WorksheetsScalarization-based methods
Total questions: 8
Worksheet time: 8mins
How can we convert an objective function to be minimized into an objective function to be maximized?
Multiple it by f(x)1
Add -1
Multiply it by -1
You cannot
If a multiobjective optimization problem has no constraints, what is the feasible set S ?
It is undefined
Depends on the image F(x)
The whole domain of x , i.e., Rn
It can be specified by a domain expert (a decision maker)
Which of the given statements concerning the three sets of objective vectors in the figure are true?
All the sets are Pareto optimal
Set A and B are Pareto optimal
Set C is weakly Pareto optimal
All the sets are weakly Pareto optimal
When computing a trade-off as given in (6), in which given case should we be extra careful?
There is no need to be careful
f2 is greater than f1
f1 is greater than f2
The denominator is zero
Which of the following statements is true concerning the solutions shown in the figure below?
The circles are properly Pareto optimal, but the squares are not
The squares are properly Pareto optimal, but the circles are not
The circles and squares and properly Pareto optimal, but the stars are not
The stars are properly Pareto optimal
What is the ideal point, and what is the nadir point according to the payoff-table?
ideal: (−3.2, 2.2,−4.2) nadir: (3.9, 4.3,−2.2)
nadir: (−3.2, 2.2,−4.2) ideal: (3.9, 4.3,−2.2)
Impossible to say
ideal: (3.1, 2.2, −2.2) nadir: (−2.2, 3.9, 3.1)
Why do we need an utopian point z⋅⋅ ?
Because we go always one step beyond
There is no special reason, just for fun
To avoid dividing by zero
As a counterpoint to the dystopian point
If the reference point given in goal programming z is feasible (i.e., it is contained in Z , the image of the feasible region), what problem can arise?
The goals are unachievable
We divide by zero
The constraint is not feasible
The solution found might not be Pareto optimal
