I have fairly standard linear optimization model with two objectives \begin{align*} \text{max}\, (f_1 &= 4x_1+5 x_2\,,\,f_2 = 1x_1 + 0x_2 ) \\ \text{subject to}& \\ 1x_1 + 1x_2 &\leq 200\\ 1.25x_1 + 0.75x_2 &\leq 200\\ 1x_2 &\leq 150\\ x_1,x_2 &\geq 0 \;\text{and} \;x_1,x_2\in \mathbb{Z}^+ \end{align*} If I use goal attainment method with normalized objective function $$f(x)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^2 \left(\frac{f_i^*(x)-f_i(x)}{f_i^*(x)}\right)^p$$ where $f_i^*(x)=(950,160)$ is the optimal solutions for $f_1,f_2$ and for $p=1,2$. Does this problem reduce to single objective optimization? \begin{align*} \text{min}\, \sum\limits_{i=1}^2 &\left(\frac{f_i^*(x)-f_i(x)}{f_i^*(x)}\right)^{1 \,\text{and}\, 2} \\ \text{subject to}& \\ 1x_1 + 1x_2 &\leq 200\\ 1.25x_1 + 0.75x_2 &\leq 200\\ 1x_2 &\leq 150\\ x_1,x_2 &\geq 0 \;\text{and} \;x_1,x_2\in \mathbb{Z}^+ \end{align*}
If I plug these into Gurobi I get $p=1 \to \mathbf{x} = (160,0)$ and $p=2 \to \mathbf{x}=(136,40)$. The second answer seems reasonable, but $p=1$ doesn't make that much sense. Is this the correct way to use normalized objective functions or am I missing something? Is Gurobi even suitable for such optimization problem?
I get
differentthe same results with Gurobi (with $x_1, x_2$ continuous):When I plot these results (in the $f$ space) I see:
The blue line is the efficient frontier (i.e. the best $f_2$ for a given $f_1$).
When we require integer values for $x_1, x_2$ the quadratic solution changes a little bit:
No picture for this case as the frontier is now no longer a nice line.
The models are simply: