Evolutionary algorithm using surrogate models for solving bilevel multiobjective programming problems

Yuhui Liu; Hecheng Li; Hong Li

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243926

Abstract

A bilevel programming problem with multiple objectives at the leader’s and/or follower’s levels, known as a bilevel multiobjective programming problem (BMPP), is extraordinarily hard as this problem accumulates the computational complexity of both hierarchical structures and multiobjective optimisation. As a strongly NP-hard problem, the BMPP incurs a significant computational cost in obtaining non-dominated solutions at both levels, and few studies have addressed this issue. In this study, an evolutionary algorithm is developed using surrogate optimisation models to solve such problems. First, a dynamic weighted sum method is adopted to address the follower’s multiple objective cases, in which the follower’s problem is categorised into several single-objective ones. Next, for each the leader’s variable values, the optimal solutions to the transformed follower’s programs can be approximated by adaptively improved surrogate models instead of solving the follower’s problems. Finally, these techniques are embedded in MOEA/D, by which the leader’s non-dominated solutions can be obtained. In addition, a heuristic crossover operator is designed using gradient information in the evolutionary procedure. The proposed algorithm is executed on some computational examples including linear and nonlinear cases, and the simulation results demonstrate the efficiency of the approach.

Citation: Liu Y, Li H, Li H (2020) Evolutionary algorithm using surrogate models for solving bilevel multiobjective programming problems. PLoS ONE 15(12): e0243926. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926

Editor: Weinan Zhang, National University of Singapore, SINGAPORE

Received: August 9, 2020; Accepted: December 1, 2020; Published: December 17, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files, and I also uploaded data on URL https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.dfn2z3504.

Funding: The research work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 61966030 and 11661067, the Natural Science Foundation of Qinghai Province under Grant No. 2018-ZJ-901 and the Key Laboratory of IoT of Qinghai under grant 2020-ZJ-Y16.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Problem models

The bilevel programming problem (BLPP), a hierarchical optimisation problem, has a nested optimisation structure because of a leader and a follower. In a BLPP, optimisation procedures are executed successively at both the leader’s and follower’s levels. The upper-level optimisation is provided by the leader, whereas the lower-level optimisation is controlled by the follower. The related problems are called the upper-level/leader’s problem and lower-level/follower’s problem. Both the leader’s and follower’s problems have their own decision variables, constraints and objective functions [1]. The general BLPP can be formulated as follows: (1) Where x = (x₁, …, x_n) are the leader’s variables, y = (y₁, …, y_m) the follower’s variables, the leader’s objective function, the follower’s objective function, G_k: R^n+m → R, k = 1, 2, ⋯, K, the leader’s constraints, and g_j: R^n+m → R, j = 1, 2, ⋯, J, the follower’s constraints.

When the number of objectives in a leader’s and/or follower’s problems exceeds one, the problem is called a bilevel multiobjective programming problem (BMPP). The BMPP is one of the most difficult optimisation problems, because it accumulates all computational costs of hierarchical and multiobjective optimisations. Consequently, it is strongly NP-hard. The BMPP can be formulated as follows: (2) Here, a ≤ x ≤ b, where a, and b are the lower and upper bounds of x, respectively. In general, the optimisation procedure of problem (2) can be described as follows. The leader first selects a strategy x to optimise his objective, and then the follower reacts to the leader’s selection by providing a group of non-dominated solutions y_i to the follower’s problem. The pairs (x, y_i) are then used as bilevel feasible solutions to (2). When the leader selects another strategy, the related feasible point pairs can be obtained. To solve (2) is analogous to determining a set of non-dominated solutions that is distributed well for the leader’s objective in all bilevel feasible solutions.

Unlike BLPPs with a single objective at each level, the BMPP incurs an additional computational cost for the selection of the follower’s non-dominated solutions. In addition, the selection of Pareto solutions in the leader’s problem renders the BMPP much harder than the single objective case.

Related work

For problem (1), BLPPs have been extensively applied in economic management and engineering, urban traffic and transportation, supply chain planning, resource assignment, engineering design, structural optimisation, and game-playing strategies. For example, Zhu and Guo [2] proposed a BLPP with a maxmin or minmax operator in the follower’s levels for a manufacturer, where the manufacturer plans to produce multiple short life cycle products using one-shot decision theory. The model was solved using typically used optimisation methods. Based on a bilevel complementary model, Nasrolahpouret et al. [3] developed an energy storage system decision tool for merchant price-making, that can determine the most advantageous trading behaviour in a pool-based market. More examples in real-world applications are summarised in [4–8].

As the applications of BLPPs are becoming increasingly extensive and diverse, researchers have focused on developing efficient solution strategies for such problems. However, owing to the intrinsic non-convexity and non-differentiability of BLPPs, a general BLPP is always complex and extremely challenging to solve using canonical optimisation methods that involve gradient information. Thus far, only a limited number of BLPPs can be solved effectively, such as linear [9–13] and convex quadratic BLPPs [14–16]. Liu et al. [10] used a new variant of the penalty method and Karush-Kuhn-Tucker(K-K-T) conditions to solve weak linear BLPPs. Franke et al. [16] used K-K-T conditions and the optimal value approach to transform a bilevel convex programming problem into a single-level optimisation problem, and introduced M-stationarity for mathematical programs with complementarities in Banach spaces. For most general BLPPs, only local optima can be obtained using these gradient approaches. To effectively solve BLPPs, another algorithm framework, i.e. the swarm optimisation method, has been widely adopted. This method is based on population search technology and affords good global convergence. Evolutionary algorithms [17–19], as representative swarm optimisation techniques, have been widely adopted to develop various bilevel optimisation algorithms in the past decades. For example, Sinha et al. [19] presented a single-level reduction of BLPPs using approximate K-K-T conditions and embedded the neighbourhood measure idea into an evolutionary algorithm. Based on a new constraint-handling scheme, Wang, et al. [20] proposed an evolutionary algorithm using K-K-T conditions. In Wang’s method, the new constraint-handling scheme enables individuals to satisfy linear constraints.

For problem (2), even though it is extremely difficult to design efficient solution approaches for the BMPP, a large number of practical applications stimulate the researches on theoretical results and algorithmic design. Guo and Xu [21] developed a BMPP model to study the seismic risk of transportation system reconstruction in large construction projects, and fuzzy random variable transformation and fuzzy variable decomposition methods were proposed to solve the model. Brian et al. [22] proposed a BMPP model for coordinating multiple design problems according to conflicting criteria. The design of a hybrid vehicle layout was expressed as a two-stage decomposition problem including vehicle class and battery class, and a multiobjective decomposition algorithm was developed. Alves et al. [23] developed a particle swarm optimisation algorithm to solve linear BMPPs with simple multiple objectives at the leader’s level. Chakraborti et al. [24] investigated environmental-economic power generation and despatch problems using the BMPP.

