A polynomial goal programming model for portfolio optimization based on entropy and higher moments

2018 ◽  
Vol 94 ◽  
pp. 185-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehmet Aksaraylı ◽  
Osman Pala
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Sheng-Yuan Wang ◽  
Wan-Ming Chen ◽  
Ying Liu

Product portfolio optimization is a typical multiobjective problem. The multichoice goal programming method becomes a popular means of resolving multiobjective decision problems. However, the classic multichoice goal programming method treats the product portfolio optimization in isolation and does not consider the mutual influence between portfolio products. Researchers should consider the interaction between products in portfolio optimization so that they can be adjusted to “real world” problems. The interaction between products can be explained by population dynamics. Logistic model is a classical method to analyze the population interaction. The equilibrium point of logistic model can show the ideal state of product population coordinated development. The combination of logistic and multichoice goal programming method is an effective approach to analyze the interaction of product portfolio. This paper therefore proposes a new alternative method to formulate the multiobjective problem and also uses an illustrative example to demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed method. The comparative analysis of model optimization results shows that logistic multichoice goal programming model can take into account resource constraints, product collaboration, and output maximization. Logistic multichoice goal programming model shows good performance in the aspects of operation complexity, operation time, sensitivity analysis, and collaborative entropy evaluation.


Mathematics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 459
Author(s):  
Fernando García ◽  
Francisco Guijarro ◽  
Javier Oliver

This paper proposes the use of a goal programming model for the objective ranking of universities. This methodology has been successfully used in other areas to analyze the performance of firms by focusing on two opposite approaches: (a) one favouring those performance variables that are aligned with the central tendency of the majority of the variables used in the measurement of the performance, and (b) an alternative one that favours those different, singular, or independent performance variables. Our results are compared with the ranking proposed by two popular World University Rankings, and some insightful differences are outlined. We show how some top-performing universities occupy the best positions regardless of the approach followed by the goal programming model, hence confirming their leadership. In addition, our proposal allows for an objective quantification of the importance of each variable in the performance of universities, which could be of great interest to decision-makers.


1983 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 211-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheila M. Lawrence ◽  
Kenneth D. Lawrence ◽  
Gary R. Reeves

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (18) ◽  
pp. 5540-5558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aneirson Francisco da Silva ◽  
Fernando Augusto Silva Marins ◽  
Erica Ximenes Dias

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document