A Decision-Making Method in Polyhedral Convex Set Optimization

Let $F:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightrightarrows\mathbb{R}^{q}$ be a polyhedral convex set-valued map, meaning that there exists a convex polyhedron $\text{gr}\,F$, which will be assumed to be nonempty throughout this paper, and is called the graph of $F$, such that for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$, the values of $F$ can be expressed as

The goal is to find some $\bar{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ which is minimal with respect to one of the two partial order relations on the power set of $\mathbb{R}^{q}$: set inclusion $\subseteq$ and inverse set inclusion $\supseteq$. In the first case, we seek $\bar{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ such that there is no $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ with $F(x)\subsetneq F(\bar{x})$. This case has applications in robust multi-objective optimization [3, 14] and game theory with multi-dimensional payoffs [9], but it seems to be much more difficult to handle (in particular, it is inherently non-convex in nature) than the second case, which we focus on in this paper. We define the following minimization problem:

A point $\bar{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is called minimizer for (P${}_{\text{min}}$) if

Problem (P${}_{\text{min}}$) can be expressed equivalently by the a maximization problem

and a maximizer for (P${}_{\text{max}}$) is also defined by (1). Therefore, it makes sense to remove the optimization direction from the problem formulation and consider the problem

which is read as ‘optimize $F(x)$ subject to $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$’. An optimizer for (P) is a point $\bar{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ satisfying (1). Note that $F(\bar{x})\neq\emptyset$ for an optimizer $\bar{x}$, because of the running assumption $\operatorname*{gr}F\neq\emptyset$. Problem (P) generalizes both linear programming and multi-objective linear programming (also vector linear programming) in a way that preserves polyhedral convexity. Therefore, Problem (P) is called set linear program. Note that in the literature Problem (P) in the form of (P${}_{\text{min}}$) or (P${}_{\text{max}}$) is usually called polyhedral convex set optimization problem.

For the set linear program (P), we consider two decision makers, DM1 and DM2. DM1’s task is to choose an optimizer $\bar{x}$ of $\eqref{eq:p}$, while DM2 (typically later) chooses some vector $\bar{y}\in F(\bar{x})$. A typical application is a multi-stage optimization problem with a vector-valued objective function $f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{k}\to\mathbb{R}^{q}$. In the first stage, DM1 chooses some $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and later DM2 chooses some $u\in\mathbb{R}^{k}$, which yields an objective value $y=f(x,u)\in\mathbb{R}^{q}$. This situation can be described by a set-valued mapping $F:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightrightarrows\mathbb{R}^{q}$, defined as

When DM2 selects some $y\in F(x)$, there exists a corresponding $u\in\mathbb{R}^{k}$ such that $y=f(x,u)$. Although $u$ may not necessarily be uniquely defined, it is indirectly chosen by DM2. Note that only if an optimizer is chosen by DM1 can DM2 have the maximum flexibility in selecting $y\in F(x)$. This means that DM1 has a “preference for flexibility”, see [18] and the discussion in [11, 10].

Set linear programming (also called polyhedral convex set optimization) has applications in set-valued coherent risk measures introduced in [16] and extended in [6, 8]. The potential role of optimizers and a preference for flexibility in this field is sketched in a simple example in [20]. Another field of application, where optimizers and the flexibility interpretation are central, is multi-objective multi-stage stochastic linear programming [10]. Below in Section 6 we introduce and discuss a further potential application in the field of energy or transportation network design.

In several papers on polyhedral convex set optimization (see, e.g., [22, 12, 20, 10]), a polyhedral convex ordering cone $C\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{q}$ is considered. Similarly, in more general settings, set relations involving an ordering cone [19] are used instead of set inclusion. This cone typically represents the preferences of the decision makers. Although important to the decision makers, it does not play any role in the decision-support process developed in this paper. We maintain generality by assuming that

Moreover, it is not necessary to explicitly mention any linear constraints in the formulation of Problem (P) as they can be subsumed in the polyhedral convex objective function. Indeed, if $S\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is a polyhedral convex feasible set, intersecting the graph of $F$ with $S\times\mathbb{R}^{q}$ yields a new polyhedral convex set-valued map and an equivalent problem free of constraints.

The literature presents two main application-relevant approaches for optimization problems with set-valued objective mappings (e.g., [7, 17]): the set approach, which seeks to compute all or some optimizers without requiring infimum or supremum attainment, and the complete lattice approach, which aims to find optimizers that attain the infimum or supremum. The present approach shares properties of both: In principle, we can compute all optimizers, but in practice, we compute only one, which is preferred by the decision maker. On the other hand, we do not require infimum or supremum attainment, though the infimum or supremum (called the optimal value here) is still part of the information presented to the decision maker.

