IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pab/wpaper/06.33.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the equivalence between compromise programming and the use of composite compromise metrics

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco J. André

    (Department of Economics, Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

  • Carlos Romero

    (Departamento de Economía y Gestión Forestal, Escuela Tecnica Superior de Ingenieros de Montes, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the relationship between Compromise Programming and a close relative called Composite Programming that is based on the use of composite metrics. More specifically, it focuses on the possibility that the results of Compromise Programming are equivalent to those obtained with a particular case of Composite Programming in which a linear combination between the two bounds of the compromise set is established. Several situations, depending on the number of criteria involved and the mathematical structure of the efficient set, are studied. The most relevant result is obtained when two criteria are involved and the efficient set is continuously differentiable. In this case, it is possible to find a unique equivalent value of the control parameter in Composite Programming for each metric in Compromise Programming. It is remarked that this particular case is very relevant in many economic scenarios. On the other hand, it turns out that the equivalence between both approaches can not be extended to the case with more than two criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco J. André & Carlos Romero, 2006. "On the equivalence between compromise programming and the use of composite compromise metrics," Working Papers 06.33, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:pab:wpaper:06.33
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.upo.es/serv/bib/wps/econ0633.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2006
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P. L. Yu, 1973. "A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(8), pages 936-946, April.
    2. Nakayama, Hirotaka, 1992. "Trade-off analysis using parametric optimization techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 87-98, July.
    3. M. Freimer & P. L. Yu, 1976. "Some New Results on Compromise Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 688-693, February.
    4. F J André & M A Cardenete & C Romero, 2008. "Using compromise programming for macroeconomic policy making in a general equilibrium framework: theory and application to the Spanish economy," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(7), pages 875-883, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. B. Domenech & L. Ferrer-Martí & R. Pastor, 2022. "Multicriteria analysis of renewable-based electrification projects in developing countries," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 312(2), pages 1375-1401, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Büsing, Christina & Goetzmann, Kai-Simon & Matuschke, Jannik & Stiller, Sebastian, 2017. "Reference points and approximation algorithms in multicriteria discrete optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(3), pages 829-840.
    2. Kuldeep Kavta & Arkopal K. Goswami, 2021. "A methodological framework for a priori selection of travel demand management package using fuzzy MCDM methods," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3059-3084, December.
    3. Francisco Salas-Molina & Juan Antonio Rodr'iguez Aguilar & Filippo Bistaffa, 2020. "Shared value economics: an axiomatic approach," Papers 2006.00581, arXiv.org.
    4. M. Voorneveld & A. Nouweland & R. McLean, 2011. "Axiomatizations of the Euclidean compromise solution," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(3), pages 427-448, August.
    5. Chi-Yo Huang & Pei-Han Chung & Joseph Z. Shyu & Yao-Hua Ho & Chao-Hsin Wu & Ming-Che Lee & Ming-Jenn Wu, 2018. "Evaluation and Selection of Materials for Particulate Matter MEMS Sensors by Using Hybrid MCDM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-35, September.
    6. Claus-Jochen Haake & Cheng-Zhong Qin, 2018. "On unification of solutions to the bargaining problem," Working Papers CIE 113, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    7. Francisco Salas-Molina, 2021. "A formal specification of multicriteria economics," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 2627-2650, December.
    8. Ma, Qiuzhuo & Song, Haiqing & Zhu, Wenbin, 2018. "Low-carbon airline fleet assignment: A compromise approach," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 86-102.
    9. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2018. "Anchoring on Utopia: a generalization of the Kalai–Smorodinsky solution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 6(2), pages 141-155, October.
    10. F. Blasco & E. Cuchillo-Ibáñez & M. A. Morón & C. Romero, 1999. "On the Monotonicity of the Compromise Set in Multicriteria Problems," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 69-82, July.
    11. González-Pachón, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2011. "The design of socially optimal decisions in a consensus scenario," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 179-185, April.
    12. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 514-529, April.
    13. Sebastián Lozano & Narges Soltani & Akram Dehnokhalaji, 2020. "A compromise programming approach for target setting in DEA," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 288(1), pages 363-390, May.
    14. Romero, Carlos, 1999. "Determination of the optimal externality: Efficiency versus equity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 183-192, February.
    15. Casiano A. Manrique-de-Lara-Peñate & Dolores R. Santos-Peñate, 2017. "SAM updating using multi-objective optimization techniques," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 96(3), pages 647-667, August.
    16. de Sousa Xavier, António Manuel & Costa Freitas, Maria de Belém & de Sousa Fragoso, Rui Manuel, 2015. "Management of Mediterranean forests — A compromise programming approach considering different stakeholders and different objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 38-46.
    17. An, Qingxian & Zhang, Qiaoyu & Tao, Xiangyang, 2023. "Pay-for-performance incentives in benchmarking with quasi S-shaped technology," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    18. Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng & Chi-Yo Huang, 2012. "Combined DEMATEL technique with hybrid MCDM methods for creating the aspired intelligent global manufacturing & logistics systems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 159-190, August.
    19. Milad Zamanifar & Seyed Mohammad Seyedhoseyni, 2017. "Recovery planning model for roadways network after natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(2), pages 699-716, June.
    20. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Compromise programming; composite metric; p-norms; economic optimization.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pab:wpaper:06.33. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Publicación Digital - UPO (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deupoes.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.