Multi-Objective Linear Optimisation Pareto Solution
I'm looking at optimising weightings over a set of different amounts to achieve a total, whilst minimising the amount over the total these are.
Think: I have macronutrient targets, I want to make sure I hit them but don't go over by an excessive amount so what 'weight' of each meal would I want.
So the constraint is:
$left( begin{array}
QP_{11} & P_{12} & P_{13} \
P_{21} & P_{22} & P_{23} \
P_{31} & P_{32} & P_{33} \
P_{41} & P_{42} & P_{43} end{array}right) cdot
left(begin{array} Qw_1 \
w_2 \
w_3 end{array} right) ge left( begin{array} QT_1 \
T_2 \
T_3 \
T_4 end{array} right)$
Whilst we want to minimise:
$mathrm{min} left[left( begin{array}
QP_{11} & P_{12} & P_{13} \
P_{21} & P_{22} & P_{23} \
P_{31} & P_{32} & P_{33} \
P_{41} & P_{42} & P_{43} end{array}right) cdot
left(begin{array} Qw_1 \
w_2 \
w_3 end{array} right) - left( begin{array} QT_1 \
T_2 \
T_3 \
T_4 end{array} right)right]$
I'm having a bit of trouble on where to start with this though. I know that for a problem with two objectives I could just make one objective as efficient as possible, but not really sure where to start here. And of course if the matrix P was 3x3 if it has an inverse the problem is automatically solved.
I'd also possibly want to expand this to more than three weightings. So any algorithm would need to be extendable to n-objectives and indeed m payoffs.
Are there any names of specific algorithms for this? Ideally something that is suitable for automation given a P matrix and a T vector.
optimization convex-optimization linear-programming
add a comment |
I'm looking at optimising weightings over a set of different amounts to achieve a total, whilst minimising the amount over the total these are.
Think: I have macronutrient targets, I want to make sure I hit them but don't go over by an excessive amount so what 'weight' of each meal would I want.
So the constraint is:
$left( begin{array}
QP_{11} & P_{12} & P_{13} \
P_{21} & P_{22} & P_{23} \
P_{31} & P_{32} & P_{33} \
P_{41} & P_{42} & P_{43} end{array}right) cdot
left(begin{array} Qw_1 \
w_2 \
w_3 end{array} right) ge left( begin{array} QT_1 \
T_2 \
T_3 \
T_4 end{array} right)$
Whilst we want to minimise:
$mathrm{min} left[left( begin{array}
QP_{11} & P_{12} & P_{13} \
P_{21} & P_{22} & P_{23} \
P_{31} & P_{32} & P_{33} \
P_{41} & P_{42} & P_{43} end{array}right) cdot
left(begin{array} Qw_1 \
w_2 \
w_3 end{array} right) - left( begin{array} QT_1 \
T_2 \
T_3 \
T_4 end{array} right)right]$
I'm having a bit of trouble on where to start with this though. I know that for a problem with two objectives I could just make one objective as efficient as possible, but not really sure where to start here. And of course if the matrix P was 3x3 if it has an inverse the problem is automatically solved.
I'd also possibly want to expand this to more than three weightings. So any algorithm would need to be extendable to n-objectives and indeed m payoffs.
Are there any names of specific algorithms for this? Ideally something that is suitable for automation given a P matrix and a T vector.
optimization convex-optimization linear-programming
are you just looking for any Pareto Solution?
– LinAlg
23 hours ago
Any efficient solution would suffice, from there it should be possible to extend to all efficient solutions.
– user403033
22 hours ago
Is $w_1+w_2+w_3=1$ and addtionally $w_igeq 0 forall i in {1,2,3 } $?
– callculus
17 hours ago
No, the weights would not have to sum to 1 but they would need to be positive.
– user403033
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I'm looking at optimising weightings over a set of different amounts to achieve a total, whilst minimising the amount over the total these are.
Think: I have macronutrient targets, I want to make sure I hit them but don't go over by an excessive amount so what 'weight' of each meal would I want.
