# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

October  2005, 1(4): 549-563. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2005.1.549

## Two approaches toward constrained vector optimization and identity of the solutions

 1 Université de la Vallée d'Aoste, Facoltà di Scienze Economiche, 11100 Aosta, Italy 2 Technical University of Varna, Department of Mathematics, 9010 Varna, Bulgaria 3 University of Insubria, Department of Economics, 21100 Varese, Italy

Received  September 2004 Revised  February 2005 Published  October 2005

In this paper we deal with a Fritz John type constrained vector optimization problem. In spite that there are many concepts of solutions for an unconstrained vector optimization problem, we show the possibility ''to doubl'' the number of concepts when a constrained problem is considered. In particular we introduce sense I and sense II isolated minimizers, properly efficient points, efficient points and weakly efficient points. As a motivation leading to these concepts we give some results concerning optimality conditions in constrained vector optimization and stability properties of isolated minimizers and properly efficient points. Our main investigation and results concern relations between sense I and sense II concepts. These relations are proved often under convexity type conditions.
Citation: Giovanni P. Crespi, Ivan Ginchev, Matteo Rocca. Two approaches toward constrained vector optimization and identity of the solutions. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2005, 1 (4) : 549-563. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2005.1.549
 [1] Ying Gao, Xinmin Yang, Kok Lay Teo. Optimality conditions for approximate solutions of vector optimization problems. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2011, 7 (2) : 483-496. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2011.7.483 [2] Tadeusz Antczak, Najeeb Abdulaleem. Optimality conditions for $E$-differentiable vector optimization problems with the multiple interval-valued objective function. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (5) : 1-19. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019089 [3] Jiawei Chen, Shengjie Li, Jen-Chih Yao. Vector-valued separation functions and constrained vector optimization problems: optimality and saddle points. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (5) : 1-18. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018174 [4] Adela Capătă. Optimality conditions for vector equilibrium problems and their applications. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2013, 9 (3) : 659-669. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2013.9.659 [5] Qiu-Sheng Qiu. Optimality conditions for vector equilibrium problems with constraints. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2009, 5 (4) : 783-790. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2009.5.783 [6] Yong Xia. New sufficient global optimality conditions for linearly constrained bivalent quadratic optimization problems. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2009, 5 (4) : 881-892. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2009.5.881 [7] Liwei Zhang, Jihong Zhang, Yule Zhang. Second-order optimality conditions for cone constrained multi-objective optimization. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (3) : 1041-1054. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017089 [8] Adela Capătă. Optimality conditions for strong vector equilibrium problems under a weak constraint qualification. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2015, 11 (2) : 563-574. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2015.11.563 [9] Caiping Liu, Heungwing Lee. Lagrange multiplier rules for approximate solutions in vector optimization. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2012, 8 (3) : 749-764. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2012.8.749 [10] Hugo Beirão da Veiga. A challenging open problem: The inviscid limit under slip-type boundary conditions.. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2010, 3 (2) : 231-236. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2010.3.231 [11] Radu Ioan Boţ, Anca Grad, Gert Wanka. Sequential characterization of solutions in convex composite programming and applications to vector optimization. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2008, 4 (4) : 767-782. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2008.4.767 [12] Pooja Louhan, S. K. Suneja. On fractional vector optimization over cones with support functions. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (2) : 549-572. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016031 [13] Xinmin Yang. On symmetric and self duality in vector optimization problem. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2011, 7 (3) : 523-529. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2011.7.523 [14] Heinz Schättler, Urszula Ledzewicz, Helmut Maurer. Sufficient conditions for strong local optimality in optimal control problems with $L_{2}$-type objectives and control constraints. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2014, 19 (8) : 2657-2679. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2014.19.2657 [15] Henri Bonnel, Ngoc Sang Pham. Nonsmooth optimization over the (weakly or properly) Pareto set of a linear-quadratic multi-objective control problem: Explicit optimality conditions. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2011, 7 (4) : 789-809. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2011.7.789 [16] Ying Gao, Xinmin Yang, Jin Yang, Hong Yan. Scalarizations and Lagrange multipliers for approximate solutions in the vector optimization problems with set-valued maps. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2015, 11 (2) : 673-683. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2015.11.673 [17] Xiuhong Chen, Zhihua Li. On optimality conditions and duality for non-differentiable interval-valued programming problems with the generalized (F, ρ)-convexity. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (3) : 895-912. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017081 [18] Chunrong Chen. A unified nonlinear augmented Lagrangian approach for nonconvex vector optimization. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2011, 1 (3) : 495-508. doi: 10.3934/naco.2011.1.495 [19] Kequan Zhao, Xinmin Yang. Characterizations of the $E$-Benson proper efficiency in vector optimization problems. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2013, 3 (4) : 643-653. doi: 10.3934/naco.2013.3.643 [20] Qilin Wang, S. J. Li. Higher-order sensitivity analysis in nonconvex vector optimization. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2010, 6 (2) : 381-392. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2010.6.381

2018 Impact Factor: 1.025