The existing BMPPs can be classified into three categories: 1) Only the leader’s problem involves multiobjective optimisation [25, 26]; 2) only the follower’s problem includes multiobjective optimisation [27–29]; and 3) both levels involve multiobjective optimisation [30–39]. In fact, once a the non-dominated procedure is hierarchically executed, the computational amount for bilevel optimisation will be significant. Consequently, a few efficient approaches exist for addressing linear or nonlinear BMPPs.

For linear BMPPs, Calice et al. [34] first converted the linear BMPP into two multiobjective problems, and then used some specific optimisation conditions to prove that the common solutions to each multiobjective problem are optimal to the original problem. Kirlik et al. [35] proposed the use of a global optimisation method for discrete linear BMPPs. However, this method is computationally intensive. Liu et al. [36] investigated a class of pessimistic semi-rectorial BLPPs, and used secularisation to, transform the original problem into a scalar objective optimisation problem. Subsequently, the authors used the generalised differentiation calculus of Mordukhovich to establish optimality conditions for linear multiobjective problems. Lv and Wan [37] used the duality gap as a penalty on the leader’s objective, and the follower’s problem was transformed into a single objective case by adopting a weighted sum scheme. Alves [25] used a multiobjective particle swarm optimisation algorithm to solve linear BMPPs with multiple objective functions at the leader’s level.

Only a few studies have been reported regarding nonlinear BMPPs. Deb and Sinha [29] presented an evolutionary-local-search algorithm for solving nonlinear BMPPs. In that study, the mapping method was used for the first time to solve the follower’s programming problems. Jia et al. [30] used genetic algorithms to solve BMPPs, in which a uniform design was used to generate weights, crossover and mutation operators. In addition, the follower’s objectives were converted into a single objective function by the weight sum method. In this method, MOEA/D was used to solve the leader’s multiobjective convex programming problem. Besides, based on the sensitivity theorem, an iterative method was used to solve a class of nonlinear BMPPs [33]. Zhang et al. [38] presented an improved particle swarm optimisation for solving BMPPs.

Research motivation

As mentioned above, because BMPPs have high computational complexity, only a few efficient solution methods exist for general BMPPs, and most of the existing approaches have been developed to solve cases where only the leader’s problem is multiobjective. When the follower’s problem involves multiple objectives, the non-dominated procedure can cause a large amount of computation. In addition, recall that in BLPPs, the optimisation procedure of the follower’s problem is frequently executed to obtain bilevel feasible points, which can increase the computational cost. Consequently, if one intends to develop an efficient approach, two key issues must be addressed. One is to reduce the computational cost caused by the follower’s optimisation procedure, whereas the other is to avoid excessive dominant comparisons among individuals. Hence, the weighted sum method is always adopted to delete non-dominated sorting procedures [40], and K-K-T conditions are applied to transform BLPPs into single-level ones. Furthermore, either MOEA/D [41, 42] or NSGA-II [43, 44] can be used to solve multiobjective optimisation problems. However, weight sum and K-K-T transformation techniques cannot perform the computation effectively when addressing the follower’s problems. In the literature [26] Li et al used evolutionary algorithms to solve linear BMPPs in which the leader’s objective is multiobjective. In Li’s method, the programming problem was first transformed into a single-level multiobjective problem by K-K-T conditions; subsequently. The multiobjective problem was solved via the weighted sum method, Tchebycheff approach and NSGA-II method, separately. Finally, the computational results obtained using the three approaches were compared. Sinha et al. [31] presented an approximation of the set-mapping method to solve the follower’s problem. This method can effectively reduce the amount of computation caused by the follower’s optimisation. However, it is complicated to establish multiple quadratic fibers between the variables of the leader’s and follower’s problems. The methods used in the literature [26] and [31] requires a high computational cost.

Motivated by both weighted aggregation and approximate solution methods, in this study, an evolutionary algorithm using surrogate models was developed to solve BMPPs. Unlike the existing algorithms, the proposed algorithm is characterised as follows. First, a weighted aggregation method using a uniform design is adopted to convert the follower’s problem into several single objective ones. Second, surrogate optimisation models and interpolation functions are used to replace the solution functions of the follower’s problem and updated periodically using new sample points. Finally, as heuristic information, the gradient direction is embedded into genetic operators to produce potentially high-quality offspring.

Basic notions

Some basic definitions for problem (2) are summarized as follows:

Let B₁ = {(x, y)|G_k(x, y) ≤ 0, x ∈ Rⁿ, y ∈ R^m, k = 1, 2, …, K} and B₂ = {(x, y)|g_j(x, y) ≤ 0, x ∈ Rⁿ, y ∈ R^m, j = 1, 2, …, J}.

Definition 0.1 (Dominated relations): Vector is dominated by vector , denoted by F² ≺ F¹, if , and there exists at least j ∈ {1, 2, …, q}, such that .

If the objective value of x₁ is dominated by the objective value of x₂, we also denote the relation by x₂ ≺ x₁. After a decision x ∈ Rⁿ is made by the leader, the optimal solution set to the follower’s problem is defined as follows:

Let Q = {(x, y)∈B, y ∈ Q_x}. The set is known as an inducible region in BMPPs.

Definition 0.2 (Non-dominated solution set): For a BMPP, the Non-dominated solution set P* for the leader’s problem is defined as:

Definition 0.3 (Pareto front): For BMPP, the Pareto front for the leader’s problem is defined as:

According to the above definitions, BMPPs can be equivalently written as: (3)

Assumptions:

(A1). For each x taken in B₁∩B₂ by the leader, the follower has room to react, that is to say, O_x ≠ Ø.
(A2). F(x, y) is differential in x, and f(x, y) and g(x, y) is differentiable and convex in y for x fixed.

Here, A1 is a common assumption in BLPPs, which makes BLPPs well-posed. A2 is presented to conveniently utilize gradient information.

Algorithm design

Transformation of follower problem

BMPPs will incur a high computational cost if the follower’s problem is addressed as a general multiobjective optimisation. In the proposed approach, the solution of the follower’s problem is categorised into two steps. First, multiobjective problem is converted into several single-objective problems by the weighted sum of the objectives. Subsequently, these converted problems are solved using simplified surrogate models that can efficiently decrease the computational cost; this will be presented in the next Section.

1). The uniform design of weights:

Uniform design and spherical coordinates are used to generate weights uniformly distributed in .

As a classical experimental design method, uniform design has become popular since the 1980’s. It was originally developed to obtain designed points that are uniformly distributed over the experimental domain [45, 46]. A uniform design array for k factors with q levels and H combinations is often denoted by L_H(K^q). For example, L₁₆(4⁵) involves four factors, and each factor has five levels. Therefore, 1024(= 4⁵) combinations exist. However, in a uniform design, one must only select 16 combinations from those 1024 possible combinations. H selected combinations can be represented by a uniform matrix U(n, H) = [U_iℓ]_{H × n}, where U_iℓ is the level of the ℓ^th factor in the i^th combination. In this subsection, we use the concept of uniform design to generate uniformly distributed points in . For a closed and bounded set φ ⊂ R^p−1, the main purpose of the uniform design is to sample a small group of points from set φ, such that the sampled points are uniformly scattered in set φ. Herein, we consider only sample points in the set . A brief description of the uniform design in the set is presented as follows.

