Skip to main content
Log in

Hierarchical optimization: An introduction

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Decision problems involving multiple agents invariably lead to conflict and gaming. In recent years, multi-agent systems have been analyzed using approaches that explicitly assign to each agent a unique objective function and set of decision variables; the system is defined by a set of common constraints that affect all agents. The decisions made by each agent in these approaches affect the decisions made by the others and their objectives. When strategies are selected simultaneously, in a noncooperative manner, solutions are defined as equilibrium points [13,51] so that at optimality no player can do better by unilaterally altering his choice. There are other types of noncooperative decision problems, though, where there is a hierarchical ordering of the agents, and one set has the authority to strongly influence the preferences of the other agents. Such situations are analyzed using a concept known as a Stackelberg strategy [13, 14,46]. The hierarchical optimization problem [11, 16, 23] conceptually extends the open-loop Stackelberg model toK players. In this paper, we provide a brief introduction and survey of recent work in the literature, and summarize the contributions of this volume. It should be noted that the survey is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather to place recent papers in context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. M. Abdulaal and L.J. LeBlanc, Continuous equilibrium network design models, Transport. Res. 13B(1979)19–32.

    Google Scholar 

  2. E. Aiyoshi and K. Shimizu, A solution method of the static constrained Stackelberg problem via penalty method, IEEE Trans. Auto. Control AC-29(1984)1111–1114.

    Google Scholar 

  3. G. Anandalingam, A mathematical programming model of decentralized multi-level systems, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 39(1988)1021–1033.

    Google Scholar 

  4. G. Anandalingam, R. Mathieu, L. Pittard and N. Sinha, Artificial intelligence based approaches for hierarchical optimization problems, in:Impact of Recent Computer Advances on Operations Research, ed. R. Sharda et al. (North-Holland, New York, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  5. G. Anandalingam and D.J. White, A solution method for the linear static Stackelberg problem using penalty functions, IEEE Trans. Auto. Control AC-35(1990)1170–1173.

    Google Scholar 

  6. G. Anandalingam and V. Aprey, Multi-level programming and conflict resolution, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 51(1991)233–247.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J.F. Bard, An efficient point algorithm for a linear two-stage optimization problem, Oper. Res. 31(1983)670–684.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J.F. Bard, Coordination of multidivisional firm through two levels of management, OMEGA 11(1983)457–465.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J.F. Bard, Regulating nonnuclear industrial waste by hazard classification, J. Environ. Syst. 13(1983/84)21–41.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J.F. Bard, Convex two-level optimization, Math. Progr. 40(1988)15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J.F. Bard and J.E. Falk, An explicit solution to the multi-level programming problem, Comput. Oper. Res. 9(1982)77–100.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J.F. Bard and J.J. Moore, A branch-and-bound algorithm for the two-level linear programming problem, SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comput. 11(1990)281–292.

    Google Scholar 

  13. T. Basar and G.J. Olsder,Dynamic Noncooperative Games (Academic Press, New York, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  14. T. Basar and H. Selbuz, Closed loop Stackelberg strategies with applications to optimal control of multi-level systems, IEEE Trans. Auto. Control AC-24(1979)166–178.

    Google Scholar 

  15. O. Ben-Ayed and C.E. Blair, Computational difficulties of bilevel linear programming, Oper. Res. 38(1990)556–559.

    Google Scholar 

  16. W.F. Bialas and M.H. Karwan, On two-level optimization, IEEE Trans. Auto. Control AC-27(1982)211–214.

    Google Scholar 

  17. W.F. Bialas and M.H. Karwan, Two-level linear programming, Manag. Sci. 30(1984)1004–1020.

    Google Scholar 

  18. J. Bracken and J.M. McGill, Mathematical programs with optimization problems in the constraints, Oper. Res. 21(1973)37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  19. J. Bracken and J.M. McGill, A method for solving mathematical programs with nonlinear programs in the constraints, Oper. Res. 22(1974)1097–1101.

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. Bracken, J.E. Falk and J.M. McGill, Equivalence of two mathematical programs with optimization problems in the constraints, Oper. Res. 22(1974)1102–1104.

    Google Scholar 

  21. J. Bracken and J.M. McGill, Defense applications of mathematical programs with optimization problems in the constraints, Oper. Res. 22(1974)1086–1096.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. Bracken and J.M. McGill, Production and marketing decisions with multiple objectives in a competitive environment, J. Optim. Theory Appl. 24(1978)449–458.

    Google Scholar 

  23. W. Candler and R. Townsley, A linear two-level programming problem, Comput. Oper. Res. 9(1982)59–76.

    Google Scholar 

  24. A.H. deSilva, Sensitivity formulas for nonlinear factorable programming and their application to the solution of an implicitly defined optimization model of US crude oil production, D.Sc. Dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  25. J.E. Falk, A linear min-max problem, Math. Progr. 8(1973)169–188.

    Google Scholar 

  26. A.V. Fiacco and G.P. McCormick,Nonlinear Programming: Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Techniques (Wiley, New York, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  27. C.S. Fisk, A conceptual framework for optimal transportation systems planning with integrated supply and demand models, Transport. Sci. 20(1986)37–47.

