Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Bilevel Disjunctive Optimization on Affine Manifolds

By Constantin Udriste, Henri Bonnel, Ionel Tevy and Ali Sapeeh Rasheed

Submitted: October 24th 2017Reviewed: February 19th 2018Published: September 5th 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.75643

Downloaded: 431


Bilevel optimization is a special kind of optimization where one problem is embedded within another. The outer optimization task is commonly referred to as the upper-level optimization task, and the inner optimization task is commonly referred to as the lower-level optimization task. These problems involve two kinds of variables: upper-level variables and lower-level variables. Bilevel optimization was first realized in the field of game theory by a German economist von Stackelberg who published a book (1934) that described this hierarchical problem. Now the bilevel optimization problems are commonly found in a number of real-world problems: transportation, economics, decision science, business, engineering, and so on. In this chapter, we provide a general formulation for bilevel disjunctive optimization problem on affine manifolds. These problems contain two levels of optimization tasks where one optimization task is nested within the other. The outer optimization problem is commonly referred to as the leaders (upper level) optimization problem and the inner optimization problem is known as the followers (or lower level) optimization problem. The two levels have their own objectives and constraints. Topics affine convex functions, optimizations with auto-parallel restrictions, affine convexity of posynomial functions, bilevel disjunctive problem and algorithm, models of bilevel disjunctive programming problems, and properties of minimum functions.


  • convex programming
  • affine manifolds
  • optimization along curves
  • bilevel disjunctive optimization
  • minimum functions
  • Mathematics Subject Classification 2010: 90C25
  • 90C29
  • 90C30

1. Affine convex functions

In optimization problems [16, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27], one can use an affine manifold as a pair MΓ, where Mis a smooth real n-dimensional manifold, and Γis an affine symmetric connection on M. The connection Γproduces auto-parallel curves xtvia ODE system


They are used for defining the convexity of subsets in Mand convexity of functions f:DMR(see also [3, 6]).

Definition 1.1 An affine manifold MΓis called autoparallely complete if any auto-parallel xtstarting at pMis defined for all values of the parameter tR.

Theorem 1.1 [1] Let Mbe a (Hausdorff, connected, smooth) compact n-manifold endowed with an affine connection Γand let pM. If the holonomy group HolpΓ(regarded as a subgroup of the group GlTpMof all the linear automorphisms of the tangent space TpM) has compact closure, then MΓis autoparallely complete.

Let MΓbe an auto-parallely complete affine manifold. For a C2function f:MR, we define the tensor HessΓfof components


Definition 1.2 A C2function f:MRis called:

(1) linear affine with respect to Γif HessΓf=0, throughout;

(2) affine convex (convex with respect to Γ) if HessΓf0(positive semidefinite), throughout.

The function fis: (1) linear affine if its restriction fxton each autoparallel xtsatisfies fxt=at+b, for some numbers a,bthat may depend on xt; (2) affine convex if its restriction fxtis convex on each auto-parallel xt.

Theorem 1.2 If there exists a linear affine nonconstant function fon MΓ, then the curvature tensor field Rhikjis in Kerdf.

Proof. For given Γ, if we consider


as a PDEs system (a particular case of a Frobenius-Mayer system of PDEs) with 12nn+1equations and the unknown function f, then we need the complete integrability conditions




it follows


Corollary 1.1 If there exists nlinear affine functions fl,l=1,,non MΓ, whose dflare linearly independent, then Γis flat, that is, Rhikj=0.

Of course this only means the curvature tensor is zero on the topologically trivial region we used to set up our co-vector fields dflx. But we can always cover any manifold by an atlas of topologically trivial regions, so this allows us to deduce that the curvature tensor vanishes throughout the manifold.

Remark 1.1 There is actually no need to extend dflxto the entire manifold. If this could be done, then dflxwould now be everywhere nonzero co-vector fields; but there are topologies, for example, S2, for which we know such things do not exist. Therefore, there are topological manifolds for which we are forced to work on topologically trivial regions.

The following theorem is well-known [16, 17, 19, 23]. Due to its importance, now we offer new proofs (based on catastrophe theory, decomposing a tensor into a specific product, and using slackness variables).

Theorem 1.3 Let f:MRbe a C2function.

(1) If fis regular or has only one minimum point, then there exists a connection Γsuch that fis affine convex.

(2) If fhas a maximum point x0, then there is no connection Γmaking faffine convex throughout.