For any point θ = (θ₁, θ₂, …, θ_p−1) in φ, a hyper-rectangle between 0 and θ, denoted by φ(θ), can be defined as [40]: (4)

For a set of v points on φ, we assume that v(θ) points exist in the hyper-rectangle φ(θ). Therefore, the ratio of points in the hyper-rectangle φ(θ) is , the volume of the hyper-rectangle is , and the percentage of the hyper-rectangle volume is . Subsequently, the uniform design on φ is defined as determining v points on φ such that the following discrepancy is minimised. (5)

To determine uniformly scattered points on φ, we used the good-lattice-point method [47] to generate a set of v uniformly scattered points on φ, denoted by c(p − 1, v). The procedure is as follows: a v × (p − 1) uniform array is first generated: (6) where U_ℓi = (ℓσⁱ⁻¹ modv) + 1, i = 1, 2, …, p − 1, ℓ = 1, 2, …, v. Then, each row of matrix U(p − 1, v) can define a row θ^ℓ = (θ_1ℓ, θ_2ℓ, …, θ_{p − 1, ℓ}) of c(p − 1, v) by (7) Hence, we have (8) For example, when v = 7 and p = 5, it can be seen that σ = 3 from Table 1, Thus: (9) (10)

Download:

Table 1. Values of parameter σ for different values of q and M.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.t001

2). Weight vector

We can obtain v weight vectors as follows: (11) where if p = 2, we have (12) otherwise, if p > 2, we also have (13)

3). Transformed problems

We used the weight vectors designed in the above to address the follower’s multiple objectives, transforming the follower’s problem of the original problem into several single-objective ones. Subsequently, then (2) can be transformed into v BMPPs with a single objective in their follower’s problems: (14) The follower’s problems of (14) are: (15)

Surrogate models

In BLPPs/BMPPs, for each the leader’s variable values, the follower’s problem must be optimised. The procedure result in can a significant amount of computation in solving BLPPs/BMPPs, particularly when the problem is large. According to the optimisation procedure, the optimal solutions to the follower’s problem are always determined by the leader’s variables. This means that the optimal solution of the follower’s problem is a function of the leader’s variables. However, the function is often implicit and can not be obtained analytically. In the proposed approach, we used the interpolation function as surrogate models to estimate the optimal solutions to the follower’s problems. Therefore, some values x_i of the leader’s variables are first used, and then the follower’s problems are optimised individually. The optimal solutions are denoted as y_i, point pairs (x_i, y_i) are regarded as interpolation sample points and used to generate interpolation functions.

The interpolation function demonstrates better performance in fitting unknown functions [48] and can efficiently decrease the computational times of the follower’s problems. In the proposed algorithm, the cubic spline interpolation method is adopted when the interpolation function is one-dimensional, whereas the linear interpolation method is used for other cases.

As an example, on the one-dimensional coordinate plane, for w sample points x_i, i = 1, 2, …, w, we constructed an interpolation function y = ψ(x) to approximate the optimal solution function of the follower’s problem. Therefore, y = ψ(x*) can be regarded as the approximate solution to the follower’s problem when x is fixed at x*. The relationship between the approximate and real solutions is shown in Fig 1.

Download:

Fig 1. Interpolation approximation and the real optimal solutions.

In Fig 1, the solid red line represents the real solutions to the follower’s problem, whereas the dotted yellow line represents the approximate points provided by interpolation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g001

For interpolation functions, denser sample interpolation points resulted in a better approximation effect. It is noteworthy that for these interpolation points, each follower’s variable value must be optimal when the leader’s components are fixed. In the proposed algorithm, the interpolation function can be obtained as follows. First, an initial population of N points is randomly generated for the leader’s variable space, and these points are denoted by x_i, i = 1, 2, …, N. Subsequently, for each leader’s value among x_i, i = 1, 2, …, N, the optimal solutions to the follower’s problem (15) are denoted by y_ℓi, i = 1, 2, …, N, ℓ = 1, 2, …, v. Consequently, v × N point pairs of (x_i, y_ℓi), i = 1, …, N, ℓ = 1, 2, …, v can be obtained. These point pairs are used as interpolation nodes to generate v interpolation functions. (16) Where (17) i.e. each of , is a function of x and . According to the above-mentioned interpolation method, we can obtain the approximate optimal solutions to the follower’s problem (15). In the proposed algorithm, we periodically update both the interpolation sample points and to improve interpolation functions.

Proposed algorithm

When solving BMPPs, Transformation of follower problem guarantees the reduction of the computational complexity of the follower’s problems, surrogate models guarantees the saving of the calculation cost of the follower’s problems. Combining the methods in above, in this paper, an evolutionary algorithm [49–51]. based on surrogate models, denoted by SMEA, is developed to solve BMPPs. Fig 2 gives the flowchart of SMEA.

Download:

Fig 2. Basic flowchart of the proposed algorithm.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g002

The specific procedure is described as follows:

Step 0 (Transformation of the follower’s problems)

The weight vectors uniformly designed in section 3 are used to deal with the follower’s multiple objectives, making the follower’s problem become v single-objective ones. As a result, we obtain v BMPPs with different follower’s objectives.

Step 1 (Initial population)

Randomly generate N initial points x_i = a_i + (b_i − a_i) ⋅ rand, i = 1, …, N, where b_i, and a_i are the upper and lower bounds of the x_i, respectively, rand is random in [0, 1]. Then the initial population pop(0) with size N is obtained. Set gen = 0.

Step 2 (Fitness assessment)

For each x_i, to solve the follower’s problems (15) and obtain the optimal solution y_ℓi, i = 1, …, N, ℓ = 1, 2, …, v. and the value of the leader’s objectives are taken as F_k(x_i, y_ℓi), i = 1, …, N, ℓ = 1, 2, …, v, k = 1, 2, …, q. Construct the interpolation functions (surrogate models) just as in Section 4. Use MOEA/D to deal with the leader’s problem, a multi-objective optimisation, and take non-dominated solutions in the population pop(gen) into the set D₁.

Step 3 (Crossover)

Note that F_k(x, y), k = 1, 2, …, q are differential in x. To obtain a potential descent direction, we take the negative gradient direction of each leader’s function F_k(x_r, y_r).

a. Negative gradient vector:
b. Normalize the direction: Set Here, τ_k ∈ (0, 1), k = 1, ⋯, q, are randomly generated and satisfy .
c. Crossover operator is designed as follows: where s is positive. In fact, the operator can be extended to non-differential case of the leader’s functions. One only needs to replace the gradient function by an approximate gradient:

Step 4 (Mutation)

Gaussian mutation is adopted. Suppose that is an individual chosen for mutation, then the offspring of is generated as follows:

Step 5 (Offspring population pop′(gen))

For offspring set (x_o1, x_o2, …, x_oλ) generated by the crossover and mutation operation, interpolation function is used to obtain the approximated solutions to (15). Then an offspring set pop′(gen) with size v × λ is obtained and the values of the leader’s objective functions are F_k(x_oi, y_ℓi), i = 1, 2, …, λ, ℓ = 1, 2, …, v, k = 1, 2, …, q.

