World Applied Programming, Vol (1), No (3), August 2011.

155-162
ISSN: 2222-2510
2011 WAP journal. www.waprogramming.com

Higher-Order Duality for Multiobjective Programming

Involving (, )-Univexity
Deo Brat Ojha*
Department of Mathematics,
R.K.G.I.T.
Ghziabad, INDIA
ojhdb@yahoo.co.in
Abstract:The concepts of ( , )-invexity have been given by Caristi, Ferrara and Stefanescu [1]. We consider a
higher-order dual model associated to a multiobjective programming problem involving support functions and a weak
duality result is established under appropriate higher-order ( ,) -univexity conditions.
Key word: Higher-order( ,)-(pseudo/quasi)-convexity, multiobjective programming, higher-order duality, duality
theorem.

I.

INTRODUCTION

For nonlinear programming problems, a number of duals have been suggested among which the Wolfe dual [2,3] is well known.
While studying duality under generalized convexity, Mond and Weir [4] proposed a number of deferent duals for nonlinear
programming problems with nonnegative variables and proved various duality theorems under appropriate pseudoconvexity/quasi-convexity assumptions.
The study of second order duality is significant due to the computational advantage over first order duality as it provides tighter
bounds for the value of the objective function when approximations are used [5,6,7].Mangasarian[8] considered a nonlinear
programming problem and discussed second order duality under inclusion condition. Mond [9] was the first who present second
order convexity. He also gave in [9] simpler conditions than Mangasarian using a generalized form of convexity. which was later
called bonvexity by Bector and Chandra [10]. Further, Jeyakumar [11,12] and Yang [7] discussed also second order Mangasarian
type dual formulation under -convexity and generalized representation conditions respectively. In [13] Zhang and Mond
established some duality theorems for second-order duality in nonlinear programming under generalized second-order B-invexity,
defined in their paper. In [9] it was shown that second order duality can be useful from computational point of view, since one
may obtain better lower bounds for the primal problem than otherwise. The case of some optimization problems that involve n-set
functions was studied by Preda [14]. Recently, Yang et al. [7] proposed four second-order dual models for nonlinear programming
problems and established some duality results under generalized second-order F -convexity assumptions. In [15] Mishra and
Rueda generalized Zhangs Mangasarian type and Mond-Weir type higher-order duality [16] to higher-order type I functions.
Yang et al. [7] extended this results to a class of nondierentiable multiobjective programming problems. They also presented an
unified higher-order dual model for nondierentiable multiobjective programs, where every component of the objective function
contains a support function of a compact convex set, also Batatorescu et al. [17].
For ( x, a, ( y , r )) = F ( x, a; y ) + rd ( x, a ) , where F ( x, a;.) is sublinear on R , the definition of (, ) - invexity
2

reduces to the definition of ( F , ) -convexity introduced by Preda[18], which in turn Jeyakumar[12] generalizes the concepts of
F-convexity and -invexity[19].

The more recent literature, Xu[20], Ojha [21], Ojha and Mukherjee [22] for duality under generalized ( F , ) -convexity, Mishra
[23] and Yang et al.[7] for duality under second order F -convexity. Liang et al. [24] and Hachimi[25] for optimality criteria and
duality involving ( F , , , d ) -convexity or generalized {F , , , d ) -type functions.The ( F , ) -convexity was recently

generalized to (, ) -invexity by Caristi , Ferrara and Stefanescu [1],and here we will use this concept to extend some
theoretical results of multiobjective programming.
Whenever the objective function and all active restriction functions satisfy simultaneously the same generalized invexity at a
Kuhn-Tucker point which is an optimum condition, then all these functions should satisfy the usual invexity, too. This is not the

155

Deo Brat Ojha., World Applied Programming, Vol (1), No (3), August 2011.

case in multiobjective programming ; Ferrara and Stefanescu[16] showed that sufficiency Kuhn-Tucker condition can be proved
under (, ) -invexity, even if Hansons invexity is not satisfied, Puglisi[26].The interested reader may
consult[27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47].
Therefore, the results of this paper are real extensions of the similar results known in the literature.
also Batatorescu et al. [17].The ( F , ) -convexity was recently generalized to (, ) -invexity by Caristi , Ferrara and
Stefanescu [1],and here we will use this concept to extend some theoretical results of multiobjective programming.
Whenever the objective function and all active restriction functions satisfy simultaneously the same generalized invexity at a
Kuhn-Tucker point which is an optimum condition, then all these functions should satisfy the usual invexity, too. This is not the
case in multiobjective programming ; Ferrara and Stefanescu[16] showed that sufficiency Kuhn-Tucker condition can be proved
under (, ) -invexity, even if Hansons invexity is not satisfied, Puglisi[26].
Therefore, the results of this paper are real extensions of the similar results known in the literature.
In Section 2 we define the higher-order (, ) -univexity . In Section 3 we consider a class of multiobjective programming
problems and for the dual model we prove a weak duality result.
II.

NOTATIONS AND PRELIMINARY

We denote by R the n -dimensional Euclidean space, and by R+ its nonnegative orthant . Further, R+ = {x R x > 0} .For
n

any vector x R , y R , we denote x y =

n

x y
i =1

We consider f : R R , g : R R ,are differential functions and X R is an open set. We define the following
multiobjective programming problem:
f ( x) = f1 ( x).......... f p ( x)
(P) minimize
subject to g ( x) 0 x, x X
n

Let X0 be the set of all feasible solutions of (P) that is, X 0 = {x X g ( x ) 0} .

We quote some definitions and also give some new ones.
Definition 2.1
A
vector a X 0 is said to be an efficient solution of problem (P) if there exit no

x X 0 such that

f (a) f ( x) R+p \{0} i.e., fi ( x) fi (a ) for all i {1,.,.,., p} , and for at least one j {1,.,.,., p} we have
fi ( x) < fi (a ) .
Definition 2.2
A point a X 0 is said to be a weak efficient solution of problem (VP) if there is no x X such that f ( x) < f (a).
Definition 2.3
A point a X 0 is said to be a properly efficient solution of (VP) if it is efficient and there exist a positive constant K such that for

0 and for each i {1, 2...... p} satisfying fi ( x) < fi (a) , there exist at least one i {1, 2...... p} suchthat

f (a ) < f ( x ) and f (a ) f ( x) K f ( x) f (a ) Denoting by WE(P), E(P) and PE(P) the sets of all weakly efficient,
i
i
j
j
j
j

each x X

efficient and properly efficient solutions of (VP), we have PE(P) E(P) WE(P).

f (a) the gradient vector at a of a differentiable function f : R p R , and by 2 f (a) the Hessian matrix of
f at a . For a real valued twice differentiable function ( x, y ) defined on an open set in R p R q , we denote by
x (a, b) the gradient vector of with respect to x at (a, b) , and by xx (a, b) the Hessian matrix with respect to x at
(a, b) . Similarly, we may define y (a, b) , xy (a, b) and yy (a, b) .

We denote by

For convenience, let us write the definitions of (, ) -univexity from[1], Let : X 0 R be a differentiable function
n +1
is represented as the ordered
( X R n ) , X X , and a X . An element of all (n+1)- dimensional Euclidean Space R
0
0
0

156

Deo Brat Ojha., World Applied Programming, Vol (1), No (3), August 2011.

pair

( z, r ) with z R n and r R ,

X0 X0 R

n +1

is

real

, such that ( x, a,.) is convex on

b , b : X X [0,1] R
0 1
+

number

and

is

real

valued

R n + 1 and ( x , a , ( 0, r ) ) 0, for every

b ( x, a ) = lim b ( x, a, ) 0 , and b does not depend upon

0

function

defined

on

( x, a ) X 0 X 0 and r R+ .

if the corresponding functions are

n
differentiable. , : R R is an n-dimensional vector- valued function and h : X R R be differentiable function.

We assume that , : R R satisfying u 0 ( u ) 0 and u 0 ( u ) 0, and

0
1
0 1
( ) = ( ) and ( ) = ( ) .

b ( x, a) > 0 and b ( x, a)0. and

0
1

Example 2.1
min f ( x) = x 1
g ( x) = x 1 0, x X 0 [1, )
( x, a;( y, r )) = 2(2r 1) x a + y, x a

for 0 ( x) = x , 1 ( x) = x , 1 =

1
(for f ) and = 1 (for g ), then this is ( , ) -univex but it is not ( , ) -invex .
2

Definition 2.4
A function f : X

R is said to be higher-order (, ) -univex at u X with respect to h ,both f and h are differentiable

n
n
n +1
function, if for all ( x, y ) X R , b : X X R R+ , : X X R R , is a real number, we have
b( x, u , y )[ { f ( x) f (u ) h(u , y ) + y T y h(u , y )}] ( x, u; (f (u ) + y h(u , y ), )) (2.1)
Definition 2.5
A function f : X R is said to be higher-order (, ) -unicave at u X with respect to h ,both f and h are differentiable

R , is a real number, we have

b( x, u , y )[ { f ( x) f (u ) h(u , y ) + y T y h(u , y )}] ( x, u; (f (u ) y h(u , y ), ))

function, if for all ( x, y ) X R , b : X X R R+ , : X X R

n

n +1

Definition 2.6
A function f : X R is said to be higher-order (, ) -pseudounivex at u X with respect to h ,both f and h are
differentiable function, if for all ( x, y ) X R , b : X X R R+ , : X X
have
( x, u;(f (u ) + y h(u , y ), ))0 b( x, u, y )[ { f ( x) f (u ) h(u, y ) + yT y h(u, y )}]0
n

R n +1 R , is a real number, we
(2.2)

Definition 2.7
A function f

: X R is said to be higher-order (, ) -quasiunivex at u X with respect to h ,both f and h are

n
n
n +1
differentiable function, if for all ( x, y ) X R , b : X X R R+ , : X X R R , is a real number, we

have
b( x, u , y )[ { f ( x) f (u ) h(u , y ) + yT y h(u , y )}]0 ( x, u;(f (u ) + y h(u, y ), ))0

(2.3)

Remark 2.1
(i) If we consider the case b=1 , ( x, u;(f (u ), )) = F ( x, u; f (u )) (with F is sublinear in third argument, then the above
definition reduce to usual F-convexity.
Example 2.1
We present here a function which is higher-order (, ) -univex for b=1 . Let us consider X = (0, ) and

f : X R , f ( x) = x log x , h : X R R, h(u, y ) = y log u . We have

1
2
u f (u ) = 1 + log u, uu f (u ) = , y h(u, y ) = log u , : X X R n +1 R , taking = 0 ( x, y; b) = b + b
u
It is obvious our mapping is more generalized rather than previous ones.
Hence f ( x ) = x log x is higher-order (, ) -univex at u X , with respect to h(u , y ) = y log u .

157

Deo Brat Ojha., World Applied Programming, Vol (1), No (3), August 2011.

III.
We

consider

HIGHER-ORDER MOND-WEIR TYPE SYMMETRIC DUALITY

in

this

section

twice

differentiable

functions

fi = R n R m R, gi = R n R m R n R, hi = R n R m R m R ,and compact convex sets Ci R n and Di R m ,

for i = 1, 2,.,., p .
We define the following pair of higher-order symmetric multiobjective dual problems .
(MP)
minimize

f1 ( x, y ) + h1 ( x, y, 1 ) 1T ( h1 ( x, y, 1 ))
1

f p ( x, y ) + hp ( x, y, p ) Tp ( hp ( x, y, p ))
p

subject to
p

(
i =1

f ( x, y ) + i hi ( x, y, i )) 0

(3.1)

y i

yT i ( y fi ( x, y ) + i hi ( x, y, i )) 0

(3.2)

i =1

i = 1,.,., p, > 0, i = 1

(3.3)

i =1

(MD)
maximize

f1 (u , v) + g1 (u, v, 1 ) 1T ( g1 (u , v, 1 ))
1

f p (u , v) + g p (u, v, p ) Tp ( g p (u, v, p ))
p

subject to
p

(
i =1

f (u , v) + i gi (u, v, i )) 0

(3.4)

u i

u T i (u fi (u , v) + i gi (u, v, i )) 0

(3.5)

i = 1,.,., p, > 0, T e = 1

(3.6)

i =1

In the sequel we shall establish weak, strong and converse duality theorems under (, ) -univex type assumptions. For this, we
consider functions bi = R R R R R+ and the number
n

Further, we suppose that the functions

i R, i = 1, 2,.,., p

0 : R n R n R n +1 R and 1 : R n R n R n +1 R also satisfy the condition

0 ( x, u;( , )) + u T 0 , for all R+n

1 (v, y;( , )) + yT 0 , for all R+m

(3.7)

We suppose also that following conditions are satisfied:

(1) the functions f i (., v) are higher-order ( 0 , ) -univex at u .

158

Deo Brat Ojha., World Applied Programming, Vol (1), No (3), August 2011.

fi ( x,.) are higher-order (1 , ) -unicave at y .

(2)

Theorem 3.1 (Weak duality)

Let ( x, y, , 1 , 2 ,.,., p ) be a feasible solution of (MP) and

(u, v, , 1 , 2 ,.,., p ) a feasible solution of (MD). Then the

inequalities can not hold simultaneously:(i) for all i {1, 2,.,., p} ,
fi ( x, y ) + hi ( x, y, i ) iT ( hi ( x, y, i ))
fi (u , v) + g i (u , v, i ) iT ( g i (u , v, i ))

(3.8)

j {1, 2,.,., p} ,
fi ( x, y ) + hi ( x, y, i ) iT ( hi ( x, y, i )) <

(ii) for at least one

fi (u , v) + g i (u , v, i ) iT ( g i (u , v, i ))

(3.9)

Proof
Since, ( x, y, , 1 , 2 ,.,., p ) be a feasible solution of (MP) and

(u, v, , 1 , 2 ,.,., p ) a feasible solution of (MD), by (3.7)

and (3.4), we get

p

0 ( x, u;( i {u fi (u , v) + gi (u, v, i )}, i ))

i =1

+u T i {u f i (u, v) + gi (u, v, i )} 0
i =1

By (3.5) we have
p

0 ( x, u;( i {u fi (u , v) + gi (u, v, i )}, i )) 0

(3.10)

i =1

It follows from the higher-order ( 0 , ) -univexity of f i (., v ) at u with respect to gi (u , v, i ) that

bi ( x, y, u, v)[ { f i ( x, v) f i (u, v)}]

p

0 ( x, u;( i {u fi (u , v) + gi (u , v, i )}, i ))

(3.11)

i =1

+bi ( x, y, u , v)[ {gi (u , v, i ) gi (u , v, i )}]

T
i

Since

> 0, T e = 1 , from (3.4),(3.10) and (3.11), we get

p

b ( x, y, u, v)[ { f ( x, v) f (u, v)}]

i i

i =1

0 ( x, u;( i {u f i (u, v) + gi (u, v, i )}, i ))

i =1

+ i bi ( x, y, u, v)[ {gi (u, v, i ) iT gi (u, v, i )}]

i =1

b ( x, y, u, v)[ {g (u, v, )
i =1

i i

T
i

gi (u, v, i )}] ( by the property of 0 and )

That is
p

ibi ( x, y, u, v) fi ( x, v) ibi ( x, y, u, v) fi (u, v)

i =1

i =1

b ( x, y, u, v){g (u, v, )
i =1

i i

T
i

gi (u, v, i )}

(3.12)

On the other hand , from (3.1) and (3.7) we get

p

i =1

i =1

1 (v, y;( i ( y fi ( x, y ) + hi ( x, y, i ), i )) yT i ( y fi ( x, y ) + hi ( x, y, i ) 0 ,
which, by using (3.2), imply

159

Deo Brat Ojha., World Applied Programming, Vol (1), No (3), August 2011.

1 (v, y;( i ( y f i ( x, y ) + hi ( x, y, i ), i ) 0

(3.13)

i =1

Now, using the fact that f i ( x,.) is higher-order (1 , ) -unicavity at

y , with respect to hi ( x, y, i ), i = 1, 2,.,., p , we

have

bi ( x, y, u, v)[ { f i ( x, v) fi ( x, y )}]
p

1 (v, y;( i ( y fi ( x, y ) + hi ( x, y, i ), i ))
i =1

+ bi ( x, y, u, v)[ {hi ( x, y, i ) + iT hi ( x, y, i )}]

Since

(3.14)

> 0, e = 1 , from (3.13)and (3.14) , by the property of 1 and ,we get

T

i =1
p

i =1

ibi ( x, y, u, v) fi ( x, v) ibi ( x, y, u, v) fi ( x, y) +
b ( x, y, u, v){h ( x, y, )
i i

i =1

T
i

hi ( x, y, i )}

(3.15)

from (3.12) and (3.15) we obtain

p

b ( x, y, u, v){ f (u, v) + g (u, v, )

i i

i =1

T
i

gi (u, v, i )}

i bi ( x, y, u, v)[ fi ( x, y ) + hi ( x, y, i ) iT hi ( x, y, i )]
i =1

Which proves the assertion of the theorem.

Remark 3.2.
Following the same lines as in the previous proof, we easily can prove other variants of Theorem 3.1 under the same assumptions,
but replacing in the statement the corresponding conditions by those below:
(1) the functions f i (., v) are higher-order ( 0 , ) -pseudounivex at u , with respect to gi (u , v, i ), i = 1, 2,.,., p ;

fi ( x,.) are higher-order (1 , ) -unicave at y , with respect to hi ( x, y, i ), i = 1, 2,.,., p ; respectively

(3) the functions f i (., v) are higher-order ( 0 , ) -pseudounivex at u , with respect to gi (u , v, i ), i = 1, 2,.,., p ;
(4) f i ( x,.) are higher-order (1 , ) -unicave at y , with respect to hi ( x, y, i ), i = 1, 2,.,., p ; respectively
(2)

Now, under appropriate conditions, we state a strong duality and a converse duality theorem relative to problems, (MP) and
(MD).
Theorem 3.2 ( Strong duality)
Let ( x, y, , 1, 2 ,., p ) be a feasible solution of (MP) and assume that

hi ( x, y, 0) = 0, gi ( x, y, 0) = 0, hi ( x, y, 0) = 0,

i {1, 2,.,., p}
we
have
y hi ( x, y, 0) = 0, x hi ( x, y, 0) = gi ( x, y, 0) ;

