.
\end{array}$$ In the above formulation, the weights are absent and the two objectives represent the medical and economical perspectives, respectively. This naturally reflects the conflicting nature of the underlying decision making problem, hence, solving is interesting and challenging.

Scalarization {#subsec:scalar}
-------------

A traditional mathematical programming approach to solving a multiojective optimization problem consists in transforming an original problem with multiple objectives into a number of single-objective subproblems. This is referred to as *scalarization*. The transformation is performed by means of a scalarizing function with some user-defined parameters. A single Pareto optimal solution is sought by optimizing each subproblem. Repeated runs with different parameter settings for the scalarizing function are used to approximate multiple Pareto optimal solutions.

Several approaches to scalarization have been developed. They differ in the way the scalarizing function is formulated. The weighted sum method suggests minimizing a weighted sum of the objectives [@GaSa55]. The limitation of this method is that solutions can only be obtained in convex regions of the Pareto front. On the other hand, the $\epsilon$-constraint method [@HaLaWi71] suggests optimizing one objective function and converting all other objectives into constraints by setting an upper bound to each of them. This method can find solutions in both convex and nonconvex regions of the Pareto front. The method of weighted metrics [@Mi99] seeks to minimize the distance between the feasible objective region and some reference point. This method is also known as *compromise programming* [@Zeleny1976]. For measuring the distance, a weighted $L_p$ norm is utilized. When the value of $p$ is small, the method may fail to find solutions in nonconvex regions. When $p=\infty$, the method defines the weighted Chebyshev problem [@Bo76]. This problem consists in minimizing the largest weighted deviation of one objective. By optimizing the weighted Chebyshev problem, solutions from convex and nonconvex regions can be generated. A major drawback is that even when the original MOP is differentiable, the resulting single-objective problem is nondifferentiable. Weakly Pareto optimal solutions can be also obtained [@Mi99]. A relaxed formulation of the Chebyshev problem with differentiable scalarizing function is known as the Pascoletti–Serafini scalarization [@PaSe84]. Though, this method introduces one additional variable and one constraint for each objective function.
. 
 \end{array}$$ In the above formulation, the weights are absent and the two objectives constitute the aesculapian and economical perspectives, respectively. This naturally reflect the at odds nature of the underlying decision making trouble, therefore, solving is interesting and challenging. 

 Scalarization { # subsec: scalar } 
 ------------- 

 A traditional mathematical programming approach to clear a multiojective optimization problem consists in transform an original problem with multiple objectives into a number of single - objective subproblems. This is referred to as * scalarization *. The transformation is perform by means of a scalarizing function with some user - define parameters. A single Pareto optimal solution is sought by optimize each subproblem. Repeated runs with different parameter settings for the scalarizing affair are used to approximate multiple Pareto optimal solutions. 

 Several approaches to scalarization have been developed. They differ in the way the scalarizing function is formulated. The weighted sum method suggests minimizing a weighted kernel of the objectives   [ @GaSa55 ]. The limitation of this method acting is that solution can entirely be obtained in convex regions of the Pareto presence. On the other hand, the $ \epsilon$-constraint method   [ @HaLaWi71 ] suggests optimize one objective function and converting all other objectives into constraints by setting an upper bounce to each of them. This method can find solutions in both convex and nonconvex regions of the Pareto front. The method of leaden metric unit   [ @Mi99 ] seeks to minimize the distance between the feasible objective region and some reference distributor point. This method is also known as * compromise scheduling *   [ @Zeleny1976 ]. For measuring the distance, a slant $ L_p$ norm is utilized. When the value of $ p$ is little, the method may fail to find oneself solution in nonconvex regions. When $ p=\infty$, the method acting defines the weighted Chebyshev problem   [ @Bo76 ]. This problem consist in minimizing the largest weighted deviation of one objective. By optimize the weighted Chebyshev trouble, solutions from convex and nonconvex regions can be generated. A major drawback is that even when the original MOP is differentiable, the resulting individual - objective problem is nondifferentiable. Weakly Pareto optimal solutions can be besides obtained   [ @Mi99 ]. A relaxed formulation of the Chebyshev problem with differentiable scalarizing function is known as the Pascoletti – Serafini scalarization   [ @PaSe84 ]. Though, this method introduces one extra variable and one constraint for each objective function.
.
\end{wrray}$$ In the above formuuation, the weigkrs are absenf and thd two objectives represent tie mwdicao and economical perspdctives, rvspectiveoy. Tiis naturally rehmects tmz conrpictnnj nature of the underlyinc decision makhne 'roblem, hence, solving is interesting and chslpenging.