Proof. For the Hessian HessΓfijbe positive semidefinite, we need nconditions like inequalities and equalities. The number of unknowns Γijhis 12n2n+1.The inequalities can be replaced by equalities using slackness variables.

The first central idea for the proof is to use the catastrophe theory, since almost all families fxc, x=x1xnRn, c=c1cmRm, of real differentiable functions, with m4parameters, are structurally stable and are equivalent, in the vicinity of any point, with one of the following forms [15]:

We eliminate the case with maximum point, that is., Morse 0-saddle and the saddle point. Around each critical point (in a chart), the canonical form fxcis affine convex, with respect to appropriate locally defined linear connections that can be found easily. Using change of coordinates and the partition of unity, we glue all these connections to a global one, making fxcaffine convex on M.

At any critical point x0, the affine Hessian HessΓfis reduced to Euclidean Hessian, 2fxixjx0. Then the maximum point condition or the saddle condition is contradictory to affine convexity condition.

A direct proof based on decomposition of a tensor: Let MΓbe an affine manifold and f:MRbe a C2function.

Suppose fhas no critical points (is regular). If the function fis not convex with respect to Γ, we look to find a new connection Γ¯ijh=Γijh+Tijh, with the unknown a tensor field Tijh, such that


where σijxis a positive semi-definite tensor. A very particular solution is the decomposition Tijhx=ahxbijx, where the vector field ahas the property


and the tensor bijis


Remark 1.2 The connection Γ¯ijhis strongly dependent on both the function fand the tensor field σij.

Suppose fhas a minimum point x0. In this case, observe that we must have the condition σijx0=2fxixjx0. Can we make the previous reason for xx0and then extend the obtained connection by continuity? The answer is generally negative. Indeed, let us compute


Here we cannot plug in the point x0because we get 00, an indeterminate form.

To contradict, we fix an auto-parallel γt,t0ϵ, starting from minimum point x0=γ0, tangent to γ̇0=vand we compute (via l’Hôpital rule)


But this result depends on the direction v(different values along two different auto-parallels).

In some particular cases, we can eliminate the dependence on the vector v. For example, the conditions


are sufficient to do this.

A particular condition for independence on vis


In this particular condition, we can show that we can build connections of previous type good everywhere.

1.1. Lightning through examples

Let us lightning our previous statements by the following examples.

Example 1.1 (for the first part of the theorem) Let us consider the function f:R2R,fxy=x3+y3+3x+3yand Γijh=0,i,j,h=1,2. Then fx=3x2+3,fy=3y2+3and fhas no critical point. Moreover, the Euclidean Hessian of fis not positive semi-definite overall. Let us make the above construction for σijxy=δij. Taking a1=a2=1, we obtain the connection


that is not unique.

Example 1.2 (for one minimum point) Let us consider the function f:R2R,fxy=1ex2+y2and Γijh=0,i,j,h=1,2. Then fx=2xex2+y2,fy=2yex2+y2and fhas a unique critical minimum point 00. However, the Euclidean Hessian of fis not positive semi-definite overall. We make previous reason for σij=2ex2+y2δij,a1=fx,a2=fy. Hence we obtain Γ¯ijh=Tijh,


Observe that limxy00Tijhxy=0. Hence take Γ¯ijh00=0.

The next example shows what happens if we come out of the conditions of the previous theorem.

Example 1.3 Let us take the function f:RR,fx=x3, where the critical point x=0is an inflection point. We take Γx=12x2, which is not defined at the critical point x=0, but the relation of convexity is realized by prolongation,


Let us consider the ODE of auto-parallels


The solutions


are auto-parallels on R\0t1t2Γ, where t1,t2are real solutions of 2+t2ct=0. These curves are extended at t=0by continuity. The manifold RΓis not auto-parallely complete. Since the image xRis not a “segment”, the function f:RR,fx=x3is not globally convex.

Remark 1.3 For n2, there exists C1functions φ:RnRwhich have two minimum points without having another extremum point. As example,


has two (global) minimum points p=10,q=12.

The restriction


is difference of two affine convex functions (see Section 2).

Our chapter is based also on some ideas in: [3] (convex mappings between Riemannian manifolds), [7] (geometric modeling in probability and statistics), [13] (arc length in metric and Finsler manifolds), [14] (applications of Hahn-Banach principle to moment and optimization problems), [21] (geodesic connectedness of semi-Riemannian manifolds), and [28] (tangent and cotangent bundles). For algorithms, we recommend the paper [20] (sequential and parallel algorithms).

