Multi-choice programming: an overview of theories and applications

References

• Healy Jr WC. Multiple choice programming (a procedure for linear programming with zero-one variables). Oper Res. 1964;12(1):122–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang CT. Multi-choice goal programming. Omega. 2007;35(4):389–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang CT. Revised multi-choice goal programming. Appl Math Model. 2008;32(12):2587–2595.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao CN. Formulating the multi-segment goal programming. Comput Ind Eng. 2009;56(1):138–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang CT. Multi-choice goal programming with utility functions. Eur J Oper Res. 2011;215(2):439–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang CT, Chen HM, Zhuang ZY. Multi-coefficients goal programming. Comput Ind Eng. 2012;62(2):616–623.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ustun O. Multi-choice goal programming formulation based on the conic scalarizing function. Appl Math Model. 2012;36(3):974–988.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang CT, Chen HM, Zhuang ZY. Revised multi-segment goal programming: percentage goal programming. Comput Ind Eng. 2012;63(4):1235–1242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bankian-Tabrizi B, Shahanaghi K, Jabalameli MS. Fuzzy multi-choice goal programming. Appl Math Model. 2012;36(4):1415–1420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patro KK, Acharya MM, Biswal MP, Acharya S. Computation of a multi-choice goal programming problem. Appl Math Comput. 2015;271:489–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beale EML, Tomlin JA. Special facilities in a general mathematical programming system for non-convex problems using ordered sets of variables. OR. 1970;69(99):447-454.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong RD, Balintfy JL. A chance constrained multiple choice programming algorithm. Oper Res. 1975;23(3):494–510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinha P, Zoltners AA. The multiple-choice knapsack problem. Oper Res. 1979;27(3):503–515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glover F, Mulvey J. Network relaxations and lower bounds for multiple choice problems. INFOR. 1982;20(4):385–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin RK, Sweeney DJ. An ideal column algorithm for integer programs with special ordered sets of variables. Math Program. 1983;26(1):48–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bean JC. Technical note -- a Langrangian algorithm for the multiple choice integer program. Oper Res. 1984;32(5):1185–1193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin RK, Sweeney DJ, Doherty ME. The reduced cost branch and bound algorithm for mixed integer programming. Comput Oper Res. 1985;12(2):139–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang SG, Tcha DW. A heuristic for multiple choice programming. Comput Oper Res. 1985;12(1):25–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin EY, Bricker DL. On the calculation of true and pseudo penalties in multiple choice integer programming. Eur J Oper Res. 1991;55(2):228–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin EYH. Multiple choice programming: a state-of-the-art review. Int T Oper Res. 1994;1(4):409–421.
   Google Scholar
• Ogryczak W. A note on modeling multiple choice requirements for simple mixed integer programming solvers. Comput Oper Res. 1996;23(2):199–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin EYH, Bricker DL. Computational comparison on the partitioning strategies in multiple choice integer programming. Eur J Oper Res. 1996;88(1):182–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben Hadj-Alouane A, Bean JC. A genetic algorithm for the multiple-choice integer program. Oper Res. 1997;45(1):92–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charnes A, Cooper WW. Management models and industrial applications of linear programming. Manage Sci. 1957;4(1):38–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SM. Goal programming for decision analysis. Philadelphia (PA): Auerbach; 1972.
   Google Scholar
• Ignizio JP. Goal programming and extensions. Lexington (MA): Heath, Lexington Books; 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Tamiz M, Jones D, Romero C. Goal programming for decision making: an overview of the current state-of-the-art. Eur J Oper Res. 1998;111(3):569–581.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romero C. Extended lexicographic goal programming: a unifying approach. Omega. 2001;29(1):63–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang CT. An efficient linearization approach for mixed-integer problems. Eur J Oper Res. 2000;123(3):652–659.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varian HR. Price discrimination. Handbook Ind org. 1989;1:597–654.
   Google Scholar
• Acharya S, Nanda S, Mishra B. Solving multi-choice linear goal programming problem with preemptive priorities. OMS. 2011;30:52–70.
   Google Scholar
• Lai YJ, Hwang CL. Fuzzy multiple objective decision making. In: Beckmann M, Kunzi HP, editors. Fuzzy multiple objective decision making. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1994. p. 139–262.
   Google Scholar
• Chang CT, Zhuang ZY. The different ways of using utility function with multi-choice goal programming. In: Yang GC, Ao SI, Huang X, Castillo O, editors. Transactions on engineering technologies. Kowloon: Springer; 2014. p. 407–417.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmermann HJ. Fuzzy programming and linear programming with several objective functions. Fuzzy Set Syst. 1978;1(1):45–55.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta N, Bari A. Multi-choice goal programming with trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Int J Oper Res. 2014;11(3):82–90.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar A, Kaur J. A new method for solving fuzzy linear programs with trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. J Fuzzy Set Valued Anal. 2011;3:103–118.
   Google Scholar
• Biswal MP, Acharya S. Transformation of a multi-choice linear programming problem. Appl Math Comput. 2009;210(1):182–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biswal MP, Acharya S. Solving multi-choice linear programming problems by interpolating polynomials. Math Comput Model. 2011;54(5):1405–1412.
   Google Scholar
• Acharya S, Acharya MM. Generalized transformation techniques for multi-choice linear programming problems. Int J Optim Control Theor Appl. 2012;3(1):45–54.
   Google Scholar
• Pradhan A, Biswal MP. Multi-choice probabilistic linear programming problem. OPSEARCH. 2016:1–21. DOI:10.1007/s12597-016-0272-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeleny M. The theory of the displaced ideal. In: Zeleny M, editor. Multiple criteria decision making kyoto 1975. Berlin: Springer; 1976. p. 153–206.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang CL, Lai YJ, Liu TY. A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Comput Oper Res. 1993;20(8):889–899.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeleny M. Multi criteria decision making. New York (NY): McGraw-Hills; 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Opricovic S, Tzeng GH. Compromise solution by mcdm methods: a comparative analysis of vikor and topsis. Eur J Oper Res. 2004;156(2):445–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai YJ, Liu TY, Hwang CL. Topsis for MODM. Eur J Oper Res. 1994;76(3):486–500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biswal MP, Acharya S. Multi-choice multi-objective linear programming problem. J Interdisciplinary Math. 2009;12(5):606–637.
   Google Scholar
• Pradhan A, Biswal MP. A bi-level multi-choice programming problem. Int J Math Oper Res. 2015;7(1):1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Maiti SK, Roy SK. Multi-choice stochastic bi-level programming problem in cooperative nature via fuzzy programming approach. J Ind Eng Int. 2016;12(3):287–298.
   Google Scholar
• Pradhan A, Biswal MP. Multi-level linear programming problem involving some multi-choice parameters. Intl J Math Oper Res. 2015;7(3):297–317.
   Google Scholar
• Barik SK, Biswal M, Chakravarty D. Two-stage stochastic programming problems involving multi-choice parameters. Appl Math Comput. 2014;240:109–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dantzig GB. Linear programming under uncertainty. Manag Sci. 1955;1(3–4):197–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dantzig GB, Madansky A. On the solution of two-stage linear programs under uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Vol. 1. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press; 1961. p. 165–176.
   Google Scholar
• Dutta D, Murthy S. Multi-choice goal programming approach for a fuzzy transportation problem. Int J Res Rev Appl Sci. 2010;2:132–139.
   Google Scholar
• Mahapatra DR, Roy SK, Biswal MP. Multi-choice stochastic transportation problem involving extreme value distribution. Appl Math Model. 2013;37(4):2230–2240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahapatra DR. Multi-choice stochastic transportation problem involving weibull distribution. Int J Optim Control Theor Appl. 2013;4(1):45–55.
   Google Scholar
• Quddoos A, ull Hasan MG, Khalid MM. Multi-choice stochastic transportation problem involving general form of distributions. SpringerPlus. 2014;3(1):565. DOI:10.1186/2193-1801-3-565
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biswal MP, Samal HK. Stochastic transportation problem with Cauchy random variables and multi choice parameters. J Phy Sci. 2013;17:117–130.
   Google Scholar
• Roy SK, Mahapatra DR. Solving solid transportation problems with multi-choice cost and stochastic supply and demand. Int J Strateg Decis Sci. 2014;5(3):1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Maity G, Roy SK. Solving multi-choice multi-objective transportation problem: a utility function approach. J Uncertainty Anal Appl. 2014;2(1):1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Roy SK. Lagrange’s interpolating polynomial approach to solve multi-choice transportation problem. Int J Appl Comput Math. 2015;1(4):639–649.
   Google Scholar
• Roy SK, Maity G, Weber GW, Gök SZA. Conic scalarization approach to solve multi-choice multi-objective transportation problem with interval goal. Ann Oper Res. 2016:1–22. DOI:10.1007/s10479-016-2283-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborty D, Jana DK, Roy TK. A new approach to solve multi-objective multi-choice multi-item atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy transportation problem using chance operator. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2015;28(2):843–865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy SK, Maity G. Minimizing cost and time through single objective function in multi-choice interval valued transportation problem. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2017;32(3):1697–1709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahapatra DR, Roy SK, Biswal MP. Stochastic based on multi-objective transportation problems involving normal randomness. Adv Model Optim. 2010;12(2):205–223.