Scalarieatiom {#subavc:wcalar}
-------------

A traditional mathematidal projramming approavh to solving a multiojectlve lptimization problfm consists in eeansforming xn original problem wijh multiple objectives into a nuober pf single-ovjwctlee subproblxms. Thps is referred to as *vcalariaation*. The traksforkatuon is performed by mxans of a scalarizind functiot cith some user-defined pqramejers. D sivtle Padevo kptimap sklution is sought by iptimizing each subkrofoem. Repeated duns wytr different parameter settings for the vcamarizing function are uwed to approximate muptiple Paweto optimal solutions.

Several approaches to scalasizatmov hcyc bedb feveloped. They differ in the way the scalarizyhg flnction is formulcted. The weightec duk method suggerts miujmjzing a weighted skm of tre obhectives [@GwSa55]. Yhe limitation of this methid is that sjoutions can only bz obtained iu convgx regoons of the Pareto fronc. On tge other hajd, the $\epaklon$-constraint mdthpd [@VaLaWi71] suggests optimizing one objertive functiun amd conderting alp othcs objectives into fonsttaints by settinh an upper bound to each of them. This method vat fpnd solutnons ik both convex agd nonconvex rggions of the Oareto froht. The kethod of wqighted metriwd [@Mi99] seeks to minimizq thw diwtance cdtween the feaxible objvcuive regiob and some referenge pokht. This method nr also known as *vomoroiide pwmgramming* [@Zelany1976]. Wor keasufing tht dlstxnce, a weighted $L_p$ norm hs ufilized. When the vslme of $p$ iw small, ehe method mau fail to find solktionv ii noncpnvgx regions. When $p=\infty$, the methkd defined tme weighted Crebywhev problem [@Yo76]. This problem consists in minimizing tie largest weighted devuation of one objecjivt. By optimiziig the weighted Chebyshev problem, silutions from conyex and nonconvex regikns cat be henerated. A major drawback is that even when the original MOP is differenriable, the resultihg songle-mbleccive prjblel is nondifferentpable. Weakly Pareto optimal soluvions can te also obtained [@Mi99]. A relaxed fproulation of tfe Chebyshev problem witg differrntiable scalarizing function ix known as the Pascolettl–Serafini scalzrizatpkn [@'aSe84]. Though, this metnod incroducws one qddibional variabld amd one conshraiit yor each objective function.
. \end{array}$$ In the above formulation, the absent the two represent the medical naturally the conflicting nature the underlying decision problem, hence, solving is interesting and Scalarization {#subsec:scalar} ------------- A traditional mathematical programming approach to solving a multiojective optimization consists in transforming an original problem with multiple objectives into a number of subproblems. is to *scalarization*. The transformation is performed by means of a scalarizing function with some user-defined parameters. A Pareto optimal solution is sought by optimizing each Repeated runs with different settings for the scalarizing function used approximate multiple optimal Several to scalarization have developed. They differ in the way the scalarizing function is formulated. The weighted sum method suggests minimizing weighted sum objectives [@GaSa55]. limitation this is that solutions be obtained in convex regions of On the other hand, the $\epsilon$-constraint method [@HaLaWi71] optimizing one function and converting all other objectives constraints by setting an upper bound to each them. This method can find solutions in both convex and nonconvex regions of the Pareto method of weighted metrics seeks to minimize distance the objective and some point. This method is also known as *compromise programming* [@Zeleny1976]. For the distance, a weighted $L_p$ norm is utilized. When the $p$ small, the method fail to find solutions nonconvex When $p=\infty$, the method weighted problem consists minimizing largest weighted deviation of objective. By optimizing the weighted problem, solutions from convex generated. A major drawback is that even when original MOP is differentiable, the resulting single-objective is nondifferentiable. Weakly Pareto optimal solutions can be also obtained [@Mi99]. A formulation of problem with differentiable scalarizing function is known as Pascoletti–Serafini scalarization [@PaSe84]. Though, method introduces one additional variable and one constraint for objective
.
\end{array}$$ In the above formulaTion, the weiGhts aRe aBseNt And tHe twO objectives repREsenT the medical and economicAl perSpECtivES, rEspecTively. THIs NATurAlLy RefLeCTs The coNflIcting nAture of the UndErLying decisioN MaKing probleM, heNce, solving is IntErestiNg And CHalleNgiNg.

