MA7391 Seminar

Compromise Programming
Rajesh Budania(M180512MA)

Under the guidance of

Dr. Sushama C M

Department Of Mathematics
National Institute of Technology Calicut
Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 1 / 36
Overview

1 Introduction
2 A discrete approximation of the best-compromise solution
3 CP Model Formulation
4 The method of the displaced ideal
5 Pros and cons of GP, MOP and CP
6 Conclusion
7 References

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 2 / 36

Multi-objective optimization is an area of multiple criteria decision
making(DMs) that is concerned with mathematical optimization
problems involving more than one objective function to be optimized
simultaneously. At present, various methods have introduced to
optimize such problems. Compromise programming(CP) model is a
one of the optimization methods for multi-objective problems.

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 3 / 36

Introduction

In most of real life situation one may have to attain many goal
which are contradictory in nature.
In linear and integer programming methods the objective function
is measured in one dimension only.
It is not possible for LP to have multiple goals unless they are all
measured in same units, and this is highly unusual situation.
An important technique that has been developed to supplement
LP is called compromise programming.

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 4 / 36

Definition 1.1
Compromise programming uses the concept of minimum distance. A
distance based technique that depends on the point of reference or
“ideal” point. Attempts to minimize the “distance” from the ideal
solution for a satisfying solution.

the CP model, DMs are able to establish, easily and precisely,

goal values of the considered objectives.
advantages of CP model are its simplicity and its capability to be
used in conditions which it is not possible to access goal values of
objectives.

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 5 / 36

The method of compromise programming identifies solution which
are closest to the ideal solution as determined by some measure
of distance.
It allows to reduce the set of efficient solutions to a more
reasonable size without demanding any information from the DMs.
The basic idea in CP is to identify an ideal or utopian solution
which is only a point of reference for the DMs.
CP assumes that any DMs seeks a solution as close as possible
to the ideal point, possibly the only assumption made by CP about
human preferences.

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 6 / 36

 Lp Metrics
To find out the set of solutions closest to the ideal point we need to
introduce the concept of distance.
The notion of distance can be generalized to Lp .
All possible distances are bounded by the ’longest’, the Lp metric,
and the ’shortest’, the L∞ metric, distances.
In a strict two-dimensional geometric sense the use of Lp metrics
for values of the parameter p greater than two is meaningless.
It is also called the Chebyshev distance.

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 7 / 36

Discrete approximation of the best Compromise
Solution

Zeleney’s (1973) Axiom of Choice: The best-compromise solution

is the nearest solution to the ideal.
Calculate distances between the set of solutions and the ideal.
- Let’s call the ideal Zj∗ .
The degree of closeness between the objective Zj (X ) and it’s ideal
is given by the distance dj .

dj = Zj∗ - Zj (X ) if Zj (X ) is to be maximize or
dj = Zj (x) - Zj∗ if Zj (X ) is to be minimize

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 8 / 36

 Normalize using Ideal and anti-ideal
|Zj∗ −Zj (X )|
dj = |Zj∗ −Z∗ j |
Z∗j is the anti-ideal or nadir point for the jth objective.
The normalised degrees of closeness are bounded between 0 and
1.
When an objective achieves its ideal solution then the degree of
closeness is 0.
when an objective achieves its anti-ideal solution then the degree
of closeness is 1.
The normalised degrees of closeness measure the percentage of
achievement of one objective with respect to its ideal value.

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 9 / 36

 Generalizing
 to family
 of Metrics
Pn 1
p p
Lp (W ) = j=1 (Wj dj )
The best-compromise solution changes according to p and Wj .
Wj are the weights representing the relative importance of the jth
objective to the DM.

The lowest value for Lp (W ) will be the best-compromise solution

because it is the nearest solution with respect to the ideal point.

L∞(W ) = Max[W1d1, W2d2, ...]

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 10 / 36

CP Model Formulation

The ideal solution is defined as vector Z ∗ =(Z∗1 ,Z2∗ ,...,Zn∗ )

where the Zi∗ are the solution of the following problem

max Zi (x)

subject to

x∈ X
i=1,2,...,n

If there were a feasible solution vector,x ∗ common to all n

problem,then this solution would be the optimal one since the
non-dominated set(in objective space)would consist of only
point,namely Z ∗ (x ∗ )=(Z∗1 (x ∗ ),Z2∗ (x ∗ ),...,Zn∗ (x ∗ ))

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 11 / 36

 To have an understanding consider a hypothetical problem with
two objective.
A manufacturer of solar technology component consider mass
producing two type of Photovoltaic solar cells for energy conversions:
(1) a cell module(product 1) for applications weather satellites and
(2) a cell chip(product 2) for use in pocket calculator.
Unfortunately the production process results emissions of a pollutant in
to the atmosphere which,the company would like to minimize and
president of the company would like to maximize to profit.Trade offs
between these two objective are sought to assist management in the
decision making process.

