This article considers bilevel linear programming problems where the coefficients of the objective functions and the constraints in the problem are given as fuzzy parameters. Stackelberg problems and Stackelberg solutions under fuzziness have not been fully discussed so far. New Stackelberg solution concepts under fuzziness, called possibilistic Stackelberg solutions, are proposed by incorporating possibility theory into Stackelberg solutions in non-fuzzy environments. This paper shows some theoretical properties and theorems on the formulated fuzzy bilevel programming problems. It is shown that the proposed possibilistic Stackelberg solutions are obtained by using linear or nonlinear programming techniques. The effectiveness of the proposed models is demonstrated by numerical experiments using transportation problems where the upper-level decision maker is a buyer and the lower-level one is a supplier.
AckereA.V., The principal/agent paradigm: Characterizations and computations, European Journal of Operational Research70 (1993), 83–103.
2.
AmouzegarM.A. and MoshirvaziriK., Determining optimal pollution control policies: An application of bilevel programming, European Journal of Operational Research119 (1999), 100–120.
3.
AroraS.R. and GuptaG., Interactive fuzzy goal programming approach for bilevel programming problem, European Journal of Operational Research194 (2009), 368–376.
4.
AvisoK.B., TanR.R., CulabaA.B. and CruzJ.B.Jr, Bi-level fuzzy optimization approach for water change in eco-industrial parks, Process Safety and Environmental Protection88 (2010), 31–40.
5.
AudetC., SavardG. and ZghalW., New branch-and-cut algorithm for bilevel linear programming, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications134 (2007), 353–370.
6.
BardJ.F. and MooreJ.T., A branch and bound algorithm for the bilevel programming problem, SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing11 (1990), 281–292.
7.
Ben-AyedO., Bilevel linear programming, Computers & Operations Research20 (1993), 485–501.
8.
BrackenJ. and McGillJ., Defense applications of mathematical programs with optimization problems in the constraints, Operations Research22 (1974), 1086–1096.
9.
BudnitzkiA., Computation of the optimal tolls on the traffic network, European Journal of Operational Research235 (2014), 247–251.
10.
CelmisA., Least square model fitting to fuzzy vector data, Fuzzy Sets and Systems22 (1987), 245–269.
11.
ColsonB., MarcotteP. and SavardG., A trust-region method for nonlinear bilevel programming: Algorithm and computational experience, Computational Optimization and Applications30 (2005), 211–227.
12.
CoteJ.P., MarcotteP. and SavardG., A bilevel modeling approach to pricing and fare optimization in the airline industry, Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management2 (2003), 23–36.
13.
DempeS. and BardJ.F., Bundle trust-region algorithm for bilinear bilevel programming, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications110 (2001), 265–288.
14.
DempeS. and StarostinaT., On the solution of fuzzy bilevel programming, Working Paper, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, TU Bergakademie Freiberg, 2007.
15.
DempeS., KalashnikovV., Pérez-ValdésG.A. and KalashnykovaN., Bilevel Programming Problems, Energy Systems. Springer, Berlin, 2015.
16.
DuboisD. and PradeH., Ranking fuzzy numbers in setting of possibility theory, Information Sciences30 (1983), 183–224.
17.
DuboisD. and PradeH., Possibility theory, probability theory and multiple-valued logics, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence32 (2001), 35–66.
18.
EdmundsT.A. and BardJ.F., Algorithms for nonlinear bilevel mathematical programs, IEEE Transactions on System, Man, and Cybernetics21 (1991), 83–89.
19.
FampaM., BarrosoL.A., CandalD. and SimonettiL., Bilevel optimization applied to strategic pricing in competitive electricity markets, Computational Optimization and Applications39 (2008), 121–142.
GümüsZ.H. and FloudasC.A., Global optimization of nonlinear bilevel programming problems, Journal of Global Optimization20 (2001), 1–31.
22.
InuiguchiM. and SakawaM., A possibilistic linear program is equivalent to a stochastic linear program in a special case, Fuzzy Sets and Systems76 (1995), 309–318.
23.
InuiguchiM. and RamikJ., Possibilistic linear programming: A brief review of fuzzy mathematical programming and a comparison with stochastic programming in portfolio selection problem, Fuzzy Sets and Systems111 (2000), 3–28.
24.
KahramanC. (Eds.), Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Springer, New York, 2008.
25.
KaraB.Y. and VerterV., Designing a road network for hazardous materials transportation, Transportation Science38 (2004), 188–196.
26.
KarlofJ.K. and WangW., Bilevel programming applied to the flow shop scheduling problem, Computers and Operations Research23 (1996), 443–451.
27.
KatagiriH., KatoK. and UnoT., Bilevel linear programming problems with quadratic membership functions of fuzzy parameters, Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineering and Computer Scientists 20132 (2013), 1031–1035.
28.
