In this thesis, we derive necessary optimality conditions for bilevel programming problems (BPPs for short) in Banach spaces. This rather abstract setting reflects our desire to characterize the local optimal solutions of hierarchical optimization problems in function spaces arising from several applications. Since our considerations are based on the tools of variational analysis introduced by Boris Mordukhovich, we study related properties of pointwise defined sets in function spaces. The presence of sequential normal compactness for such sets in Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces as well as the variational geometry of decomposable sets in Lebesgue spaces is discussed. Afterwards, we investigate mathematical problems with complementarity constraints (MPCCs for short) in Banach spaces which are closely related to BPPs. We introduce reasonable stationarity concepts and constraint qualifications which can be used to handle MPCCs. The relations between the mentioned stationarity notions are studied in the setting where the underlying complementarity cone is polyhedric. The results are applied to the situations where the complementarity cone equals the nonnegative cone in a Lebesgue space or is polyhedral. Next, we use the three main approaches of transforming a BPP into a single-level program (namely the presence of a unique lower level solution, the KKT approach, and the optimal value approach) to derive necessary optimality conditions for BPPs. Furthermore, we comment on the relation between the original BPP and the respective surrogate problem. We apply our findings to formulate necessary optimality conditions for three different classes of BPPs. First, we study a BPP with semidefinite lower level problem possessing a unique solution. Afterwards, we deal with bilevel optimal control problems with dynamical systems of ordinary differential equations at both decision levels. Finally, an optimal control problem of ordinary or partial differential equations with implicitly given pointwise state constraints is investigated.

This thesis presents the mixed integer bilevel programming problems where some optimality conditions and solution algorithms are derived. Bilevel programming problems are optimization problems which are partly constrained by another optimization problem. The theoretical part of this dissertation is mainly based on the investigation of optimality conditions of mixed integer bilevel program. Taking into account both approaches (optimistic and pessimistic) which have been developed in the literature to deal with this type of problem, we derive some conditions for the existence of solutions. After that, we are able to discuss local optimality conditions using tools of variational analysis for each different approach. Moreover, bilevel optimization problems with semidefinite programming in the lower level are considered in order to formulate more optimality conditions for the mixed integer bilevel program. We end the thesis by developing some algorithms based on the theory presented

In the dissertation the solution approaches for different fuzzy optimization problems are presented. The single-level optimization problem with fuzzy objective is solved by its reformulation into a biobjective optimization problem. A special attention is given to the computation of the membership function of the fuzzy solution of the fuzzy optimization problem in the linear case. Necessary and sufficient optimality conditions of the the convex nonlinear fuzzy optimization problem are derived in differentiable and nondifferentiable cases. A fuzzy optimization problem with both fuzzy objectives and constraints is also investigated in the thesis in the linear case. These solution approaches are applied to fuzzy bilevel optimization problems. In the case of bilevel optimization problem with fuzzy objective functions, two algorithms are presented and compared using an illustrative example. For the case of fuzzy linear bilevel optimization problem with both fuzzy objectives and constraints k-th best algorithm is adopted.

We have considered the bilevel programming problem in the case where the lower-level problem admits more than one optimal solution. It is well-known in the literature that in such a situation, the problem is ill-posed from the view point of scalar objective optimization. Thus the optimistic and pessimistic approaches have been suggested earlier in the literature to deal with it in this case. In the thesis, we have developed a unified approach to derive necessary optimality conditions for both the optimistic and pessimistic bilevel programs, which is based on advanced tools from variational analysis. We have obtained various constraint qualifications and stationarity conditions depending on some constructive representations of the solution set-valued mapping of the follower’s problem. In the auxiliary developments, we have provided rules for the generalized differentiation and robust Lipschitzian properties for the lower-level solution setvalued map, which are of a fundamental interest for other areas of nonlinear and nonsmooth optimization. Some of the results of the aforementioned theory have then been applied to derive stationarity conditions for some well-known transportation problems having the bilevel structure.

We have considered the bilevel programming problem in the case where the lower-level problem admits more than one optimal solution. It is well-known in the literature that in such a situation, the problem is ill-posed from the view point of scalar objective optimization. Thus the optimistic and pessimistic approaches have been suggested earlier in the literature to deal with it in this case. In the thesis, we have developed a unified approach to derive necessary optimality conditions for both the optimistic and pessimistic bilevel programs, which is based on advanced tools from variational analysis. We have obtained various constraint qualifications and stationarity conditions depending on some constructive representations of the solution set-valued mapping of the follower’s problem. In the auxiliary developments, we have provided rules for the generalized differentiation and robust Lipschitzian properties for the lower-level solution setvalued map, which are of a fundamental interest for other areas of nonlinear and nonsmooth optimization. Some of the results of the aforementioned theory have then been applied to derive stationarity conditions for some well-known transportation problems having the bilevel structure.

In the dissertation the solution approaches for different fuzzy optimization problems are presented. The single-level optimization problem with fuzzy objective is solved by its reformulation into a biobjective optimization problem. A special attention is given to the computation of the membership function of the fuzzy solution of the fuzzy optimization problem in the linear case. Necessary and sufficient optimality conditions of the the convex nonlinear fuzzy optimization problem are derived in differentiable and nondifferentiable cases. A fuzzy optimization problem with both fuzzy objectives and constraints is also investigated in the thesis in the linear case. These solution approaches are applied to fuzzy bilevel optimization problems. In the case of bilevel optimization problem with fuzzy objective functions, two algorithms are presented and compared using an illustrative example. For the case of fuzzy linear bilevel optimization problem with both fuzzy objectives and constraints k-th best algorithm is adopted.:1 Introduction 1 1.1 Why optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Fuzziness as a concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 2 1.3 Bilevel problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 Preliminaries 11 2.1 Fuzzy sets and fuzzy numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.3 Fuzzy order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.4 Fuzzy functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 3 Optimization problem with fuzzy objective 19 3.1 Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.2 Solution method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.3 Local optimality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.4 Existence of an optimal solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4 Linear optimization with fuzzy objective 27 4.1 Main approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.2 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.3 Optimality conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.4 Membership function value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.4.1 Special case of triangular fuzzy numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.4.2 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 5 Optimality conditions 47 5.1 Differentiable fuzzy optimization problem . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 48 5.1.1 Basic notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.1.2 Necessary optimality conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49 5.1.3 Suffcient optimality conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5.2 Nondifferentiable fuzzy optimization problem . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.2.1 Basic notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.2.2 Necessary optimality conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 5.2.3 Suffcient optimality conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.2.4 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 6 Fuzzy linear optimization problem over fuzzy polytope 59 6.1 Basic notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 6.2 The fuzzy polytope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 6.3 Formulation and solution method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 65 6.4 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 7 Bilevel optimization with fuzzy objectives 73 7.1 General formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 7.2 Solution approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 7.3 Yager index approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 7.4 Algorithm I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 7.5 Membership function approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 7.6 Algorithm II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 7.7 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 8 Linear fuzzy bilevel optimization (with fuzzy objectives and constraints) 87 8.1 Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 8.2 Solution approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 8.3 Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 8.4 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 9 Conclusions 95 Bibliography 97