2. Optimizations with autoparallel restrictions

2.1. Direct theory

The auto-parallel curves xton the affine manifold MΓare solutions of the second order ODE system


Obviously, the complete notation is xtx0ξ0, with


Definition 2.1 Let DMbe open and connected and f:DRa C2function. The point x0Dis called minimum (maximum) point of fconditioned by the auto-parallel system, together with initial conditions, if for the maximal solution xtx0ξ0:ID, there exists a neighborhood It0of t0such that


Theorem 2.1 If x0Dis an extremum point of fconditioned by the previous second order system, then dfx0ξ0=0.

Definition 2.2 The points xDwhich are solutions of the equation dfxξ=0are called critical points of fconditioned by the previous spray.

Theorem 2.2 If x0Dis a conditioned critical point of the function f:DRof class C2constrained by the previous auto-parallel system and if the number


is strictly positive (negative), then x0is a minimum (maximum) point of fconstrained by the auto-parallel system.

Example 2.1 We compute the Christoffel symbols on the unit sphere S2, using spherical coordinates θφand the Riemannian metric


When θ0,π, we find


and all the other Γs are equal to zero. We can show that the apparent singularity at θ=0,πcan be removed by a better choice of coordinates at the poles of the sphere. Thus, the above affine connection extends to the whole sphere.

The second order system defining auto-parallel curves (geodesics) on S2are


The solutions are great circles on the sphere. For example, θ=αt+βand φ= const.

We compute the curvature tensor Rof the unit sphere S2. Since there are only two independent coordinates, all the non-zero components of curvature tensor Rare given by Rji=Rjθφi=Rjφθi, where i,j=θ,φ. We get Rφθ=sin2θ,Rθφ=1and the other components are 0.

Let (θtθ0φ0ξ,φtθ0φ0ξ,tRbe the maximal auto-parallel which satisfies θt0θ0φ0ξ=θ0, θ̇t0θ0φ0ξ=ξ1; φt0θ0φ0ξ=φ0, φ̇t0θ0φ0ξ=ξ2. We wish to compute minfθφ=Rφθ=sin2θwith the restriction θtθ0φ0ξφt,θ0φ0ξ,tR.

Since df=2sinθcosθ0, the critical point condition dfθφξ=0becomes sinθcosθξ1=0. Consequently, the critical points are either θ0=kφ,ξ1ξ200, or θ1=2k+1π2kφ,ξ1ξ200, or θφ,ξ1=0ξ20.

The components of the Hessian of fare


At the critical points θ0φor θ1φ, the Hessian of fis positive or negative semi-definite. On the other hand, along ξ1=0ξ20, we find Hessfijξiξj=12sin22θξ22>0,ξ20.Consequently, each point θ2φ, is a minimum point of falong each auto-parallel, starting from given point and tangent to ξ1=0ξ20.

2.2. Theory via the associated spray

This point of view regarding extrema comes from paper [22].

The second order system of auto-parallels induces a spray (special vector field) Yxy=yhΓijhxyiyjon the tangent bundle TM, that is,


The solutions γt=xtyt:IDof class C2are called field lines of Y. They depend on the initial condition γtt=t0=x0y0, and therefore the notation γtx0y0is more suggestive.

Definition 2.3 Let DTMbe open and connected and f:DRa C2function. The point x0y0Dis called minimum (maximum) point of fconditioned by the previous spray, if for the maximal field line γtx0y0,tI, there exists a neighborhood It0of t0such that


Theorem 2.3 If x0y0Dis an extremum point of fconditioned by the previous spray, then x0y0is a point where Yis in Kerdf.

Definition 2.4 The points xyDwhich are solutions of the equation


are called critical points of fconditioned by the previous spray.

Theorem 2.4 If x0y0Dis a conditioned critical point of the function f:DRof class C2constrained by the previous spray and if the number


is strictly positive (negative), then x0y0is a minimum (maximum) point of fconstrained by the spray.

Example 2.2 We consider the Volterra-Hamilton ODE system [2].


which models production in a Gause-Witt 2-species evolving in R4: (1) competition if α1>0, α2>0, β1>0, β2>0and (2) parasitism if α1>0, α2<0, β1>0, β2>0.