Step 6 (Update interpolation function)

Use MOEA/D to select non-dominated solutions from set {(x_oi, y_ℓi), i = 1, 2, …, λ, ℓ = 1, 2, …, v}, and put these non-dominated solutions into the set D₂. For each point in D₂, update the optimal solutions y_ℓi by solving the follower’s problems. And update the interpolation function with the exact solutions obtained above.

Step 7 (Update Non-dominated solution set D₁)

Set D₁ = D₁ ⋃ D₂ and D₂ = ϕ. Remove the dominant solutions in D₁. Once the scale of D₁ exceeds the pre-determined threshold value, then the crowding distance method can be applied to delete some redundant points just as done in NSGA-II.

Step 8 (Selection)

Select the best N individuals from set pop′(gen)⋃D₁ to form the next generation of population pop(gen + 1);

Step 9 (Termination condition)

If the stopping criterion is satisfied, then stop and output the non-dominated solutions set D₁; otherwise, set gen = gen + 1, go to Step 3.

Simulation results

Test examples

To demonstrate the feasibility and efficiency of the proposed algorithm, we test SMEA on 20 Examples which are taken from literatures [26, 31, 32, 52] and. In [26] and [53], two EAs have been developed. In spite of the fact that the two algorithms are proposed only for dealing with BMPPs in which the follower’s problem is single objective, as a special case, the two approaches can be taken as compared algorithms to demonstrate the performance of the proposed SMEA.

According to the number of objectives, we have divided the test Examples into two categories. One (Examples 1-13) is the bilevel multiobjective case, that is to say, at least one between the leader and the follower involves multiobjective optimisation. The problems of this type are mainly used to test the performance of the weighted sum method and the interpolation approximation. The other (Examples 14-20) only involves bilevel single objective optimization which is utilized to test the performance of surrogate models as well as crossover operators. All 20 examples are presented as follows:

Example 1(F01) [26]:

Example 2(F02) [26]:

Example 3(F03) [26]:

Example 4(F04) [26]:

Example 5(F05) [26]:

Example 6(F06) [26]:

Example 7(F07) [26]:

Example 8(F08) [26]:

Example 9(F09) [26]:

Example 10(F10) [26]:

Example 11(F11) [32]:

Example 12(F12) [32]:

Example 13(F13) [31]:

Example 14(F14) [52]:

Example 15(F15) [32]:

Example 16(F16) [53]:

Example 17(F17) [53]:

Example 18(F18) [53]:

Example 19(F19) [53]:

Example 20(F20) [53]:

Parameter setting

To compare the experimental results, the parameter settings in this study are consistent with in [26].

Population size: 15;
Weight vector: v = 10;
Crossover rate: pc = 0.6;
Gaussian mutation probability: pm = 0.05;
Maximum number of generations: maxgen = 300;
Step size in the crossover operator: s = 8.

Performance measure

To test the effectiveness and practicability of the SMEA algorithm, we tested the non-dominated solutions, HV, IGD, C − metric, CPU time and optimal solution according to the characteristics of the problems. Definitions of several metrics are as follows:

1). HV [54]

Select a reference point in the objective space e = (e₁, e₂, ⋯, e_s)^T, denote A = SMEA, NSGA-II, Weighted sum approach or Tchebycheff approach. Compute For reference points in the objective space, the large HV means better quality.

2). IGD [55]

Let G be a uniformly distributed subset selected to form the true Pareto Front and G′ is the approximated set that is obtained by a multiobjective optimisation algorithm. The IGD value of G to G′, i.e., IGD(G, G′) is defined as where |G| returns the number of solutions in the set G and d(G_i, G′) computes the minnmum Euclidean distance from G_i to the solutions of G′ in objective space. Generally, a lower value of IGD(G, G′)is preferred as it indicates that G′ is distributed more uniformly and closer to the true Pareto front.

3). C − metric [54]

We give the following notations:

Set SM: non-dominated solution set of SMEA;

Set WS: non-dominated solution set of Weighted sum approach;

Set TE: non-dominated solution set of Tchebycheff approach;

Set NS: non-dominated solution set of NSGA-II. Let: C(A′, B) is defined as the percentage of the solutions in B that are dominated by at least one solution in A′. C(A′, B) is not necessarily equal to 1 − C(B, A′). C(A′, B) = 1 implies that no solution in B is dominated by a solution in A′.

Simulation results and comparisons

We execute an algorithm on a computer Intel(R) Core(TM)i5-8250U CPU@ 160 GHz 1.80 GHz using Matlab software. The algorithm was independently run ten times on every test instance. For the first 10 Examples, SMEA is compared with the weighted sum method, the Tchebycheff approach and NSGA-II. For each algorithm, we randomly take one among all 10 computational results of a single compared algorithm and show them in Figs 3–12. The analytical(theoretical) solution set of Examples 11 to 13 is provided, as a result, we can compare the computational results of SMEA with these known analytical solutions as shown in Figs 13–15.

Download:

Fig 3. Non-dominated solutions on example 1.

Comparison of the non-dominated solutions obtained by SMEA, NSGA-II, Weighted sum approach and Tchebycheff approach on example 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g003

Download:

Fig 4. Non-dominated solutions on example 2.

Comparison of the non-dominated solutions obtained by SMEA, NSGA-II, Weighted sum approach and Tchebycheff approach on example 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g004

Download:

Fig 5. Non-dominated solutions on example 3.

Comparison of the non-dominated solutions obtained by SMEA, NSGA-II, Weighted sum approach and Tchebycheff approach on example 3.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g005

Download:

Fig 6. Non-dominated solutions on example 4.

Comparison of the non-dominated solutions obtained by SMEA, NSGA-II, Weighted sum approach and Tchebycheff approach on example 4.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g006

Download:

Fig 7. Non-dominated solutions on example 5.

Comparison of the non-dominated solutions obtained by SMEA, NSGA-II, Weighted sum approach and Tchebycheff approach on example 5.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g007

Download:

Fig 8. Non-dominated solutions on example 6.

Comparison of the non-dominated solutions obtained by SMEA, NSGA-II, Weighted sum approach and Tchebycheff approach on example 6.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g008

Download:

Fig 9. Non-dominated solutions on example 7.

Comparison of the non-dominated solutions obtained by SMEA, NSGA-II, Weighted sum approach and Tchebycheff approach on example 7.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g009

Download:

Fig 10. Non-dominated solutions on example 8.

Comparison of the non-dominated solutions obtained by SMEA, NSGA-II, Weighted sum approach and Tchebycheff approach on example 8.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g010

Download:

Fig 11. Non-dominated solutions on example 9.

Comparison of the non-dominated solutions obtained by SMEA, NSGA-II, Weighted sum approach and Tchebycheff approach on example 9.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g011

Download:

Fig 12. Non-dominated solutions on example 10.

