4.5 Article

On a class of bilevel linear mixed-integer programs in adversarial settings

期刊

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL OPTIMIZATION
卷 71, 期 1, 页码 91-113

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10898-017-0549-2

关键词

Bilevel linear mixed-integer programs; Bilevel linear programs; Computational complexity; Strong-weak approach; Pessimistic bilevel programs

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CMMI-1400009, CMMI-1634835]
  2. DoD DURIP Grant [FA2386-12-1-3032]
  3. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Mathematical Modeling and Optimization Institute
  4. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We consider a class of bilevel linear mixed-integer programs (BMIPs), where the follower's optimization problem is a linear program. A typical assumption in the literature for BMIPs is that the follower responds to the leader optimally, i.e., the lower-level problem is solved to optimality for a given leader's decision. However, this assumption may be violated in adversarial settings, where the follower may be willing to give up a portion of his/her optimal objective function value, and thus select a suboptimal solution, in order to inflict more damage to the leader. To handle such adversarial settings we consider a modeling approach referred to as alpha-pessimistic BMIPs. The proposed method naturally encompasses as its special classes pessimistic BMIPs and max-min (or min-max) problems. Furthermore, we extend this new modeling approach by considering strong-weak bilevel programs, where the leader is not certain if the follower is collaborative or adversarial, and thus attempts to make a decision by taking into account both cases via a convex combination of the corresponding objective function values. We study basic properties of the proposed models and provide numerical examples with a class of the defender-attacker problems to illustrate the derived results. We also consider some related computational complexity issues, in particular, with respect to optimistic and pessimistic bilevel linear programs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据