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 12 / 36

 Product 1 Product 2
No of units produced X1 X2
Unit of raw material required 1.0 5.0
Machine time required(hr) 0.5 0.25
Assembly time required(hr) 0.2 0.2
Direct material cost 0.25 0.75
Direct labor cost 2.75 1.25
sales price/unit 4.0 5.0
Assumption:
Production limited machine capacity 8hr/period
assembly capacity 4hr/period
Raw material is limited to 72 unites
cost involve only material and labour
Amount of pollution emissions is 3 units per unit of product 1 and
2 units per unit of product 2.
Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 13 / 36
(i) Maximization of Net Profit of investment Z1 (X ) and
(ii) Minimizing the Pollution Z2 (X ).
Let the mathematical form of the problem be:
Z1 (X ) = X1 + 3X2
Z2 (X ) = 3X1 + 2X2
Subject to
0.5X1 + 0.25X2 ≤ 8
0.2X1 + 0.2X2 ≤ 4
X1 + X2 ≤ 72 X1 , X2 ≥ 0

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 14 / 36

Table -1:

Extreme points of the feasible set

Extreme Point Z1 (X ) Z2 (X )
1 0
X =(0,0) 0 0 A =(0,0)
0
X 2 =(0, 72
5 ) 43.2 28.8 B =(43.2,28.8)
0
X 3 =(7,13) 46 47 C =(46,47)
0
X 4 =(20,0) 20 60 D =(20,60)

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 15 / 36

 0 0 0
Only A ; B or C can be best compromise in the discrete method!!!

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 16 / 36

The discrete method has two weaknesses
Requires the determination of the efficient set.
The best-compromise point should always be an extreme efficient
point. In many instances the best-compromises could be
Pareto-interior points.

In the literature of MOP, the elements of the main diagonal in the

pay – off matrix are referred to as the “ideal point”, that is the
solution where all the objectives achieve their optimal value.
In this example ideal point Zj∗ = (46, 0)
In this example anti ideal point Z∗j = (0, 47)

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 17 / 36

Table -2:

Compromise Programming(discrete approximation)

0 0 0
A B C Z∗j (X ) Z∗j (X )
Maximum 0 43.2 46 46 0
Profit
Minimum 0 28.8 47 0 47
Pollution
d1 1 0.06 0
d2 0 0.61 1
L1 W1 = 1 1 0.67 1
L2 W2 = 1 1 0.6129 1
L∞ 1 0.61 1

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 18 / 36

 Compromise set
Yu (1971) proved that for problems with two objectives L1 and L∞
metrics define a subset of the efficient set .
Zeleny (1973) calls the L1 − L∞ the compromise set.
All the other best-compromise solutions fall between the solutions
corresponding to L1 and L∞ metrics.

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 19 / 36

 Solving For L1
Solve CP problems to determine the set of solutions closest to the
ideal.
- For p = 1 and p → ∞
m
X |Zj∗ − Zj (X )|
MinL1 (W ) = Wj
|Zj∗ − Z∗j |
j=1

Subject to
0.5X1 + 0.25X2 ≤ 8
0.2X1 + 0.2X2 ≤ 4
X1 + 5X2 ≤ 72
X1 , X2 ≥ 0
m is number of non dominated extreme points.
0
For W1 = W2 (equal importance) B is the best compromise
solution when the metric L1 is used.
Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 20 / 36
 Solving For L∞
For the L metric (p → ∞) the maximum deviation from among the
individual deviations is minimized.
When p → ∞ only the largest deviation count.
The best-compromise solution is obtained by solving the following
LP problem.
A compromise solution is found in the following way. First,
∗ = a∗ X 1 + a∗ X 2 + a∗ X 3 + ... + a∗ X m
X∞ 1 2 3 m
Where X j , j = 1, 2, ..., m are non-dominated extreme points and
Pm ∗
j=1 aj = 1

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 21 / 36

Hence,the compromise solution convex combination of non-dominated
extreme points.The aj∗ are defined

a
aj∗ = Pm j
aj
j=1

Where the aj are the optimal solution to the following problem:

Pm
j=1 aj
subject to
Pm |Zi∗ −Zi (X j )|
j=1 Wi aj |Zi∗ −Z∗ i |
≤d
j = 1, 2, 3, ..., m a1 , a2 , a3 , ..., am ≥ 0 i=1,2.