Comparison of the non-dominated solutions obtained by SMEA, NSGA-II, Weighted sum approach and Tchebycheff approach on example 10.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g012

Download:

Fig 13. Non-dominated solutions on example 11.

Analytical solutions and non-dominated solutions obtained by SMEA on example 11.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g013

Download:

Fig 14. Non-dominated solutions on example 12.

Analytical solutions and non-dominated solutions obtained by SMEA on example 12.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g014

Download:

Fig 15. Non-dominated solutions on example 13.

Analytical solutions and non-dominated solutions obtained by SMEA on example 13.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g015

In Figs 3–12 (example 1–10), for Example 1 (shown in Fig 3), the non-dominated solutions set obtained by SMEA is superior to that obtained by the three compared methods. Example 2 is a maximization problem, from Fig 4 we can see that the non-dominated solutions set obtained by the SMEA is better than those obtained by the three compared methods. In addition, for Example 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9, the non-dominated solutions set obtained by the SMEA is similar to that by the Tchebycheff approach, but better than those by the other two methods. For Example 10, the results presented by the SMEA is almost the same as those obtained by both the Tchebycheff approach and the weighted sum approach, but better than that by the NSGA-II. For Examples 6 and 8, SMEA can also find approximately the non-dominated solutions provided by literature. Figs 13–15 show that the non-dominated solutions sets obtained by SMEA are almost in line with the analytical solutions sets.

Table 2 represents the average value of HV obtained by SMEA, Weighted sum approach, Tchebycheff approach and NSGA-II running 10 times independently on Examples 1–10. While Table 3 represents the average value of HV and IGD obtained by SMEA and Analytical points running 10 times independently on Examples 11–13. The symbols “+”, “−” and “≈” mean the computational result is better than, worse than and almost equal to that obtained by our algorithm, respectively. Calculated the standard deviation(std)of HV value in 10 times. Best results are highlighted bold color in Table 2, we can see that the HV obtained by SMEA is much larger than those obtained other three algorithms on test problems 2–5, 7, 9 in Table 2. From Table 2, we can see in SMEA 10 values of HV better than the Weighted sum approach, 10 values of HV better than the Tchebycheff approach and 6 values of HV better than NSGA-II. Which illustrates that the diversity of solutions obtained by SMEA is better than obtained by other algorithms. Meanwhile, it is obvious that the IGD obtained by SMEA is small on Examples 11–13, which indicates for these test problems, the coverage of solutions obtained by SMEA quite well to the analytical solutions.

Download:

Table 2. HV obtaind by SMEA and the approaches in the literature.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.t002

Download:

Table 3. HV, IGD obtaind by SMEA and HV obtaind by analytical points.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.t003

In terms of the results of the multiple problem Wilcoxon’s test in Table 4, all the R⁺ values are bigger than the R⁻ ones, which implies that the performance of our algorithm is superior to that of other competitors. Moreover, the significant difference at α = 0.05 can be found in four cases, i.e., SMEA versus Tchebycheff approach, SMEA versus Weighted sum approach and SMEA versus NSGA-II. Besides, our algorithm ranks first in the Friedmans test(see Table 5 and Fig 16).

Download:

Fig 16. Ranking of SMEA by Friedman test on the problems of F01-F10.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.g016

Download:

Table 4. Results of the multiple problem Wilcoxon’s test on the problems of F01-F10.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.t004

Download:

Table 5. Ranking of the SMEA by the Friedmans test on the problems of F01-F10.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.t005

Table 6 represents the average value of C-metrics running 10 times independently on Examples 1–10. We used SMEA to make a pairwise comparison with three algorithms in the literature. We can found C(SM, WS)≥C(WS, SM), C(SM, TE)≥C(TE, SM) and C(SM, NS)≥C(NS, SM) on problems 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10. It means that SMEA found a better non-dominated set than algorithms in [26].

Download:

Table 6. Comparison of C-metric between SMEA and algorithms in [26].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.t006

In addition, CPU time is used to compare the efficiency of the algorithms. For the first 10 Examples, Table 7 shows the CPU times running 10 times independently used by both SMEA and two compared algorithms in [26]. From Table 7 one can see that SMEA can save more computation costs than the compared methods. For other Examples, we also provided their CPU times in Table 7.

Download:

Table 7. CPU time used by the SMEA and the CPU time of the approaches in the literature [26].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.t007

It is difficult to solve BMPPs, especially to solve the follower’s problem, and there exist only a small number of computational Examples. In the proposed algorithm, the weighted sum approach can transform the original multiobjective problem into single objective ones. Hence, SMEA can also be used to solve BLPPs with a single objective on which the effectiveness of the surrogate models can be verified. When SMEA is used in solving Examples 14–20, the best solution (x*, y*) in all 10 runs is recorded as well as the corresponding objective values F(x*, y*) and f(x*, y*). All results are presented in Table 8 in which the objective values are denoted by Ref-f(x*, y*) and Ref-F(x*, y*), respectively.

Download:

Table 8. Comparison of the best results found by SMEA and the compared approaches.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.t008

Table 8 shows the average value of optimal results running 10 times independently on Examples 14–20. The best results obtained are highlighted bold in this table. Especially, the optimal solutions of Examples 14–16 and 18 are obviously better than those provided in the existing literature. It follows that the surrogate model technique is effective to solve the problems of this type.

Conclusion

BMPP is one of the known hardest optimisation models in knowing that this problem always accumulates computational complexity of both the hierarchical structure and multi-objective optimization. In order to reduce the computational cost of the problem, two efficient techniques are embedded in the proposed algorithm. One is the weighted sum method used to deal with multiple objectives in the follower’s problem. The other is the surrogate model which can efficiently save the computational cost in obtaining bilevel feasible solutions. In addition, a heuristic crossover operator is designed by making use of the gradient information. The simulation results in 20 computational examples show the efficiency of the proposed algorithm.

Supporting information

S1 File.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.s001

(XLS)

S2 File.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243926.s002

(XLS)

Acknowledgments

Hong Li is thanked for useful discussions and supply some reference datas. We thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their professional and valuable suggestions.