   Google Scholar
• Maity G, Kumar Roy S. Solving a multi-objective transportation problem with nonlinear cost and multi-choice demand. Int J Manage Sci Eng Manage. 2016;11(1):62–70.
   Google Scholar
• Acharya S, Biswal MP. Solving multi-choice multi-objective transportation problem. Int J Math Oper Res. 2016;8(4):509–527.
   Google Scholar
• Mehlawat MK, Kumar S. A goal programming approach for a multi-objective multi-choice assignment problem. Optimization. 2014;63(10):1549–1563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn HW. The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Nav Res Logist Q. 1955;2(1–2):83–97.
   Google Scholar
• Arora S, Puri MC. A variant of time minimizing assignment problem. Eur J Oper Res. 1998;110(2):314–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pentico DW. Assignment problems: a golden anniversary survey. Eur J Oper Res. 2007;176(2):774–793.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panda A, Das CB. Multi-choice linear programming for matrix game. Appl Math Comput. 2014;237:411–418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook WD. Zero-sum games with multiple goals. Nav Res Logist Q. 1976;23(4):615–621.
   Google Scholar
• Barron EN. Game theory: an introduction. New Jersey: Wiley; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Dickson GW. An analysis of supplier selection system and decision. J Purch. 1966;2(1):5–17.
   Google Scholar
• Weber CA, Current JR, Benton WC. Vendor selection criteria and methods. Eur J Oper Res. 1991;50(1):2–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans RH. Choice criteria revisited. J Marketing. 1980;44(1):55–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao CN, Kao HP. Supplier selection model using Taguchi loss function, analytical hierarchy process and multi-choice goal programming. Comput Ind Eng. 2010;58(4):571–577.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross PJ. Taguchi techniques for quality engineering. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. New York (NY): McGraw Hill; 1980. Reprinted Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Jadidi O, Cavalieri S, Zolfaghari S. An improved multi-choice goal programming approach for supplier selection problems. Appl Math Model. 2015;39(14):4213–4222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiwari RN, Dharmar S, Rao JR. Fuzzy goal programming -- an additive model. Fuzzy Set Syst. 1987;24(1):27–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang CT, Chen HM, Zhuang ZY. Integrated multi-choice goal programming and multi-segment goal programming for supplier selection considering imperfect-quality and price-quantity discounts in a multiple sourcing environment. Int J Syst Sci. 2014;45(5):1101–1111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho HP, Chang CT, Ku CY. On the location selection problem using analytic hierarchy process and multi-choice goal programming. Int J Syst Sci. 2013;44(1):94–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paksoy T, Chang CT. Revised multi-choice goal programming for multi-period, multi-stage inventory controlled supply chain model with popup stores in Guerrilla marketing. Appl Math Model. 2010;34(11):3586–3598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao CN. Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and multi-segment goal programming applied to new product segmented under price strategy. Comput Ind Eng. 2011;61(3):831–841.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang DY. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res. 1996;95(3):649–655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murtaza MB. Fuzzy-AHP application to country risk assessment. Am Bus Rev. 2003;21(2):109–116.
   Google Scholar
• Chan FT, Kumar N. Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega. 2007;35(4):417–431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee AH, Kang HY, Chang CT. Fuzzy multiple goal programming applied to TFT-LCD supplier selection by downstream manufacturers. Expert Syst Appl. 2009;36(3):6318–6325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahmoud HB, Ketata R, Romdhane TB, Ahmed SB. Piloting a quality management system for study case using multi-choice goal programming. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems Man and Cybernetics (SMC). Istanbul, Turkey: IEEE; 2010. p. 2500–2505.
   Google Scholar
• Lee AH, Kang HY, Yang CY, Lin CY. An evaluation framework for product planning using FANP, QFD and multi-choice goal programming. Int J Prod Res. 2010;48(13):3977–3997.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao CN, Fu YK, Chen YC, Chih IL. Applying fuzzy-MSGP approach for supplier evaluation and selection in food industry. Afr J Agric Res. 2010;7(5):726–740.
   Google Scholar
• Liao CN, Kao HP. An integrated fuzzy topsis and MCGP approach to supplier selection in supply chain management. Expert Syst Appl. 2011;38(9):10803–10811.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang CT, Ku CY, Ho HP, Liao C. A MCGP decision aid for homebuyers to make the best choice. Qual Quant. 2011;45(4):969–983.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen YT, Zheng C, Chang CT. Efficiently mapping an appropriate thinning schedule for optimum carbon sequestration: an application of multi-segment goal programming. For Ecol Manage. 2011;262(7):1168–1173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen YT, Zheng C, Chang CT. 3-level MCGP: an efficient algorithm for mcgp in solving multi-forest management problems. Scand J Forest Res. 2011;26(5):457–465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang CT, Ku CY, Ho HP. Fuzzy multi-choice goal programming for supplier selection. In: Innovations in information systems for business functionality and operations management. Hershey (PA): IGI Global; 2012. p. 39–60.
   Google Scholar
• da Silva AF, Marins FAS, Montevechi JAB. Multi-choice mixed integer goal programming optimization for real problems in a sugar and ethanol milling company. Appl Math Model. 2013;37(9):6146–6162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biswal MP, Acharya S. Multi-choice multi-objective mathematical programming model for integrated production planning: a case study. Int J Syst Sci. 2013;44(9):1651–1665.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pal BB, Kumar M. A revised multi-choice goal programming framework for economic-environmental power generation and dispatch problem. Procedia Technol. 2013;10:637–645.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma S, Balan S. An integrative supplier selection model using taguchi loss function, topsis and multi criteria goal programming. J Intell Manuf. 2013;24(6):1123–1130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen YT, Chang CT. Multi-coefficient goal programming in thinning schedules to increase carbon sequestration and improve forest structure. Ann For Sci. 2014;71(8):907–915.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karimi H, Rezaeinia A. Supplier selection using revised multi-segment goal programming model. Int J Adv Manuf Tech. 2014;70(5–8):1227–1234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen KH, Liao CN, Wu LC. A selection model to logistic centers based on TOPSIS and MCGP methods: the case of airline industry. J Appl Math. 2014;2014:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Kırış Ş. AHP and multichoice goal programming integration for course planning. Int T Oper Res. 2014;21(5):819–833.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin TC, Ho HP, Chang CT. Evaluation model for applying an e-learning system in a course: an analytic hierarchy process-multi-choice goal programming approach. J Educ Comput Res. 2014;50(1):135–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao CN, Chih I. Knowledge management system selection by multi-choice goal programming. Hum Syst Manage. 2014;33(1–2):19–25.
   Google Scholar
• da Silva AF, Marins FAS, Dias EX. Addressing uncertainty in sugarcane harvest planning through a revised multi-choice goal programming model. Appl Math Model. 2015;39(18):5540–5558.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang CT. Multi-choice goal programming model for the optimal location of renewable energy facilities. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2015;41:379–389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paydar MM, Saidi-Mehrabad M. Revised multi-choice goal programming for integrated supply chain design and dynamic virtual cell formation with fuzzy parameters. Int J Comp Integ M. 2015;28(3):251–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acharya S, Biswal MP. Application of multi-choice fuzzy linear programming problem to a garment manufacture company. J Inform Optim Sci. 2015;36(6):569–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deliktas D, Ustun O. Student selection and assignment methodology based on fuzzy MULTIMOORA and multichoice goal programming. Int T Oper Res. 2015. DOI:10.1111/itor.12185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aalaei A, Davoudpour H. Revised multi-choice goal programming for incorporated dynamic virtual cellular manufacturing into supply chain management: a case study. Eng Appl Artif Intel. 2016;47:3–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang X. An integrated maximizing consistency and multi-choice goal programming approach for hybrid multiple criteria group decision making based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number. Informatica. 2015;26(4):705–726.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehlawat MK. Credibilistic mean-entropy models for multi-period portfolio selection with multi-choice aspiration levels. Inform Sci. 2016;345:9–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao CN. A fuzzy model to green supplier selection using AHP, ARAS and MCGP approach. Transylv Rev. 2016;24(8).
   Google Scholar
• Li L, Liu M, Shen W, Cheng G. A dynamic spare parts ordering and pricing policy based on stochastic programming with multi-choice parameters. Math Comput Model Dyn Syst. 2016:1–26. DOI:10.1080/13873954.2016.1242140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao CN, Fu YK, Wu LC. Integrated FAHP, ARAS-F and MSGP methods for green supplier evaluation and selection. Technol Econ Develop Econ. 2016;22(5):651–669.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yousefi H, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Oliaei M, Mohammadi M, Mozaffari A. Solving a bi-objective vehicle routing problem under uncertainty by a revised multi-choice goal programming approach. Int J Ind Eng Comput. 2017;8(3):283–302.
   Google Scholar