Changing the real parameter tinto an affine parameter s, we find the connection with constant coefficients


Let xtx0y0,tIbe the maximal field line which satisfies xt0x0y0=x0y0. We wish to compute maxfx1x2y1y2=y2with the restriction x=xtx0y0.

We apply the previous theory. Introduce the vector field


We set the critical point condition dfY=0. Since df=0,0,0,1, it follows the relation λy1β1y222β2y1y2=0, that is, the critical point set is a conic in y1Oy2.

Since d2f=0, the sufficiency condition is reduced to dfDYYx0y0<0, that is,


This last relation is equivalent either to


or to


Each critical point satisfying one of the last two conditions is a maximum point.

3. Affine convexity of posynomial functions

For the general theory regarding geometric programming (based on posynomial, signomial functions, etc.), see [11].

Theorem 3.1 Each posynomial function is affine convex, with respect to some affine connection.

Proof. A posynomial function has the form


where all the coefficients ckare positive real numbers, and the exponents aikare real numbers. Let us consider the auto-parallel curves of the form


joining the points a=a1anand b=b1bn, which fix, as example, the affine connection


It follows


One term in this sum is of the form ψkt=Ak1tBkt, and hence ψ¨kt=Ak1tBktlnAklnBk2>0.

Remark 3.1 Posynomial functions belong to the class of functions satisfying the statement “product of two convex function is convex”.

Corollary 3.1 Each signomial function is difference of two affine convex posynomials, with respect to some affine connection.

Proof. A signomial function has the form


where all the exponents aikare real numbers and the coefficients ckare either positive or negative. Without loss of generality, suppose that for k=1,,k0we have ck>0and for k=k0+1,,Kwe have ck<0. We use the decomposition


we apply the Theorem and the implication utvtuvconvex.□

Corollary 3.2 (1) The polynomial functions with positive coefficients, restricted to R++n, are affine convex functions.

(2) The polynomial functions with positive and negative terms, restricted to R++n, are differences of two affine convex functions.

Proudnikov [18] gives the necessary and sufficient conditions for representing Lipschitz multivariable function as a difference of two convex functions. An algorithm and a geometric interpretation of this representation are also given. The outcome of this algorithm is a sequence of pairs of convex functions that converge uniformly to a pair of convex functions if the conditions of the formulated theorems are satisfied.

4. Bilevel disjunctive problem

Let M1,1Γ, the leader decision affine manifold, and M2,2Γ, the follower decision affine manifold, be two connected affine manifolds of dimension n1and n2, respectively. Moreover, M2,2Γis supposed to be complete. Let also f:M1×M2Rbe the leader objective function, and let F=F1Fr:M1×M2Rrbe the follower multiobjective function.

The components Fi:M1×M2Rare (possibly) conflicting objective functions.

A bilevel optimization problem means a decision of leader with regard to a multi-objective optimum of the follower (in fact, a constrained optimization problem whose constraints are obtained from optimization problems). For details, see [5, 10, 12].

Let xM1, yM2be the generic points. In this chapter, the disjunctive solution set of a follower multiobjective optimization problem is defined by

(1) the set-valued function





(2) the set-valued function




We deal with two bilevel problems:

(1) The optimistic bilevel disjunctive problem


In this case, the follower cooperates with the leader; that is, for each xM1, the follower chooses among all its disjunctive solutions (his best responses) one which is the best for the leader (assuming that such a solution exists).

(2) The pessimistic bilevel disjunctive problem


In this case, there is no cooperation between the leader and the follower, and the leader expects the worst scenario; that is, for each xM1, the follower may choose among all its disjunctive solutions (his best responses) one which is unfavorable for the leader.

So, a general optimization problem becomes a pessimistic bilevel problem.

Theorem 4.1 The value


exists if and only if, for an index i, the minimum minxfxy:yψixexists and, for each ji, either minxfxy:yψjxexists or ψj=Ø. In this case,


coincides to the minimum of minima that exist.

Proof. Let us consider the multi-functions ϕix=fxψixand ϕx=fxψx. Then ϕx=i=1kϕix. It follows that minxϕxexists if and only if either minxϕixexists or ψi=, and at least one minimum exists.

Taking minimum of minima that exist, we find


Theorem 4.2 Suppose M1is a compact manifold. If for each xM1, at least one partial function yFixyis affine convex and has a critical point, then the problem OBDPhas a solution.

Proof. In our hypothesis, the set ψxis nonvoid, for any x, and the compacity assures the existence of minxfxψx.