References

1. Bard JF (1998) Practical Ailevel Optimisation: Algorithms and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
2. Zhu XD, Guo PJ (2019) Bilevel Programming Approaches to Production Planning for Multiple Products with Short Life Cycles. 4OR Quarterly Journal of the Belgian: French and Italian Operations Research Societies 2: 1–25.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
3. Nasrolahpour E, Kazempour J, Zareipour H, et al. (2018) A Bilevel Model for Participation of a Storage System in Energy and Reserve Markets. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy 9(2): 582–598.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Ulbrich M, Leibold M, Albrecht S (2017) A Bilevel Optimisation Approach to Obtain Optimal Cost Functions for Human Arm Movements. Numerical Algebra: Control and Optimisation (NACO) 2(1): 105–127.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Yang K, Lan YF, Zhao RQ (2017) Monitoring Mechanisms in New Product Development with Risk-Averse Project Manager. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 28: 1–15.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Sinha A, Malo P, Deb K (2017) A Review on Bilevel Optimisation: From Classical to Evolutionary Approaches and Applications. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 22(2): 276–295.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Jensen TV, Kazempour J, Pinson P (2018) Cost-Optimal ATCs in Zonal Electricity Markets. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 33(4): 3624–3633.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Dupin R, Michiorri A, Kariniotakis G (2019) Optimal Dynamic Line Rating Forecasts Selection Based on Ampacity Probabilistic Forecasting and Network Operators’ Risk Aversion. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 34(4): 2836–2845.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Liu J, Hong YF, Zheng Y (2018) A Branch and Bound-Based Algorithm for the Weak Linear Bilevel Programming Problems. Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences 23(6): 480–486.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Liu J, Hong YF, Zheng Y (2018) A New Variant of Penalty Method for Weak Linear Bilevel Programming Problems. Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences 23(4): 328–332.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Sinha A, Soun T, Deb K (2019) Using Karush-Kuhn-Tucker Proximity Measure for Solving Bilevel Optimisation Problems. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 44: 496–510.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Ye JJ, Zhu DL (1995) Optimality Conditions for Bilevel Programming Problems. Optimisation 33(1): 9–27.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Zheng Y, Zhang G, Zhang Z, et al. (2018) A Reducibility Method for the Weak Linear Bilevel Programming Problems and a Case Study in Principal-Agent. Informatics and Computer Science Intelligent Systems Applications 3: 1–33.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Jin ZJ, Xu YH, Zhang LP (2017) An Efficient Algorithm for Convex Quadratic Semi-Definite Optimisation. Numerical Algebra Control and Optimisation 2(1): 129–144.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Sun J, Liao LZ, Brian R (2017) Quadratic Two-Stage Stochastic Optimisation with Coherent Measures of Risk. Mathematical Programming 168(3): 1–15.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Susanne F, Patrick M, Maria P (2017) Optimality Conditions for the Simple Convex Bilevel Programming Problem in Banach Spaces. Optimization 67(4): 1–32.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Joseph A, Ozaltin OY (2018) Feature Selection for Classification Models via Bilevel Optimisation. Computers and Operations Research 5(5): 1–32.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Fahim A, Hedar A R (2017) Filter-Based Genetic Algorithm for Mixed Variable Programming. Numerical Algebra: Control and Optimisation (NACO) 1(1): 99–116.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Sinha A, Soun T, Deb K (2017) Evolutionary Bilevel Optimisation Using KKT Proximity Measure. 2017 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) 1: 1–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Wang YP, Jiao YC, Li H (2005) An Evolutionary Algorithm for Solving Nonlinear Bilevel Programming Based on a New Constraint-Handling scheme. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics: Applications and Reviews 35(2): 221–232.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Guo L, Xu JP (2014) Retrofitting Transportation Network Using a Fuzzy Random Multiobjective Bilevel Model to Hedge against Seismic Risk. Abstract and Applied Analysis 2014(1): 1–24.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
22. Brian D, Paolo G, et al. (2014) Bilevel Multiobjective Packaging Optimisation for Automotive Design. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimisation 50(4): 663–682.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Alves MJ, Antunes CH (2018) A Semivectorial Bilevel Programming Approach to Optimize Electricity Dynamic Time-of-Use Retail Pricing. Computers and Operations Research 2: 1–29.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Chakraborti D, Biswas P, Pal BB (2017) Modelling Multiobjective Bilevel Programming for Environmental-Economic Power Generation and Dispatch Using Genetic Algorithm. International Conference on Computational Intelligence 1: 423-439.
25. Alves MJ (2012) Using MOPSO to Solve Multiobjective Bilevel Linear Problems. International Conference on Swarm Intelligence 1: 332-339.
26. Li H, Zhang QF, et al. (2016) Multiobjective Differential Evolution Algorithm Based on Decomposition for a Type of Multiobjective Bilevel Programming Problems. Knowledge-Based Systems 107: 271–288.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. Ankhili Z, Mansouri A (2009) An Exact Penalty on Bilevel Programs with Linear Vector Optimisation Lower Level. European Journal of Operational Research 197(1): 36–41.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Calvete HI, Gal¨¦ C (2011) On Linear Bilevel Problems with Multiple Objectives at the Lower Level. Omega 39(1): 33–40.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Deb K, Sinha A (2010) An Efficient and Accurate Solution Methodology for Bilevel Multi-Objective Programming Problems Using a Hybrid Evolutionary-Local-Search Algorithm. Evolutionary Computation 18(3): 403–449. pmid:20560758
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Jia LP, Wang YP, Fan L (2016) An Improved Uniform Design-Based Genetic Algorithm for Multi-Objective Bilevel Convex Programming. Int. J. Computational Science and Engineering 12(1): 38–46.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. Sinha A, Malo P, Deb K (2017) Approximated Set-Valued Mapping Approach for Handling Multiobjective Bilevel Problems. Computers and Operations Research 77: 194–209.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Deb K, Sinha A (2009) Solving Bilevel Multi-Objective Optimisation Problems Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 1: 110–124.
33. Eichfelder G (2010) Multiobjective Bilevel Optimisation. Mathematical Programming 123(2): 419–449.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Pieume CO, Marcotte P, et al. (2013) Generating Efficient Solutions in bilevel Multi-Objective Programming Problems. American Journal of Operations Research 3: 289–298.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Kirlik G, Sayin S (2017) Bilevel Programming for Generating Discrete Representations in Multi-Objective Optimisation. Mathematical Programming 1: 1–20.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Liu BB, Wan ZP, et al. (2014) Optimality Conditions for Pessimistic Semivectorial Bilevel Programming Problems. Journal of Inequalities and Applications 2014(1): 1–26.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Lv YB, Wan ZP (2015) Solving Linear Bilevel Multi-Objective Programming Problem via Exact Penalty Function Approach. Journal of Inequalities and Applications 2015(1): 258–269.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Zhang T, Hu TS, et al. (2012) An Improved Particle Swarm Optimisation for Solving Bilevel Multi-Objective Programming Problem. Journal of Applied Mathematics 1: 359–373.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Zhang T, Hu TS, et al. (2013) Solving High Dimensional Bilevel Multiobjective Programming Problem Using a Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimisation Algorithm with Crossover Operator. Knowledge-Based Systems 53: 13–19.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Liu HL, Wang YP, et al. (2009) A Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm Using Min-Max Strategy and Sphere Coordinate Transformation. Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing 15(3): 361–384.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Wang ZK, Zhang QF, Zhou AM, et al. (2015) Adaptive Replacement Strategies for MOEA/D. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 46(2): 474–486. pmid:25826813
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Zhang QF, Li H (2007) MOEA/D: A Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 11(6): 712–731.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
43. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, et al. (2002) A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6(2): 182–197.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
44. Deb K, Jain H (2014) An Evolutionary Many-Objective Optimization Algorithm Using Reference-Point-Based Nondominated Sorting Approach, Part I: Solving Problems with Box Constraints. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 18(4): 577–601.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. Fang KT, Bentler WPM (1994) Some Applications of Number-Theoretic Methods in Statistics. Statistical Science 9(3): 416–428.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Wang Y, Fang KT (1990) Number Theoretic Methods in Applied Statistics. Chinese Annals of Mathematics Series B 11(1): 51–65.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
47. Stromberg AJ (1996) Number-theoretic Methods in Statistics. Technometrics 38(1): 189–190.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
48. Li HC, Wang YP (2008) An Interpolation Based Genetic Algorithm for Sloving Nonlinear Bilevel Programming Problems. Chinese Journal of Computers 31(6): 910–918.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
49. Mengist H, Huizinga J, Mouret JB, Clune J (2016) The Evolutionary Origins of Hierarchy. Plos Computational Biology 12(6):1–23.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
50. Azmat U, Abdullah M S, Saleem A K, et al. (2018) Evolutionary Algorithm Based Heuristic Scheme For Nonlinear Heat Transfer Equations. Plos One 13(1):1–18.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
51. Zhang WN, Ming ZY, Zhang Y, et al. (2016) Capturing the Semantics of Key Phrases Using Multiple Languages for Question Retrieval. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 28(4):888–900.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Xu P, Wang LZ (2014) An Exact Algorithm for the Bilevel Mixed Integer Linear Programming Problem under Three Simplifying Assumptions. Computers and Operations Research 41(41): 309–318.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
53. Sinha A, Malo P, Deb K (2016) Evolutionary Algorithm for Bilevel Optimisation Using Approximations of the Lower Level Optimal Solution Mapping. European Journal of Operational Research 257(2): 395–411.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
54. Zitzler E, Thiele L (1999) Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms: A Comparative Case Study and the Strength Pareto Approach. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation 3(4):257–271.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. Li H, Zhang QF (2009) Multiobjective Optimisation Problems with Complicated Pareto Sets, MOEA/D, and NSGA-II. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation 18:450–455.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Bard JF (1998) Practical Ailevel Optimisation: Algorithms and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