KatagiriH., NiwaK., KuboD. and HasuikeT., Interactive random fuzzy two-level programming through possibility-based fractile criterion optimality, Proceedings of The International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists 20103 (2010), 2113–2118.
29.
KatagiriH. and SakawaM., A study on fuzzy random linear programming problems based on possibility and necessity measures, In: International Fuzzy Systems Association World Congress, SpringerBerlin Heidelberg, 2003, pp. 725–732.
30.
KatagiriH., UnoT., KatoK., TsudaH. and TsubakiH., Random fuzzy multi-objective linear programming: Optimization of possibilistic value at risk (pVaR), Expert Systems with Applications40 (2013), 563–574.
31.
KatagiriH., UnoT., KatoK., TsudaH. and TsubakiH., Random fuzzy bilevel linear programming through possibilitybased value at risk model, International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics5 (2014), 211–224.
32.
KhanduziR., PeyghamiM.R. and MalekiH.R., Solving continuous single-objective defensive location problem based on hybrid directed tabu search algorithm, International Journal of Advanced Manufacture Technology76 (2015), 295–310.
33.
LaiY.J. and HwangC.L., Hierarchical optimization: A satisfactory solution, Fuzzy Sets and Systems77 (1996), 321–356.
34.
LodwickW.A. and KacprizykJ., (Eds.), Fuzzy Optimization, Springer, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2010.
35.
LoridanP. and MorganJ., Weak via strong Stackelberg problem: New results, Journal of Global Optimization8 (1996), 263–287.
36.
MigdalasA., Bilevel programming in traffic planning: Models, methods and challenge, Journal of Global Optimization7 (1995), 381–405.
37.
MillerT., FrieszT. and TobinR., Heuristic algorithms for delivered price spatially competitive network facility location problems, Annals of Operations Research3 (1992), 177–202.
38.
NichollsM.G., The applications of non-linear bi-level programming to the aluminum industry, Journal of Global Optimization8 (1996), 245–261.
39.
RoghanianE., SadjadiS.J. and AryanezhadM.B., A probabilistic bi-level linear multi-objective programming problem to supply chain planning, Applied Mathematics and Computation188 (2007), 786–800.
40.
SavardG. and GauvinJ., The steepest descent direction for the nonlinear bilevel programming problem, Operations Research Letters15 (1994), 265–272.
41.
SheraliH.D., SoysterA.L. and MurphyF.H., Stackelberg-Nash-Cournot equilibria: Characterizations and computations, Operations Research31 (1983), 253–276.
42.
ShiC., LuJ. and ZhangG., An extended Kuhn-Tucker approach for linear bilevel programming, Applied Mathematics and Computation162 (2005), 51–63.
43.
ShihH.-S., LaiY.-J. and LeeE.S., Fuzzy approach for multilevel programming problems, Computer and Operations Research23 (1996), 73–91.
44.
StackelbergH., The Theory of Market Economy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952.
45.
TanakaH. and IshibuchiH., Identification of possibilistic linear systems by quadratic membership functions of fuzzy parameters, Fuzzy Sets and Systems41 (1991), 145–160.
46.
TanakaH. and IshibuchiH., Evidence theory of exponential possibility distribution, International Journal of Approximation Reasoning8 (1993), 123–140.
47.
UnoT. and KatagiriH., Single- and multi-objective defensive location problems on a network, European Journal of Operational Research188 (2008), 76–84.
48.
UnoT., KatagiriH. and KatoK., An evolutionary multi-agent based search method for Stackelberg solutions of, International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control4 (2008), 1033–1042.
49.
UnoT., KatagiriH. and KatoK., A Stackelberg solution for fuzzy random competitive location problems with demand site uncertainty, Intelligent Decision Technologies6 (2011), 69–75.
50.
UnoT., KatoK. and KatagiriH., A Stackelberg location with fuzzy random demands based upon possibility and necessity measures, International Journal of Knowledge Engineering and Soft Data Paradigms4 (2014), 249–260.
51.
VerdegayJ.L., Fuzzy Sets Based Heuristics for Optimization, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2003.
52.
WhiteD.J. and AnandalingamG., A penalty function approach for solving bi-level linear programs, Journal of Global Optimization3 (1993), 397–419.
53.
YueD. and YouF., Stackelberg-game-based modeling and optimization for supply chain design and operations: A mixed integer bilevel programming framework, Computers & Chemical Engineering(to appear).
54.
ZadehL.A., Fuzzy sets, Information and Control8 (1965), 338–353.
55.
ZadehL.A., Fuzzy sets as the basis for a theory of possibility, Fuzzy Sets and Systems1 (1978), 3–28.
56.
ZhangG. and LuJ., Fuzzy bilevel programming with multiple objectives and cooperative multiple followers, Journal of Global Optimization47 (2010), 403–419.
57.
ZhangG. and LuJ., Fuzzy bi-level decision making techniques: A survey, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems9 (2016), 25–34.