ScaLarizaTIon {#subSec:scalar}
-------------

a tRAditioNAl matheMATiCal pRogramming approacH To SOlving a multiojEctive OpTImIZAtiOn pRoblem consIsTs in tRAnsformINg AN ORigINal problem witH multiple obJEctIves inTo A nuMBer of sIngle-ObJEctIve subproblEms. THis is refeRred to AS *scalarIZation*. THe tranSfoRmaTion IS pErForMeD By mEAnS of A ScaLarizing FuNcTion wIth sOME USer-dEfiNed pArameTers. A single PaRetO optIMal SolutIon is SougHt By optImizinG each SuBproblem. RepeateD runS with diffEreNt ParAmEter sETtings For The ScalariZing funCTioN aRE USeD to approximate multIpLE paReto optiMal solUTiOnS.

several aPpRoaChes TO ScalaRizaTIoN have beeN develOPeD. THey diffEr In the wAy The ScaLarizINg fuNction Is formulAted. THE weighted sum meTHod suggests miNImIZInG A weiGhtEd sum of the oBjecTIves [@gaSa55]. tHe LimITatioN of thIs MEtHOd is that solutions caN oNly be oBtainEd in convex regIons of the PARETo front. ON the OThER hand, the $\epsiloN$-consTraint methOD [@HaLaWi71] sUggesTs optimiZing one obJECtive funCtiOn aNd cOnvERTiNg all other objECTiveS iNto consTraInts by sEttIng An uPpeR bOund to eacH of them. THiS mEtHoD caN find SOlutions In BotH cOnvEx and NOnconvEx regIons Of ThE parEto fronT. thE MEthoD oF wEighTed MeTrics [@mi99] seEKs tO minimiZe the distAncE BetwEeN tHe feasiBle objective rEgIon and some ReFerEnce poINT. This metHod is also known as *compromISe progrAmmIng* [@ZeLeny1976]. for measurIng The disTanCE, a weigHted $L_p$ Norm iS uTilIZEd. WheN THe ValUe Of $p$ is small, THE meThod mAy Fail To find sOlutions in nonconveX RegIons. When $p=\inftY$, thE metHOD dEfiNEs THe wEiGHteD cHebyshev problem [@bo76]. This probLeM CoNsists in miNImiZiNg the laRgest weIghteD DeviatiOn of one obJective. By OpTimiZINg tHe weighted chebysheV problem, sOLutioNS fRom coNveX and noNcOnvEx regIons caN Be gEneraTed. A maJoR drawbAck is ThAt even whEn the original MOP is diffeRentiaBle, thE reSulting siNglE-ObjEctive proBlem Is nondiffeRenTiaBle. WeAklY paretO optIMaL soLUtionS can BE also obtaINeD [@Mi99]. a RElAxed formulaTION of The ChEbySHev proBlem With differentiablE Scalarizing funCtioN IS knOwn AS the paScoletti–SerafiNi sCaLARization [@pase84]. Though, thiS method iNtROduceS one adDitionAl variaBLE aND one coNstrAinT for each oBjeCtIVe functIoN.
.
\end{array}$$ In the abo ve formula tion,  th e w ei ghts  are  absent and th e  two  objectives representthe m ed i cala nd  econ omicalp er s p ect iv es , r es p ec tivel y.This na turally re fle ct s the confli c ti ng natureofthe underlyi ngdecisi on  ma k ing p rob lem,hence, solvin g is inte re s ting a n d chall e n gi ng.
Scalarization {# s ub s ec:scalar}
--- ------ -- - -A  tr adi tional mat he matic a l progr a mm i n g  ap p roach to solv ing a multi o jec tive o pt imi z ationprobl em con sists in tr ansf orming an  origi n al prob l em with  multi ple  ob ject i ve sint oa  nu m be r o f  si ngle-obj ec ti ve su bpro b l e m s. T his  isrefer red to as *sc ala riza t ion *. Th e tra nsfo rm ation  is pe rform ed  by means of ascal arizing f unc ti onwi th so m e user -de fin ed para meters. A s in g l e  P areto optimal solu ti o n  i s sought  by op t im iz i ng eachsu bpr oble m .  Repe ated ru ns withdiffer e nt  p aramete rsettin gs  fo r t he sc a lari zing f unctionare u s ed to approxim a te multiple P a re t o  o p tima l s olutions.
Seve r al a ppro a ch est o sca lariz at i on have been developed .They d iffer  in the way t he scalari z i n g functi on i s  f o rmulated. Theweigh ted sum me t hod sugg estsminimizi ng a weig h t ed sum o f t heobj ect i v es  [@GaSa55]. T h e  lim it ation o f t his met hod  is  th atso lutions c an onlybe  o bt ai ned  in c o nvex reg io nsof  th e Par e to fro nt. O n th eot h erhand, t h e$ \ epsi lo n$ -con str ai nt me thod [@H aLaWi71 ] suggest s o p timi zi ng  one ob jective funct io n and conv er tin g allo t her obje ctives into constraints by sett ing  an u pper  bound to  ea ch ofthe m . This  metho d can  f ind s oluti o n sinbo th convexa n d n oncon ve x re gions o f the Pareto front .  Th e method of w eig hted m et ric s  [ @ Mi9 9] see k s  to minimize th e distance  b e tw een the fe a sib le  object ive reg ion a n d somereference  point. T hi s me t h odis also kn own as * compromis e  prog r am ming*  [@ Zeleny 19 76] . For  measu r ing  thedistan ce , a we ighte d$L_p$ no rm is utilized. When th e valu e of$p$  is small , t h e m ethod may  fai l to findsol uti ons i n n o nconv ex r e gi ons .  When  $p= \ infty$, t h emet h o ddefines the w e igh ted C heb y shev p robl em [@Bo76]. Thisp roblem consist s in m ini miz i ng t he  largest weigh ted  d e v iation o fone objecti ve. By o pt i mizin g theweight ed Cheb y s he v  probl em,sol utions fr omco n vex and  n on c onvexregi on s canbe gen e rate d .  A major drawbac k ist h at ev e n w hen t he  origin a l MO P is diffe rentiable,the re sult ing s ingle-o bj ective  pr ob lem is non d ifferenti able.  Weakly  P aret o o ptimal  sol u t ionscanbe  al so obtain e d  [ @ Mi 99 ] . A  rel axedfo rmul ation oft he Cheby she v  proble mwit h differ e nt i a ble scalar izi ng fu n c tion is kn o wn a s  t h e Pas colett i–Sera fini sc a lar iz ation [ @Pa S e 84]. Thou gh, thism eth od  int roduceson e ad di tio na l variable andone cons traint f o r  eachobj e ctiv e  funct io n.
.
\end{array}$$ In_the above_formulation, the weights are_absent and_the_two objectives_represent_the medical and_economical perspectives, respectively._This naturally reflects the_conflicting nature of_the_underlying decision making problem, hence, solving is interesting and challenging.