[ref2] 2. Zhu XD, Guo PJ (2019) Bilevel Programming Approaches to Production Planning for Multiple Products with Short Life Cycles. 4OR Quarterly Journal of the Belgian: French and Italian Operations Research Societies 2: 1–25.
View Article
Google Scholar

[3] View Article

[4] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Nasrolahpour E, Kazempour J, Zareipour H, et al. (2018) A Bilevel Model for Participation of a Storage System in Energy and Reserve Markets. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy 9(2): 582–598.
View Article
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Ulbrich M, Leibold M, Albrecht S (2017) A Bilevel Optimisation Approach to Obtain Optimal Cost Functions for Human Arm Movements. Numerical Algebra: Control and Optimisation (NACO) 2(1): 105–127.
View Article
Google Scholar

[9] View Article

[10] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Yang K, Lan YF, Zhao RQ (2017) Monitoring Mechanisms in New Product Development with Risk-Averse Project Manager. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 28: 1–15.
View Article
Google Scholar

[12] View Article

[13] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Sinha A, Malo P, Deb K (2017) A Review on Bilevel Optimisation: From Classical to Evolutionary Approaches and Applications. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 22(2): 276–295.
View Article
Google Scholar

[15] View Article

[16] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Jensen TV, Kazempour J, Pinson P (2018) Cost-Optimal ATCs in Zonal Electricity Markets. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 33(4): 3624–3633.
View Article
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Dupin R, Michiorri A, Kariniotakis G (2019) Optimal Dynamic Line Rating Forecasts Selection Based on Ampacity Probabilistic Forecasting and Network Operators’ Risk Aversion. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 34(4): 2836–2845.
View Article
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Liu J, Hong YF, Zheng Y (2018) A Branch and Bound-Based Algorithm for the Weak Linear Bilevel Programming Problems. Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences 23(6): 480–486.
View Article
Google Scholar

[24] View Article

[25] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Liu J, Hong YF, Zheng Y (2018) A New Variant of Penalty Method for Weak Linear Bilevel Programming Problems. Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences 23(4): 328–332.
View Article
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Sinha A, Soun T, Deb K (2019) Using Karush-Kuhn-Tucker Proximity Measure for Solving Bilevel Optimisation Problems. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 44: 496–510.
View Article
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Ye JJ, Zhu DL (1995) Optimality Conditions for Bilevel Programming Problems. Optimisation 33(1): 9–27.
View Article
Google Scholar

[33] View Article

[34] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Zheng Y, Zhang G, Zhang Z, et al. (2018) A Reducibility Method for the Weak Linear Bilevel Programming Problems and a Case Study in Principal-Agent. Informatics and Computer Science Intelligent Systems Applications 3: 1–33.
View Article
Google Scholar

[36] View Article

[37] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Jin ZJ, Xu YH, Zhang LP (2017) An Efficient Algorithm for Convex Quadratic Semi-Definite Optimisation. Numerical Algebra Control and Optimisation 2(1): 129–144.
View Article
Google Scholar

[39] View Article

[40] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Sun J, Liao LZ, Brian R (2017) Quadratic Two-Stage Stochastic Optimisation with Coherent Measures of Risk. Mathematical Programming 168(3): 1–15.
View Article
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Susanne F, Patrick M, Maria P (2017) Optimality Conditions for the Simple Convex Bilevel Programming Problem in Banach Spaces. Optimization 67(4): 1–32.
View Article
Google Scholar

[45] View Article

[46] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Joseph A, Ozaltin OY (2018) Feature Selection for Classification Models via Bilevel Optimisation. Computers and Operations Research 5(5): 1–32.
View Article
Google Scholar

[48] View Article

[49] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Fahim A, Hedar A R (2017) Filter-Based Genetic Algorithm for Mixed Variable Programming. Numerical Algebra: Control and Optimisation (NACO) 1(1): 99–116.
View Article
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Sinha A, Soun T, Deb K (2017) Evolutionary Bilevel Optimisation Using KKT Proximity Measure. 2017 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) 1: 1–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Wang YP, Jiao YC, Li H (2005) An Evolutionary Algorithm for Solving Nonlinear Bilevel Programming Based on a New Constraint-Handling scheme. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics: Applications and Reviews 35(2): 221–232.
View Article
Google Scholar

[57] View Article

[58] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Guo L, Xu JP (2014) Retrofitting Transportation Network Using a Fuzzy Random Multiobjective Bilevel Model to Hedge against Seismic Risk. Abstract and Applied Analysis 2014(1): 1–24.
View Article
Google Scholar

[60] View Article

[61] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Brian D, Paolo G, et al. (2014) Bilevel Multiobjective Packaging Optimisation for Automotive Design. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimisation 50(4): 663–682.
View Article
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Alves MJ, Antunes CH (2018) A Semivectorial Bilevel Programming Approach to Optimize Electricity Dynamic Time-of-Use Retail Pricing. Computers and Operations Research 2: 1–29.
View Article
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Chakraborti D, Biswas P, Pal BB (2017) Modelling Multiobjective Bilevel Programming for Environmental-Economic Power Generation and Dispatch Using Genetic Algorithm. International Conference on Computational Intelligence 1: 423-439.