So the constraint is:
$left( begin{array}
QP_{11} & P_{12} & P_{13} \
P_{21} & P_{22} & P_{23} \
P_{31} & P_{32} & P_{33} \
P_{41} & P_{42} & P_{43} end{array}right) cdot
left(begin{array} Qw_1 \
w_2 \
w_3 end{array} right) ge left( begin{array} QT_1 \
T_2 \
T_3 \
T_4 end{array} right)$
Whilst we want to minimise:
$mathrm{min} left[left( begin{array}
QP_{11} & P_{12} & P_{13} \
P_{21} & P_{22} & P_{23} \
P_{31} & P_{32} & P_{33} \
P_{41} & P_{42} & P_{43} end{array}right) cdot
left(begin{array} Qw_1 \
w_2 \
w_3 end{array} right) - left( begin{array} QT_1 \
T_2 \
T_3 \
T_4 end{array} right)right]$
I'm having a bit of trouble on where to start with this though. I know that for a problem with two objectives I could just make one objective as efficient as possible, but not really sure where to start here. And of course if the matrix P was 3x3 if it has an inverse the problem is automatically solved.
I'd also possibly want to expand this to more than three weightings. So any algorithm would need to be extendable to n-objectives and indeed m payoffs.
Are there any names of specific algorithms for this? Ideally something that is suitable for automation given a P matrix and a T vector.
optimization convex-optimization linear-programming
I'm looking at optimising weightings over a set of different amounts to achieve a total, whilst minimising the amount over the total these are.
Think: I have macronutrient targets, I want to make sure I hit them but don't go over by an excessive amount so what 'weight' of each meal would I want.
So the constraint is:
$left( begin{array}
QP_{11} & P_{12} & P_{13} \
P_{21} & P_{22} & P_{23} \
P_{31} & P_{32} & P_{33} \
P_{41} & P_{42} & P_{43} end{array}right) cdot
left(begin{array} Qw_1 \
w_2 \
w_3 end{array} right) ge left( begin{array} QT_1 \
T_2 \
T_3 \
T_4 end{array} right)$
Whilst we want to minimise:
$mathrm{min} left[left( begin{array}
QP_{11} & P_{12} & P_{13} \
P_{21} & P_{22} & P_{23} \
P_{31} & P_{32} & P_{33} \
P_{41} & P_{42} & P_{43} end{array}right) cdot
left(begin{array} Qw_1 \
w_2 \
w_3 end{array} right) - left( begin{array} QT_1 \
T_2 \
T_3 \
T_4 end{array} right)right]$
I'm having a bit of trouble on where to start with this though. I know that for a problem with two objectives I could just make one objective as efficient as possible, but not really sure where to start here. And of course if the matrix P was 3x3 if it has an inverse the problem is automatically solved.
I'd also possibly want to expand this to more than three weightings. So any algorithm would need to be extendable to n-objectives and indeed m payoffs.
Are there any names of specific algorithms for this? Ideally something that is suitable for automation given a P matrix and a T vector.
optimization convex-optimization linear-programming
optimization convex-optimization linear-programming
asked yesterday
user403033
256
256
are you just looking for any Pareto Solution?
– LinAlg
23 hours ago
Any efficient solution would suffice, from there it should be possible to extend to all efficient solutions.
– user403033
22 hours ago
Is $w_1+w_2+w_3=1$ and addtionally $w_igeq 0 forall i in {1,2,3 } $?
– callculus
17 hours ago
No, the weights would not have to sum to 1 but they would need to be positive.
– user403033
2 hours ago
add a comment |
are you just looking for any Pareto Solution?
– LinAlg
23 hours ago
Any efficient solution would suffice, from there it should be possible to extend to all efficient solutions.
– user403033
22 hours ago
Is $w_1+w_2+w_3=1$ and addtionally $w_igeq 0 forall i in {1,2,3 } $?
– callculus
17 hours ago
No, the weights would not have to sum to 1 but they would need to be positive.
– user403033
2 hours ago
are you just looking for any Pareto Solution?
– LinAlg
23 hours ago
are you just looking for any Pareto Solution?
– LinAlg
23 hours ago
Any efficient solution would suffice, from there it should be possible to extend to all efficient solutions.