A solution method for polyhedral convex set optimization problems based on the complete lattice approach has been developed in [22, 20]. Other contributions consider more general problem classes. In [15], optimizers (minimizers) are obtained from an associated vector optimization problem with infinitely many (or, in the polyhedral case, many) objectives. The recent works [4, 5] provide methods for computing all weakly minimal solutions (or weak optimizers, in our terminology) for set optimization problems by solving an associated vector optimization problem. In our setting, a weak optimizer $\bar{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ of (P) is defined by the condition:

Clearly, a weak optimizer is not necessarily an optimizer. This shows that a weak optimizer is generally not the most flexible decision, as discussed above.

We next present a simple example that illustrates a drawback of complete-lattice-type solutions [13, 22, 12, 20] for polyhedral convex set optimization problems within the context of the flexibility interpretation outlined earlier. Let us first recall this solution concept. The concept is based on the observation that the image space of the objective function forms a complete lattice, meaning that every subset has both an infimum and a supremum. In our setting, the family $\mathcal{G}$ of all closed convex subsets of $\mathbb{R}^{q}$ serves as a suitable image space. For a subset $\mathcal{A}$ of $\mathcal{G}$, partially ordered by $\supseteq$, we have

where $\operatorname*{cl}\operatorname*{conv}Q$ denotes the closed convex hull of a set $Q\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{q}$. The notion of infimum is appropriate for the minimization problem (P${}_{\text{min}}$), while for (P${}_{\text{max}}$) the same expression should be interpreted as a supremum, i.e.,

However, this distinction is not necessary here. To unify the treatment, we define the optimal value of $F$ subject to $X\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$ as

For $X=\mathbb{R}^{n}$ (and similarly for polyhedral convex sets), we have

i.e., the closed convex hull can be omitted (see, e.g., [12, Proposition 3]).

To simplify the exposition, we recall the solution concept only for the specific case of bounded polyhedral convex set optimization problems. This means we assume that there is a finite set $\bar{X}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$ where the optimal value of $F$ is attained, that is,

A finite set $\bar{X}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$ of optimizers of (P) satisfying (3) is called a solution of (P) [13, 22]. In the non-bounded case, finite attainment is still possible, but directions in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and the recession function of $F$ need to be involved in the solution definition [12, 20]. Note that no such boundedness assumption is required for the methods introduced in this paper.

Despite this drawback of a solution, in many applications, a solution can provide a good first overview for the decision maker. Therefore, it might make sense to compute a solution before starting the optimizer design process. On the other hand, the method we propose here can also be used to compute solutions. It is preferable if only a part of the solution is interesting for the decision maker as an overview. The design process can also be started directly, allowing the decision maker to explore a finite number of preferred options individually.

We would like to add that computing all optimizers is often impractical because there are usually infinitely many. Presenting those with certain extremal properties, such as those that cannot be expressed as a convex combination of others, is also impractical due to the sheer number of such optimizers in typical problem instances.

The paper is structured as follows: In Section 2, we begin with an informal description of the proposed method. Section 3 presents the core algorithm for an abstract problem setting, along with a demonstration of its key properties, particularly its correctness. In Section 4, we address the polyhedral convex problem setting and characterize the existence of optimizers. The finiteness of the method is discussed in Section 5. An example that motivates the problem class and illustrates the method is provided in Section 6. Finally, implementation issues are discussed in Section 7.

With the method introduced in this paper, one is able to explore the set of optimizers. The decision maker’s task is to successively select points $y^{1},\dots,y^{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{q}$. The goal is to find an optimizer $x$ of Problem (P) such that all these points $y^{i}$ belong to $F(x)$.

The first point $y^{1}$ can be chosen by the decision maker arbitrarily from the optimal value of Problem (P), that is, from the set

It is important that the decision maker can see all her options when selecting $y^{1}$ from the set $Y_{0}$, in order to be able to take into account her preferences. Therefore, the set $Y_{0}$ must be ‘visualized’ in some way.

If the second point $y^{2}$ is also chosen arbitrarily from the set $Y_{0}$, then there does not necessarily exist an $x$ such that $F(x)$ contains both $y^{1}$ and $y^{2}$. Therefore, $y^{2}$ must be chosen from the optimal value $Y_{1}$ of a modified problem, where the constraint $y^{1}\in F(x)$ is added:

Again, this set needs to be visualized for the decision maker to fully understand all available options and effectively consider her preferences.

