Chandra
Suresh Chandra
c, A
B
and A
B
follow very
Keeping this in mind, the definition of A
c
naturally if we understand the (crisp) A B, A B and A in terms of
the associated characteristic functions A and B .
Thus a fuzzy set is a generalization of the usual (crisp ) set A, where x
belongs to A with degree A (x). A : X {0, 1}, where as
A : X [0, 1]
Most of set theoretic operations hold for fuzzy sets, but Law of Excluded
Middle and Law of Contradiction do not hold, i.e.,
A
c need NOT be X.
A
A
c need NOT be (Empty set).
A
Suresh Chandra
Suresh Chandra
Fuzzy Decision
Once fuzzy decision D is known, we define x X to be an optimal
Decision if
D (x ) = max(D (x)|x
X)
= max min Gi (x), Cj (x)|x X
i,j
G
1
Suresh Chandra
Max
subject to
Gi (x) , i
Cj (x) , j
0 1, x X .
Suresh Chandra
1,
x a,
(a x)
S (x) =
,
(a p) x < a,
1
0,
x (a p),
Suresh Chandra
ap
Suresh Chandra
Here
&p0
.pi
Z0 ,
bi , (i = 1, 2, . . . , m, )
0,
1,
c T x Z0 ,
(Z0 c T x)
0 (c T x) =
,
(Z0 p0 ) c T x < Z0 ,
1
p
0
1,
c T x < (Z0 p0 ),
Suresh Chandra
1,
(Ai x bi )
i (Ai x) =
1
,
pi
0,
Ai x bi ,
bi < Ai x bi + pi ,
Ai x > bi + pi .
Suresh Chandra
(ELP)
Max
subject to
c T x Z0 (1 )p0 ,
Ai x bi + (1 )pi , (i = 1, , m)
0 1, x 0.
Suresh Chandra
Example
x1 + x2 .2 14.5,
x1 + 3x2 .3 21,
x1 + 3x2 .6 27,
Here Z0 = 14.5.
Suresh Chandra
(ELP)
Max
subject to
2 x1 x2
3 x1 + 3x2
6 + x1 3x2
6 + 4x1 + 3x2
0
x1 , x2
12.5,
24,
33,
51,
1,
0,
Suresh Chandra
Suresh Chandra
subject to
Ai x bi + (1 )pi , (1 = 1, 2, . . . , m),
x
0,
[0, 1].
Suresh Chandra
(FLP : Phase II )
cT x
x
&p
Z0 ,
S,
subject to
cT x
Ai x
x
Z0 (1 )p0 ,
bi + (1 )pi , (i = 1, 2, . . . , m),
0,
[0, 1].
Suresh Chandra
Let (b
x,
b) be an optimal solution of (FLP : Phase-II). Then b
x is identified
as an optimal solution of (FLP). In fact we denote it by (b
, )-optimal
solution.
Here
Suresh Chandra
Max
(, )
subject to
0 (c T x) ,
i (Ai x) , (1 = 1, 2, . . . , m),
x
0,
[0, 1],
Lemma
The solution (b
x,
b, ) is an efficient solution of the bi-objective
optimization problem (BOP).
Remark
In view of the above lemma, there will be no unique solution of (FLP) in
general. But rather there will be entire efficient frontier of (BOP) giving
all solutions of (FLP).
Remark
One can choose a trade-off parameter 0 1 and solve
Max
+ (1 )
subject to
c T x Z0 (1 )p0 ,
Ai x
bi + (1 )pi , (i = 1, 2, . . . , m),
0, , [0, 1].
Example 2
&
.
&
.
&
9.3,
2,
15,
12,
20,
0.
Suresh Chandra
Max
subject to
x1 + x2 1.8 7.5,
x1 + x2 + 4 6,
x1 + 10x2 3 12,
x1 + 3x2 + 5 17,
3x1 x2 6 14,
x 0, [0, 1].