– user403033
22 hours ago
Any efficient solution would suffice, from there it should be possible to extend to all efficient solutions.
– user403033
22 hours ago
Is $w_1+w_2+w_3=1$ and addtionally $w_igeq 0 forall i in {1,2,3 } $?
– callculus
17 hours ago
Is $w_1+w_2+w_3=1$ and addtionally $w_igeq 0 forall i in {1,2,3 } $?
– callculus
17 hours ago
No, the weights would not have to sum to 1 but they would need to be positive.
– user403033
2 hours ago
No, the weights would not have to sum to 1 but they would need to be positive.
– user403033
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Your problem can be summarized as $min_{s,x}{s : Ax+sgeq b, sgeq 0}$. Weighted sum optimization gives a Pareto Solution as long as each weight is strictly positive:
$min_{x,s}{w^Ts : Ax+sgeq b, sgeq 0}$. These problems can be solved with the simplex method (available with linprog in scipy or Matlab).
I assume in this instance $s$ is the vector of my minimisation condition and $w$ are the weights I'm applying to each? So that I'm then left with a scalar to minimise?
– user403033
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3060426%2fmulti-objective-linear-optimisation-pareto-solution%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Your problem can be summarized as $min_{s,x}{s : Ax+sgeq b, sgeq 0}$. Weighted sum optimization gives a Pareto Solution as long as each weight is strictly positive:
$min_{x,s}{w^Ts : Ax+sgeq b, sgeq 0}$. These problems can be solved with the simplex method (available with linprog in scipy or Matlab).
I assume in this instance $s$ is the vector of my minimisation condition and $w$ are the weights I'm applying to each? So that I'm then left with a scalar to minimise?
– user403033
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your problem can be summarized as $min_{s,x}{s : Ax+sgeq b, sgeq 0}$. Weighted sum optimization gives a Pareto Solution as long as each weight is strictly positive:
$min_{x,s}{w^Ts : Ax+sgeq b, sgeq 0}$. These problems can be solved with the simplex method (available with linprog in scipy or Matlab).
I assume in this instance $s$ is the vector of my minimisation condition and $w$ are the weights I'm applying to each? So that I'm then left with a scalar to minimise?
– user403033
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your problem can be summarized as $min_{s,x}{s : Ax+sgeq b, sgeq 0}$. Weighted sum optimization gives a Pareto Solution as long as each weight is strictly positive:
$min_{x,s}{w^Ts : Ax+sgeq b, sgeq 0}$. These problems can be solved with the simplex method (available with linprog in scipy or Matlab).
Your problem can be summarized as $min_{s,x}{s : Ax+sgeq b, sgeq 0}$. Weighted sum optimization gives a Pareto Solution as long as each weight is strictly positive:
$min_{x,s}{w^Ts : Ax+sgeq b, sgeq 0}$. These problems can be solved with the simplex method (available with linprog in scipy or Matlab).
answered 10 hours ago
LinAlg
8,4161521
8,4161521
I assume in this instance $s$ is the vector of my minimisation condition and $w$ are the weights I'm applying to each? So that I'm then left with a scalar to minimise?
– user403033
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I assume in this instance $s$ is the vector of my minimisation condition and $w$ are the weights I'm applying to each? So that I'm then left with a scalar to minimise?
– user403033
2 hours ago
I assume in this instance $s$ is the vector of my minimisation condition and $w$ are the weights I'm applying to each? So that I'm then left with a scalar to minimise?
– user403033
2 hours ago
I assume in this instance $s$ is the vector of my minimisation condition and $w$ are the weights I'm applying to each? So that I'm then left with a scalar to minimise?
– user403033
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3060426%2fmulti-objective-linear-optimisation-pareto-solution%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
are you just looking for any Pareto Solution?
– LinAlg
23 hours ago
Any efficient solution would suffice, from there it should be possible to extend to all efficient solutions.
– user403033
22 hours ago
Is $w_1+w_2+w_3=1$ and addtionally $w_igeq 0 forall i in {1,2,3 } $?
– callculus
17 hours ago
No, the weights would not have to sum to 1 but they would need to be positive.
– user403033
2 hours ago