In the next Theorem, we shall use the Value Function Method or Utility Function Method.□

Theorem 4.3 If a C1increasing scalarization partial function


has a minimum, then there exists an index isuch that ψix. Moreover, if fxyis bounded, then the bilevel problem


has solution.

Proof. Let minyLxy=Lxy. Suppose that for each i=1,,k,minyFixy<Fixy. Then ywould not be minimum point for the partial function yLxy. Hence, there exists an index isuch that yψix.□

Boundedness of fimplies that the bilevel problem has solution once it is well-posed, but the fact that the problem is well-posed is shown in the first part of the proof.

4.1. Bilevel disjunctive programming algorithm

An important concept for making wise tradeoffs among competing objectives is bilevel disjunctive programming optimality, on affine manifolds, introduced in this chapter.

We present an exact algorithm for obtaining the bilevel disjunctive solutions to the multi-objective optimization in the following section.

Step 1: Solve


Let ψx=i=1rψixbe a subset in M2representing the mapping of optimal solutions for the follower multi-objective function.

Step 2: Build the mapping f(x,ψx.

Step 3: Solve the leader’s following program


From numerical point of view, we can use the Newton algorithm for optimization on affine manifolds, which is given in [19].

5. Models of bilevel disjunctive programming problems

The manifold Mis understood from the context. The connection Γijhcan be realized in each case, imposing convexity conditions.

Example 5.1 Let us solve the problem (cite [7], p. 7; [9]):


subject to


Both the lower and the upper level optimization tasks have two objectives each. For a fixed yvalue, the feasible region of the lower-level problem is the area inside a circle with center at origin x1=x2=0and radius equal to y. The Pareto-optimal set for the lower-level optimization task, preserving a fixed y, is the bottom-left quarter of the circle,


The linear constraint in the upper level optimization task does not allow the entire quarter circle to be feasible for some y. Thus, at most a couple of points from the quarter circle belongs to the Pareto-optimal set of the overall problem. Eichfelder [8] reported the following Pareto-optimal set of solutions


The Pareto-optimal front in F1F2space can be written in parametric form


Example 5.2 Consider the bilevel programming problem


where the set-valued function is




Since Fxy=xy2+x2, we get


on the regions where the functions are defined.

Taking into account 2x12+x2>0and 2x+12+x2>0, it follows that xy=00is the unique optimistic optimal solution of the problem. Now, if the leader is not exactly enough in choosing his solution, then the real outcome of the problem has an objective function value above 1which is far away from the optimistic optimal value zero.

Example 5.3 Let Fxy=F1xyF2xyand a Pareto disjunctive problem


Then it appears a bilevel disjunctive programming problem of the form


This problem is interesting excepting the case ψx=Ø,x. If yF1xyand yF2xyare convex functions, then ψxØ.

To write an example, we use


and we consider a bilevel disjunctive programming problem of the form






The objective fxy=xy2+x2and the multi-function ψxproduce a multi-function


In context, we find the inferior envelope


and then


Since 2x12+x2>0, the unique optimal solution is xy=00.

If we consider only ψ1xas active, then the unique optimal solution 00is maintained. If ψ2xis active, then the optimal solution is 01.

6. Properties of minimum functions

Let M1,1Γ, the leader decision affine manifold, and M2,2Γ, the follower decision affine manifold, be two connected affine manifolds of dimension n1and n2, respectively. Starting from a function with two vector variables


and taking the infimum after one variable, let say y, we build a function


which is called minimum function.

A minimum function is usually specified by a pointwise mapping aof the manifold M1in the subsets of a manifold M2and by a functional φxyon M1×M2. In this context, some differential properties of such functions were previously examined in [4]. Now we add new properties related to increase and convexity ideas.

First we give a new proof to Brian White Theorem (see Mean Curvature Flow, p. 7, Internet 2017).

Theorem 6.1 Suppose that M1is compact, M2=0Tand f:M1×0TR. Let ϕt=minxfxt. If, for each xwith ϕt=fxt, we have ftxt0, then ϕis an increasing function.

Proof. We shall prove the statement in three steps.

(1) If fis continuous, then ϕis (uniformly) continuous.

Indeed, fis continuous on the compact M1×01, hence uniformly continuous. So, for ε>0it exists δ>0such that if t1t2<δ, then fxt1fxt2<ε, for any xM1, or


On one hand, if we put ϕt1=fx1t1and ϕt2=fx2t2, then we have


Hence minxfxt1fx2t2ε, so is ϕt1ϕt2ε.