[ref25] 25. Alves MJ (2012) Using MOPSO to Solve Multiobjective Bilevel Linear Problems. International Conference on Swarm Intelligence 1: 332-339.

[ref26] 26. Li H, Zhang QF, et al. (2016) Multiobjective Differential Evolution Algorithm Based on Decomposition for a Type of Multiobjective Bilevel Programming Problems. Knowledge-Based Systems 107: 271–288.
View Article
Google Scholar

[71] View Article

[72] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Ankhili Z, Mansouri A (2009) An Exact Penalty on Bilevel Programs with Linear Vector Optimisation Lower Level. European Journal of Operational Research 197(1): 36–41.
View Article
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Calvete HI, Gal¨¦ C (2011) On Linear Bilevel Problems with Multiple Objectives at the Lower Level. Omega 39(1): 33–40.
View Article
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Deb K, Sinha A (2010) An Efficient and Accurate Solution Methodology for Bilevel Multi-Objective Programming Problems Using a Hybrid Evolutionary-Local-Search Algorithm. Evolutionary Computation 18(3): 403–449. pmid:20560758
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[80] View Article

[81] PubMed/NCBI

[82] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Jia LP, Wang YP, Fan L (2016) An Improved Uniform Design-Based Genetic Algorithm for Multi-Objective Bilevel Convex Programming. Int. J. Computational Science and Engineering 12(1): 38–46.
View Article
Google Scholar

[84] View Article

[85] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Sinha A, Malo P, Deb K (2017) Approximated Set-Valued Mapping Approach for Handling Multiobjective Bilevel Problems. Computers and Operations Research 77: 194–209.
View Article
Google Scholar

[87] View Article

[88] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Deb K, Sinha A (2009) Solving Bilevel Multi-Objective Optimisation Problems Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 1: 110–124.

[ref33] 33. Eichfelder G (2010) Multiobjective Bilevel Optimisation. Mathematical Programming 123(2): 419–449.
View Article
Google Scholar

[91] View Article

[92] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Pieume CO, Marcotte P, et al. (2013) Generating Efficient Solutions in bilevel Multi-Objective Programming Problems. American Journal of Operations Research 3: 289–298.
View Article
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Kirlik G, Sayin S (2017) Bilevel Programming for Generating Discrete Representations in Multi-Objective Optimisation. Mathematical Programming 1: 1–20.
View Article
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Liu BB, Wan ZP, et al. (2014) Optimality Conditions for Pessimistic Semivectorial Bilevel Programming Problems. Journal of Inequalities and Applications 2014(1): 1–26.
View Article
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Lv YB, Wan ZP (2015) Solving Linear Bilevel Multi-Objective Programming Problem via Exact Penalty Function Approach. Journal of Inequalities and Applications 2015(1): 258–269.
View Article
Google Scholar

[103] View Article

[104] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Zhang T, Hu TS, et al. (2012) An Improved Particle Swarm Optimisation for Solving Bilevel Multi-Objective Programming Problem. Journal of Applied Mathematics 1: 359–373.
View Article
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Zhang T, Hu TS, et al. (2013) Solving High Dimensional Bilevel Multiobjective Programming Problem Using a Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimisation Algorithm with Crossover Operator. Knowledge-Based Systems 53: 13–19.
View Article
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Liu HL, Wang YP, et al. (2009) A Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm Using Min-Max Strategy and Sphere Coordinate Transformation. Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing 15(3): 361–384.
View Article
Google Scholar

[112] View Article

[113] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Wang ZK, Zhang QF, Zhou AM, et al. (2015) Adaptive Replacement Strategies for MOEA/D. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 46(2): 474–486. pmid:25826813
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[115] View Article

[116] PubMed/NCBI

[117] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Zhang QF, Li H (2007) MOEA/D: A Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 11(6): 712–731.
View Article
Google Scholar

[119] View Article

[120] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, et al. (2002) A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6(2): 182–197.
View Article
Google Scholar

[122] View Article

[123] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Deb K, Jain H (2014) An Evolutionary Many-Objective Optimization Algorithm Using Reference-Point-Based Nondominated Sorting Approach, Part I: Solving Problems with Box Constraints. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 18(4): 577–601.
View Article
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Fang KT, Bentler WPM (1994) Some Applications of Number-Theoretic Methods in Statistics. Statistical Science 9(3): 416–428.
View Article
Google Scholar

[128] View Article

[129] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Wang Y, Fang KT (1990) Number Theoretic Methods in Applied Statistics. Chinese Annals of Mathematics Series B 11(1): 51–65.
View Article
Google Scholar

[131] View Article

[132] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Stromberg AJ (1996) Number-theoretic Methods in Statistics. Technometrics 38(1): 189–190.
View Article
Google Scholar

[134] View Article

[135] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Li HC, Wang YP (2008) An Interpolation Based Genetic Algorithm for Sloving Nonlinear Bilevel Programming Problems. Chinese Journal of Computers 31(6): 910–918.
View Article
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Mengist H, Huizinga J, Mouret JB, Clune J (2016) The Evolutionary Origins of Hierarchy. Plos Computational Biology 12(6):1–23.
View Article
Google Scholar

[140] View Article

[141] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Azmat U, Abdullah M S, Saleem A K, et al. (2018) Evolutionary Algorithm Based Heuristic Scheme For Nonlinear Heat Transfer Equations. Plos One 13(1):1–18.
View Article
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Zhang WN, Ming ZY, Zhang Y, et al. (2016) Capturing the Semantics of Key Phrases Using Multiple Languages for Question Retrieval. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 28(4):888–900.
View Article
Google Scholar

[146] View Article

[147] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Xu P, Wang LZ (2014) An Exact Algorithm for the Bilevel Mixed Integer Linear Programming Problem under Three Simplifying Assumptions. Computers and Operations Research 41(41): 309–318.
View Article
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Sinha A, Malo P, Deb K (2016) Evolutionary Algorithm for Bilevel Optimisation Using Approximations of the Lower Level Optimal Solution Mapping. European Journal of Operational Research 257(2): 395–411.
View Article
Google Scholar

[152] View Article

[153] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Zitzler E, Thiele L (1999) Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms: A Comparative Case Study and the Strength Pareto Approach. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation 3(4):257–271.
View Article
Google Scholar

[155] View Article

[156] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Li H, Zhang QF (2009) Multiobjective Optimisation Problems with Complicated Pareto Sets, MOEA/D, and NSGA-II. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation 18:450–455.
View Article
Google Scholar

[158] View Article

[159] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Problem models

Related work

Research motivation

Basic notions

Algorithm design

Transformation of follower problem

Surrogate models

Proposed algorithm

Simulation results

Test examples

Parameter setting

Performance measure

Simulation results and comparisons

Conclusion

Supporting information

S1 File.

S2 File.

Acknowledgments

References