    Google Scholar 

  28. J. Fortuny-Amat and B. McCarl, A representative and economic interpretation of a two-level programming problem, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 20(1981)783–792.

    Google Scholar 

  29. T.L. Friesz, Transportation network equilibrium, design and aggregation, Transport. Res. 19A(1985)413–427.

    Google Scholar 

  30. T.L. Friesz and P.T. Harker, Multicriteria spatial price equilibrium network design: Theory and computational results, Transport. Res. 17B(1983)203–217.

    Google Scholar 

  31. T.L. Friesz, T. Miller and R.L. Tobin, Algorithms for spatially competitive network-facility location, Environ. Planning 15B(1988).

  32. T.L. Friesz, R.L. Tobin and T. Miller, Theory and algorithms for equilibrium network facility location, Environ. Planning 15B(1988)191–203.

    Google Scholar 

  33. T.L. Friesz, R.L. Tobin, H.J. Cho and N.J. Mehta, Sensitivity analysis based heuristic algorithms for mathematical programs with variational inequality constraints, Math. Progr. 48B(1990)265–284.

    Google Scholar 

  34. T.L. Friesz, H.J. Cho, N. Mehta, R. Tobin and G. Anandalingam, A simulated annealing approach to the network design problem with variational inequality constraints, Transport. Sci. (1991), in press.

  35. T.L. Friesz, G. Anandalingam, N.J. Mehta, K. Nam, S.J. Shah and R.L. Tobin, The multiobjective equilibrium network design problem revisited: A simulated annealing approach, Eur. J. Oper. Res (1991), to appear.

  36. T.L. Friesz and P. Harker, Multicriteria spatial price equilibrium network design: Theory and computational results, Transport. Res. 17B(1983)411–426.

    Google Scholar 

  37. G. Gallo and A. Ulkucu, Bi-linear programming: An exact algorithm, Math. Progr. 12(1977)173–194.

    Google Scholar 

  38. A. Haurie, G. Savard and D.J. White, A note on: An efficient point algorithm for a linear two-stage optimization problem, Oper. Res. 38(1990)553–555.

    Google Scholar 

  39. P.T. Harker and T.L. Friesz, Bounding the solution of the continuous equilibrium net design problem,Proc. 9th Int. Symp. on Transportation and Traffic Theory (VNU Science Press, 1984), pp. 233–252.

  40. C.D. Kolstad and L.S. Lasdon, Derivative evaluation and computational experience with large bilevel mathematical programs, Faculty Working Paper No 1266, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  41. H. Konno, A cutting plane algorithm for solving bilinear programs, Math. Progr. 11(1976)14–27.

    Google Scholar 

  42. C.F. Lemke, A survey of complementarity theory, in:Variational Inequalities and Complementarity Problems, ed. R.W. Cottle et al. (Wiley, New York, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  43. L.J. LeBlanc, An algorithm for the discrete network design problem, Transport. Sci. 9(1975)183–199.

    Google Scholar 

  44. P. Marcotte, Network optimization with continuous control parameters, Transport. Sci. 17(1983)181–197.

    Google Scholar 

  45. P. Marcotte, Network design problem with congestion effects: A case of bilevel programming. Math. Progr. 34(1986)142–162.

    Google Scholar 

  46. M. Simaan and J.B. Cruz, Jr., On the Stackelberg strategy in nonzero-sum games, J. Optim. Theory Appl. 11(1973)533–555.

    Google Scholar 

  47. C. Suwansirikul, T.L. Friesz and R.L. Tobin, Equilibrium decomposed optimization: A heuristic for the continuous equilibrium network design problem, Transport. Sci. 21(1987)254–263.

    Google Scholar 

  48. C. Suwansirikul and T.L. Friesz, A heuristic algorithm for continuous equilibrium network design: Equilibrium decomposed optimization, Transport. Sci. 24(1987)254–263.

    Google Scholar 

  49. R.L. Tobin and T.L. Friesz, A new look at spatially competitive facility location models,Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Vol. 249 (Springer, 1985), pp. 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  50. R.L. Tobin and T.L. Friesz, Spatial competition facility location models, Ann. Oper. Res. 6(1986)49–74.

    Google Scholar 

  51. W.L. Zangwill and C.B. Garcia, Equilibrium programming: Path following approach and dynamics, Math. Progr. 21(1981)262–289.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Aoki and Satoh, Economic dispatch with network security constraints using parametric quadratic programming, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS-101(1982)4548–4556.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Burton and Obel, The multi-level approach to organizational issues of the firm — a critical review, Omega 5(1977)395–414.

    Google Scholar 

  54. R. Cassidy, M.J. Kirby and W.M. Raike, Efficient distribution of resources through three levels of government, Manag. Sci. 17(1971)462–473.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anandalingam, G., Friesz, T.L. Hierarchical optimization: An introduction. Ann Oper Res 34, 1–11 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02098169

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02098169

Navigation