At this point, it may happen that the decision maker is not satisfied with the set of available options, which, of course, depends on the choice of $y^{1}$. Thus, the selection of $y^{1}$ may need to be revised. Once the decision maker is satisfied with the available options $Y_{1}$, the point $y^{2}$ can be selected from $Y_{1}$. The constraint $y^{2}\in F(x)$ needs to be added, and the decision maker then studies the set

If necessary, the decision maker can now revise the choice of $y^{1}$ or $y^{2}$. If satisfied with the available options $Y_{2}$, she continues to select some point $y^{3}$ from $Y_{2}$. This procedure continues in this manner.

The following observations can be made: Adding constraints leads to the same or smaller optimal values. This means that we have

The set $Y_{0}$ is nonempty whenever the graph of $F$ is nonempty, which is assumed. By induction, it follows that all the constructed sets $Y_{i}$ are nonempty. Indeed, if $y^{i+1}\in Y_{i}$, then there exists $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ such that $y^{i+1}\in F(x)$, $y^{1}\in F(x)$, $\dots$, $y^{i}\in F(x)$, which implies that $Y_{i+1}\neq\emptyset$.

The decision maker’s options $Y_{i}$ are not necessarily realized by a single feasible point $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$, that is,

In this case, the procedure continues. Otherwise, it can be terminated: If for some $k$ there exists $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ such that $F(x)\supseteq Y_{k}$, then this $x$ is an optimizer for (P) that contains the points $y^{1},\dots,y^{k}$ selected by the decision maker.

In the subsequent sections, we will formalize this procedure and prove its correctness and finiteness under certain assumptions.

Let $F:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightrightarrows\mathbb{R}^{q}$ be an arbitrary set-valued mapping. The domain of $F$ is defined as

By the running assumption $\operatorname*{gr}F\neq\emptyset$, the domain of $F$ is always nonempty.

The value function of $F$ is defined as

It can be expressed equivalently as

This shows that $v_{F}(Y)$ is the optimal value of the problem to minimize $F$ subject to the constraint $F(x)\supseteq Y$.

A subset $Y$ of $\mathbb{R}^{q}$ is called fixed point of the value function $v_{F}$ if

We say that $Y\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{q}$ generates a fixed point of $v_{F}$ if there is a fixed point $Z\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{q}$ of $v_{F}$ satisfying

The following statement is an immediate consequence of Proposition 3.1.

The domain of the value function $v_{F}$ is the family of sets

The next proposition shows that one inclusion in (4) is closely related to the domain of $v_{F}$.

We continue by pointing out a monotonicity property of the value function.

The results we have proven suggest the idea of enlarging the set $Y$ iteratively until, if possible, a fixed point of the value function is obtained. Such a construction requires that we do not leave the domain of the value function. This is guaranteed in the situation described in the next proposition.

Algorithm 1 uses the mentioned ideas and results to construct an optimizer of $F$. We will prove the correctness of the algorithm. In order to show that the algorithm terminates after finitely many steps, additional structure and further assumptions are necessary. Such a setting will be discussed in the next two sections.

It remains open at this point how the stopping criterion and the computation of $\bar{x}$ in Algorithm 1 can be realized. In the subsequent sections we show how this is possible for a special setting.

Finally, let us discuss the potential role of a decision maker in Algorithm 1. The points $y$ in the decision-making step can be chosen arbitrarily, which means this task could be performed by a decision maker. Thus, the decision maker can control the construction of an optimizer by deciding which points are added to $Y$. If the algorithm terminates, all points in $Y$ belong to $F(\bar{x})$ for the constructed point $\bar{x}$.

The algorithm introduced in the previous section computes an optimizer whenever it terminates. Thus, the existence of an optimizer is necessary for the finiteness of the algorithm. In this section, we recall some recent results on the existence of optimizers. In particular, we consider a simplified setting where no explicit order cone is involved.

The recession function of a polyhedral convex set-valued map $F:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightrightarrows\mathbb{R}^{q}$ with nonempty domain is defined as

where $0^{+}Q$ denotes the recession cone of a convex set $Q$. This means the graph of $G$ is just the recession cone of the graph of $F$. For $x\in\operatorname*{dom}F$ we have (e.g., [12, Proposition 2])