Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:12:57.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proximal proper efficiency for minimisation with respect to normal cones

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2009

C. S. Lalitha  and
Ruchi Arora
C. S. Lalitha
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Rajdhani College, University of Delhi, Raja Garden, New Delhi-110 015, India, e-mail: [email protected]
Ruchi Arora
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of Delhi, Delhi - 110 007, India, e-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper is devoted to the study of a new kind of proper efficiency in terms of proximal normal cones for vector minimisation. This new notion called proximal proper efficiency is used to obtain a scalar characterisation when a set related to the criterion set is a nonconvex set. Proximal proper efficiency is related with the well known notions of Benson and Borwein proper efficiency which are defined in the literature in terms of tangent cones. The study is further extended to characterise Benson and Borwein proper efficiency in terms of normal cones assuming convexity of a related set.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 215 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Mathematical Society 2005

References

[1]Benson, H.P., ‘An improved version of proper efficiency for vector minimization with respect to cones’, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 71 (1979), 232–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Borwein, J.M., ‘Proper efficient points for maximization with respect to cones’, SIAM J. Control Optim. 15 (1977), 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Borwein, J.M. and Lewis, A.S., Convex analysis and nonlinear optimization: Theory and examples (Springer Verlag, New York, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Clarke, F.H., Optimization and nonsmooth analysis (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1970).Google Scholar
[5]Clarke, F.H., Ledyaev, Y.S., Stern, R.J. and Wolenski, P.R., Nonsmooth analysis and control theory (Springer Verlag, New York, 1998).Google Scholar
[6]Ewing, G.M., ‘Sufficient conditions for global minima of suitable concave functionals from variational and control theory’, SIAM Rev. 19 (1977), 202–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Geoffiion, A.M., ‘Proper efficiency and the theory of vector maximization’, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 22 (1968), 618–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Henig, M.I., ‘Existence and characterization of efficient decisions with respect to cones’, Math. Prog. 23 (1982), 111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Kuhn, H.W. and Tucker, A.W., ‘Nonlinear programming’,in Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1951), pp. 481–492.Google Scholar
[10]Miettinen, K. and Mäkelä, M.M., ‘On cone characterizations of weak, proper and pareto optimality in multiobjective optimization’, Math. Methods Oper. Res. 53 (2001), 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Rockafellar, R.T., Convex analysis (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Rockafellar, R.T., The theory of subgradients and its applications to problems of optimization: convex and nonconvex functions (Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1981).Google Scholar
[13]Rockafellar, R.T. and Wets, R.J.-B., Variational analysis (Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Sawaragi, Y., Nakayama, H. and Tanino, T., Theory of multiobjective optimization (Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 1985).Google Scholar