On the other hand,


Hence minxfxt2+εfx1t1, so is ϕt1ϕt2ε.

Finally, ϕt1ϕt2ε, for t1t2<δ, that is, ϕis (uniformly) continuous.

(2) Let us fix t00T. If ϕt0=fx0t0and ftx0t00, then it exists δ>0such that ϕtϕt0, for any tt0δt0.

Suppose ftx0t0>0, it exists δ>0such that fx0tfx0t0, for each tt0δt0. It follows minxfxtfx0tfx0t0, and so is ϕtϕt0.

If ftx0t0=0, then we use f¯xt=fxt+εt,ε>0. For f¯, the above proof holds, and we take ε0.

(3) ϕis an increasing function.

Let 0a<bTand note A=tabϕtϕb. Ais not empty. If α=infA, then, by the step (2), α<band, by the step (1), αA. If α>a, we can use the step (2) for t0=αand it would result that αwas not the lower bound of A. Hence α=aand ϕaϕb.

Remark The third step shows that a function having the properties (1) and (2) is increasing. For this the continuity is essential. Only property (2) is not enough. For example, the function defined by ϕt=ton 01and ϕt=1ton 12has only the property (2), but it is not increasing on 02.

Remark Suppose that fis a C2function and minxfxt=fx0tt, where x0tis an interior point of M. Since x0tis a critical point, we have


Consequently, ϕtis an increasing function. If M1has a nonvoid boundary, then the monotony extends by continuity (see also the evolution of an extremum problem).

Example 6.1 The single-time perspective of a function f:RnRis the function g:Rn×R+R, gxt=tfx/t, domg=xtx/tdomft>0. The single-time perspective gis convex if fis convex.

The single-time perspective is an example verifying Theorem 7.1. Indeed, the critical point condition for g, in x, gx=0, gives x=tx0, where x0is a critical point of f. Consequently, ϕt=minxgxt=tfx0. On the other hand, in the minimum point, we have gtxt=fx0. Then ϕtis increasing if fx00, as in Theorem 4.1.

Theorem 6.2 Suppose that M1is compact and f:M1×M2R. Let ϕy=minxfxy. If, for each xwith ϕy=fxy, we have fyαxy0, then ϕyis a partially increasing function.

Proof. Suppose that fis a C2function and minxfxy=fx0yy, where x0yis an interior point of M1. Since x0yis a critical point, we have


Consequently, ϕyis a partially increasing function. If Mhas a non-void boundary, then the monotony extends by continuity.□

Theorem 6.3 Suppose that M1is compact and f:M1×M2R. Let ϕy=minxfxy. If, for each xwith ϕy=fxy, we have dy2fxy0, then ϕyis an affine concave function.

Proof. Without loss of generality, we work on Euclidean case. Suppose that fis a C2function and minxfxy=fxyy, where xyis an interior point of M1. Since xyis a critical point, we must have


Taking the partial derivative with respect to yαand the scalar product with xiyβit follows


On the other hand


Theorem 6.4 Let f:M1×M2Rbe a C2function and


If the set A=xyy:yM2is affine convex and fAis affine convex, then ϕyis affine convex.

Proof. Suppose fis a C2function. At points xyy, we have


© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite and reference

Link to this chapter Copy to clipboard

Cite this chapter Copy to clipboard

Constantin Udriste, Henri Bonnel, Ionel Tevy and Ali Sapeeh Rasheed (September 5th 2018). Bilevel Disjunctive Optimization on Affine Manifolds, Optimization Algorithms - Examples, Jan Valdman, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.75643. Available from:

chapter statistics

431total chapter downloads

More statistics for editors and authors

Login to your personal dashboard for more detailed statistics on your publications.

Access personal reporting

Related Content

This Book

Next chapter

Distributionally Robust Optimization

By Jian Gao, Yida Xu, Julian Barreiro-Gomez, Massa Ndong, Michalis Smyrnakis and Hamidou Tembine

Related Book

First chapter

Digital Image Processing with MATLAB

By Mahmut Sinecen

We are IntechOpen, the world's leading publisher of Open Access books. Built by scientists, for scientists. Our readership spans scientists, professors, researchers, librarians, and students, as well as business professionals. We share our knowledge and peer-reveiwed research papers with libraries, scientific and engineering societies, and also work with corporate R&D departments and government entities.

More About Us