Suresh Chandra
Now we solve the same problem by the proposed two phase method. The
Phase-I problem is
Max
subject to
x1 + x2 + 4 6,
x1 + 10x2 3 12,
x1 + 3x2 + 5 17,
3x1 x2 6 14,
x 0,
[0, 1].
Suresh Chandra
x1 + 10x2 3 12,
x1 + 3x2 + 5 17,
3x1 x2 6 14,
x
0,
[0, 1].
The optimal solution of the above Phase-II problem is
(b
x1 = 6.88, b
x2 = 2.11,
b = 0.844).
Here we note that Max(b
, ) = Max(0.844, 0.754) = 0.844 is greater
(FLP)
Max
cT x
subject to
Ax
x
()b,
0.
Here
x Rn
= (aij ) is a fuzzy matrix with aij as a fuzzy numbers, c and b
A
are vectors in Rn and Rm respectively, with entries as fuzzy numbers.
Suresh Chandra
There are three types of Models for LPP with fuzzy Parameters.
Tanaka and Asai Approach (1984)
Ranking Function Approach (Yager 1981).
Standard Fuzzy Order Appraoch (Clemente, Fernandez,
Puerto(2012)).
There are numerous variants of the original Ranking Function Approach of
Yager(1981), e.g. Bector, Chandra and Vijay (2004), Li(1999).
Here we shall discuss the details of Tanaka and Asai. We shall also make
certain observation on the ranking function approach of Clemente et al.
(2012).
Suresh Chandra
Fuzzy Number
We now define the following
Definition
A fuzzy number a is a fuzzy set in R such that
(1) d R such that a (d) = 1 (The fuzzy set a is normal).
(2) Every -cut,
a = {x R : a (x) > }
is a closed-bounded 0 < 1 interval. For = 0, a0 is defined
separately as the closure of the set {x R : a (x) > 0}
(Condition(2) is equivalent to the facts that a is upper semi-continuous,
quasi concave and its support is compact).
The arithmetic of fuzzy numbers is understood in terms of the interval
arithmetic of its cuts or by resorting to Zadeh Extension Principle.
Suresh Chandra
a (x)
al
a1
Suresh Chandra
a2
au
a (x)
1
al
a1
a2
au
Figure:
fuzzy
SureshTrapezoidal
Chandra
Fuzzy
Linearnumber
Programming Models and Extensions
ym = am1 x1 + am2
x2 + + amn
xn .
If we write
Y =
y1
y2
..
.
ym
a11
..
,A = .
am1
a12
a1n
am2
amn
,
X
=
x1
x2
..
.
xn
Max
cT x
subject to
Ax
x
b,
0.
|r aij |
,
r [aij pij , aij + pij ]
1
aij (r ) =
pij
0,
otherwise
|r cj |
1
,
r [cj j , cj + j ]
cj (r ) =
j
0,
otherwise
Suresh Chandra
bi (r ) =
|r bi |
,
i
0,
r [bi i , bi + i ]
otherwise
Let yi = nj=1 aij xj . Then using the membership function of the symmetric
TFN aij . We can show that
T (x)|
|r a(i)
, |x| =
6 0,
T |x|
p(i)
yi (r ) =
T (x) p T |x|, aT (x) + p T |x|]
r [a(i)
(i)
(i)
(i)
0,
x = 0, r = 0,
T = [a , a , , a ] p T = [p , p , , p ]
Here a(i)
i1 i2
in
i1 i2
in
(i)
|x| = (|x1 |, |x2 |, , |xn |)
T (x) = n a x ,
T |x| = n p |x |
a(i)
p(i)
j=1 ij j
j=1 ij j
Suresh Chandra
1
h
a
= (a, p)
1h
(a p)
(a + p) x
a
p
Figure: a &h 0
(r
)dr
a
Then S = 0.5 + h 0.5h2 . Therefore if we choose h = 0.6, we get
S = 0.92 . In that case we may say that a & 0 with grade o.92
We may now extend the above definition to a P
sum of symmetric TFN.
let ai P
= (ai , pi ) be
symmetric TFNs and a = ki=1 wi ai . Then
P
a = ( ni=1 wi ai , ni=1 wi pi ) is also a symmetric TFN.
P
Then a &h 0 if ni=1 wi ai > 0 and a (1 h).
Suresh Chandra
cT x
T x
A
x
& Z0 , (Goal)
(Constraints)
. b,
0.
ym = am0 x1 + am1
x2 + + amn
xn & 0.
x0 = 1.
Here yi & 0, (i = 0, 1, , m) is understood in the sense of almost
positive.
Suresh Chandra
A0
y0
y1
A1
= .
Y = . , A
,
..
..
ym
Am
Ai = [ai0 , ai1 , , ain ], (i = 0, 1, , m).
Our aim is to find x = (x0 = 1, x1 , x2 , , xn ) Rn+1 satisfying the above
system. The above system is equivalent to
y0
= 1
..
.
ym
= 1
AT
(0) x
T x
P(0)
AT
(m) x
T x
P(m)
(1 h),
(1 h),
Suresh Chandra
T x 0
P(0)
T x 0.
P(m)
Max h
subject to
(A(i) hP(i) )T x 0, (i = 0, 1, 2, , m)
x0 = 1, xj 0 (j = 1, 2, , n)
0 h 1.
Suresh Chandra
Note that
Here x and h both are variables, so it is a non-linear programming
problem. Tanaka and Asai suggested the following algorithm to solve
it.
Let for a given 0 h 1. The set Xh = (x0 = 1, x Rn ) satisfies
the constraints of (EFNLP) is called the admissible set of (EFNLP)
for given h. Then h1 < h2 Xh2 Xh1 . Thus larger h is, the smaller
is its admissible set.
Suresh Chandra
Suresh Chandra
Max
AT
(j) x
subject to
(A(i) (h + k)P(i) )T x
x0 = 1, xj
0, (i = 0, 1, 2, , m)
0 (j = 1, 2, , n)
0 h 1.
Suresh Chandra
Example
Consider the following (FNLP)
6x1 +
5x2
2x1 +
9x2
11x1
5x2
1+
2x
3x2
x1 0, x2
30,
45,
44,
12,
0.
Equivalently
y0
y1
y2
y2
x1
=
=
=
=
+
2 0,
30
6x1 + 5x
45 2x1 9x2 0,
11x
1+
44
5x2 0,
12 + 2x1 3x2 ,
0, x2 0.
A0 = (30,
6,
5), P(0) = (6, 2, 1), therefore
= (30, 6), 6 = (6, 2),
30
5 = (5, 1) are symmetric TFN
A1 == (45,
2,
9), P(1) = (8, 2, 3)
11,
A2 = (44,
5), P(2) = (4, 2, 1)
A3 = (12,
2,
3), P(0) = (4, 1, 2)
This gives the following (EFNLP)
Maxh
subject to
30 6h + (6 2h)x1 + (5 h)x2 0,
45 8h (2 + 2h)x1 (9 + 3h)x2 0,
y0
y1
0.5
0.4
7.5
27.7
10.1
12.5
37.3
12.4
1
1
y2
y3
0.5
0.4
8.0
7.6
23.2
Suresh Chandra
0.6 0
13.1
26.8
(3)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(2)
h = 0.3
h=0
(1)
(0)
(0)
(2)
(3)
2.6
(1)
h = 0.5
(0)
4.5
Suresh Chandra
a b if F (a) F (b).
Yager proposed the following ranking function
R au
a (x)dx
a x
1 F1 (
a) = R lau (x)dx , where al and au are the lower and upper limits
al
u
of the support of a. If a = (al , a, au ) is TFN, then F1 (a) = al +a+a
3
R max
F2 (a) = 0
m[aL , aR ]d, where max is the height of a,
a = [aL , aR ] is its cut and m[aL , aR ] is its mean value of the
u
cut. For the a = (al , a, au ), F2 (a) = al +2a+a
4
Suresh Chandra
Remark
does not necessarily means a = b and the ordering
Since F (a) = F (b)
Max
cT x
subject to
Ax
x
()b,
0.