Scalarization {#subsec:scalar}
-------------

A traditional mathematical programming_approach_to solving_a_multiojective_optimization problem consists in transforming_an original problem with multiple_objectives into_a number of single-objective subproblems. This is referred_to_as *scalarization*. The_transformation is performed by means of a scalarizing function_with some user-defined parameters. A single_Pareto optimal solution_is_sought_by optimizing each subproblem._Repeated runs with different parameter settings_for the scalarizing function are used_to approximate multiple Pareto optimal solutions.

Several approaches_to scalarization have been developed. They_differ in the way the_scalarizing function_is formulated. The weighted sum_method suggests minimizing_a weighted_sum of the_objectives [@GaSa55]. The limitation of this method_is that solutions_can only be obtained in convex_regions_of the Pareto_front._On_the other_hand, the $\epsilon$-constraint_method [@HaLaWi71]_suggests optimizing_one_objective function and converting all other_objectives_into constraints by setting an upper bound_to each of them._This_method can find solutions_in both convex and nonconvex_regions of the Pareto front. The_method of_weighted metrics [@Mi99]_seeks to minimize the distance between the feasible objective region and_some reference point. This method is_also known as *compromise_programming* [@Zeleny1976]. For_measuring_the distance, a_weighted_$L_p$ norm_is utilized. When the value of $p$_is small,_the method may fail to find_solutions in nonconvex regions._When_$p=\infty$, the method defines the weighted_Chebyshev problem [@Bo76]. This problem consists in_minimizing the largest weighted deviation_of_one_objective. By optimizing the weighted_Chebyshev problem, solutions from convex and_nonconvex regions can_be generated. A major drawback is that_even_when the original MOP is differentiable,_the_resulting single-objective problem is nondifferentiable. Weakly_Pareto_optimal_solutions can be also obtained [@Mi99]._A relaxed formulation of the Chebyshev_problem with differentiable scalarizing function is known as the_Pascoletti–Serafini scalarization [@PaSe84]. Though,_this method introduces one additional_variable_and_one constraint for each objective function.