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 22 / 36

Table -3:

Non-dominated Solutions
|Z1∗ −Z1 (X j )| |Z2∗ −Z2 (X j )|
Non-dominated |Z1∗ −Z∗ 1 | |Z2∗ −Z∗ 2 | Σ
Extreme Point
X 1 = (0, 0) 1 0 1
X 2 = (0, 72
5 ) 0.06 0.61 0.67
X 3 = (7, 13) 0 1 1

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 23 / 36

 For the example at hand,the system assumes the following form:

max a1 + a2 + a3

subject to

W1 (a1 + 0.06a2 ) ≤ 1
W2 (0.61a2 + a3 ) ≤ 1
a1 , a2 , a3 ≥ 0
here W1 = W2 = 1
Solution of the above problem yields

a1 = 0.9016
a2 = 1.639
a3 = 0
Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 24 / 36
When

X
aj = 2.54
j

and
a1
a1∗ = Σaj
= 0.355
a2
a2∗ = Σaj
= 0.645
a3
a3∗ = Σaj
=0

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 25 / 36

Therefore,the compromise solution for p → ∞ is equal to
∗
X∞ = 0.355X 1 + 0.645X 2 + 0X 3
∗
X∞ = (0, 9.29)

X1 = 0 and X2 = 9.29
Maximum Profit = 27.9
Minimum Pollution = 18.6
0
For W1 = W2 = 1 solution is the point Z .

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 26 / 36

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 27 / 36
Displaced Ideal

0 0 0
CP reduced the set of efficient solution of interest from A B C to
0 0
Z B to help the DMs.
It’s inconvenient to work with large CP sets.
-it is not easy for the DMs to choose the optimum solutions from
the efficient compromises.
Zeleney (1973) has suggested a method called the displaced
ideal which helps reducing the compromise set.

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 28 / 36

 0 0
Assume the compromise set Z B is too large.
Assume the DMs discards solutions belonging to:
0 0
The segment C B because they require too many Pollution.
0 0
The solutions along A Z as they provide too little Profit.
We now have a new ideal: Z ∗∗ (43.2 , 18.6).
And anti-ideal : Z∗∗ (27.9,28.6)

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 29 / 36

 New Ideal Z ∗∗
Solve 2 new LP problems to determine the set of solutions closest
to the new ideal Z ∗∗
- For p = 1
Min L1 = W1 |43.2−Z 1 (X )|
|43.2−27.9|
+ W2 |28.8−Z 2 (X )|
|28.8−18.6|
0
Min L1 is B
- For p→∞
Pm
j=1 aj
subject to
Pm |Z ∗∗j −Zj (X )|
j=1 Wi aj |Z ∗∗j −Z∗∗ j |
≤d

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 30 / 36

Optimal solution X1 = 0 and X2 between 9.29 and 14.5
Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 31 / 36
Pros and Cons of GP, MOP and CP
In terms of computational time ,GP is the most efficient approach.
CP approach involves even more computation.
In terms of quantity Information required from the DMs,GP is the
most difficult approach. The DMs has to provide precise target
values, weights attached to each deviational variable, pre-emptive
ordering of preferences.
Much of this is very difficult to obtain in some cases, as with the
target values, it could be argued that this is the kind of information
that the model should provide to the DMs rather than it being an
input requirement.

Building a MOP model does not require any information about the
DMs preferences.
The mathematical expression of the objectives being considered is
sufficient.
Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 32 / 36
For CP we need to know only the relative preferences of the DMs
for each objective.
Information produced by the model for use by the DMs.
GP variants provide only a single solution
Sensitivity analysis may help generating more info to the DMs
GP provides rather too little information compared to MOP or CP .

CP provides the same information as MOP by identifying the

bounds of that portion of the efficient set which is closest to the
ideal point.

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 33 / 36

Conclusion

As Ignizio (1983) says: “there is not now, and probably never shall
be, one single "best“ approach to all types of multi-objective
mathematical programming problems”.
No definite superiority of one MCDM approach relative to others.
Success of MCDM technique depends on DMs on formation
about targets and priorities.
DMs are required to make detailed analyse of various solution.

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 34 / 36

Reference

[1] E. Ballestero, C. Romero, Portfolio selection: A compromise

programming solution,Journal of Operational Research Society,
47 (1996).
[2] D.E. Bell, H. Raiffa, A. Tversky, Decision making: Descriptive
normative and prescriptive Interactions,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England (1988).
[3] D.E. Bell, H. Raiffa, A. Tversky. Decision making: Descriptive
normative and prescriptive Interactions, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, England (1988).
[4] M. Amiri, M. Ekhtiari, and M. Yazdani. Nadir compromise
programming: a model for optimization of multi-objective portfolio
problem,Expert Systems with Applications,Iran(2011).

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 35 / 36

Reference

[5] J. L. Cochrane, M. Zeleny. Compromise Programming, in: Multiple

Criteria Decision Making, University of South Carolina Press,
Columbia(1973).

Rajesh Budania Compromise Programming 07:37, September 2, 2020 36 / 36