Suresh Chandra
()b
a
a) 5 f (b).
where () is the componentwise order on Rr 2 . Any fuzzy order defined
by a standard ranking function f introduces the following equivalence
relationship on N(R)
f (
(=)b
a
a) = f (b).
Suresh Chandra
Ordering of TFNs
Therefore () is a partial order and (=) is to be understood in terms of an
rather than saying that
indifference relation. Thus when f (
a) = f (b)
= b, we say that a
and b are equivalent, and denote the same as a
(=)b.
a
For TFN and TrFN, in Definition 2 we need only two values of , namely
= 0 and = 1.
Let a = (al , a, au ) and b = (bl , b, bu ) be two TFN 0 s. Then
1
a
(a al ) + al
f (a) =
=
(a au ) + au
a2
Similarly
=
f (b)
(b bl ) + bl
(b bu ) + bu
(a au ) + au
(b bu ) + bu
Suresh Chandra
Ordering of TFNs
a
a
()
b
b
Suresh Chandra
Max
cT x
subject to
Ax
x
. b,
0.
Max (pij (
c )x (i = 1, , r , j = 1, 2))
subject to
pij (b),
pij (A)x
(i = 1, , r , j = 1, 2)
x 0.
Suresh Chandra
Remark
As (FLP) is defined w.r.t the standard fuzzy order (), solving (FLP)
amounts to determination of its maximal elements. This is because
Suresh Chandra
Example
e i1 , x2 is A
e i2 , . . . , xn is A
e in ), Then f (x) isC
ei .
Ri (x) : If (x1 is A
e ij and Ci are fuzzy numbers (i = 1, 2, . . . , m; j = 1, 2, . . . , n).
Here A
Generalizing the fuzzy reasoning approach (say TSK model). We
determine the crisp value of f at y X and obtain the optimal solution to
(FOP) by solving the resulting (usually non linear optimization problem)
Max/Min f (y )
subject to
y X.
We illustrate this methodology for the following example.
Suresh Chandra
Example
Min
f (x)
subject to
x1 + x2 = 1/2,
0 x1 1,
0 x2 1,
Where f (x) given linguistically as
Suresh Chandra
Suresh Chandra
x1 is small
x2 is small
f (x) is small
1
z1
x1 is small
f (x) is big
x2 is big
y1
y2
Suresh Chandra
z2
z2 = (1 y1 )y2 .
f (y ) =
Suresh Chandra
Min
f (x)
subjectto
{R1 (x), R2 (x)) : x X },
results into
Min
(y1 + y2 2y1 y2 )
subjectto
{Y1 + y2 = 1/2, 0 y1 1, 0 y2 1}.
Suresh Chandra
Suresh Chandra
References
(1) A. Aggarwal, A. Mehra and S. Chandra, Application of linear
programming with I-fuzzy sets to matrix games with I-fuzzy goals,
Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Vol. 11(4), 465-480,
(2012)
(2) C. R. Bector, S. Chandra and V. Vidyottama, Duality in linear
programming with fuzzy parameters and matrix games with fuzzy
payoffs, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 146, pp. 253-269, (2004).
(3) C. R. Bector and S. Chandra, Fuzzy Mathematical Programming and
Fuzzy Matrix Game, Berlin Heidelberg; Springer -Verleg, (2005).
(4) R. E. Bellman and L. A. Zadeh, Decision Making in a fuzzy
environment, Management Science, Vol. 17, 141-164, (1973).
(5) M. Clemente, F. R. Fernandez and J. Puerto, Pareto optimal security
strategies in matrix games with fuzzy payoffs. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, Vol 176, 3645 (2011)
Suresh Chandra
Suresh Chandra