(i)

for

all

i {1, 2,.,., p} the Hessian matrix hi ( x, y, i) is positive or negative definite ;

(iii) the vectors y f i ( x, y) + hi ( x, y, i), i = 1, 2,., p , are linearly independent;
(ii) for all

(iv) for any

R+p , 0 ,

and

i R m , i 0, i = 1, 2,.,., p ,

we have

i =1

T
i

{ y fi ( x, y) + hi (x, y, i )} 0 ,

then
(a) i = 0, i

= 1, 2,.,., p ;
(b) there exist wi Ci such that ( x, y, , 01 , 02 ,.,., 0 p ) is a feasible solution of (MD).

Furthermore, if the assumptions of Theorem 3.1 are satisfied and the functions

bi ( x, y, u, v) > 0, i = 1, 2,.,., p , then

( x, y, , 01 , 02 ,.,., 0 p ) is a properly efficient solution of (MD) and the values of both problems are equal.

160

Deo Brat Ojha., World Applied Programming, Vol (1), No (3), August 2011.

Theorem 3.3 (Converse duality)

Let (u , v, , 1, 2 ,., p ) be a properly efficient solution of (MD) and assume that
(i)for

all

i {1, 2,.,., p}

we

hi (u, v, 0) = 0, gi (u, v, 0) = 0, gi (u, v, 0) = 0,

have

x gi (u, v, 0) = 0, y gi (u, v, 0) = hi (u , v, 0) ;
(ii) for all

i {1, 2,.,., p} the Hessian matrix gi (u, v, i) is positive or negative definite ;

(iii)the vectors
(iv)for any

x fi (u, v) + gi (u, v, i), i = 1, 2,., p , are linearly independent;

R+p , 0 ,

and

i R n , i 0, i = 1, 2,.,., p ,

we have

i =1

T
i

{ x f i (u, v) + gi (u , v, i)} 0 ,

then
(a) i

= 0, i = 1, 2,.,., p ;
(b) there exist zi Di such that (u , v, , 01 , 02 ,.,., 0 p ) is a feasible solution of (MP).

Furthermore, if the assumptions of Theorem 3.1 are satisfied and the functions

bi ( x, y, u, v) > 0, i = 1, 2,.,., p , then

(u, v, , 01 , 02 ,.,., 0 p ) is a properly efficient solution of (MP) and the values of both problems are equal.

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]
[3]
[4]

[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]

G. Eason, B. Noble, and I. N. Sneddon, On certain integrals of Lipschitz-Hankel type involving products of Bessel functions, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc.
London, vol. A247, pp. 529551, April 1955.
G.Caristi,M.Ferrara and A. Stefanescu, Mathematical programming with (, ) -invexity, In:
V.Igor,Konnov, Dinh The Luc,Alexander, M.Rubinov,(eds.), Generalized Convexity and Related Topics, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical
Systems, vol.583, Springer,2006,167-176.
M.Hanson and B.Mond, Further generalization of convexity in mathematical programming, J.Inform.Optim.Sci.3(1982)22-35.
W.S. Dorn, A symmetric dual theorem for quadratic programs, J. Oper. Res.Soc. Japan 2 (1960) 9397.
B.Mond and T.Weir, Generalized convexity and duality,In: S.Schaible,W.T.Ziemba(Eds.), Generalized convexity in optimization and Economics,263280,Academic Press,New York,1981.
T.R. Gulati, I. Husain, A. Ahmed, Multiobjective symmetric duality with invexity, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 56 (1997)2536.
S.K. Suneja, C.S. Lalitha, S. Khurana, Second order symmetric duality in multiobjective programming, European. J. Oper.Res. 144 (2003) 492500.
X.M.Yang, X.Q.yang and K.L.Teo, nodifferentiable second order symmetric duality in mathematical programming with F-convexity, European Journal of
Operational Reaearch,144(2003),554-559.
O.L. Mangasarian, Second and higher order duality in nonlinear programming, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 51 (1975) 607620.
B. Mond, Second order duality for nonlinear programs, Opsearch 11 (1974) 9099.
C.R. Bector, S. Chandra, Generalized bonvexity and higher order duality for fractional programming, Opsearch 24 (1987) 143154.
V. Jeyakumar, p-convexity and second order duality, Utilitas Math.29(1986),71-85.
V.Jeyakumar, Strong and weak invexity in mathematical programming, In: Methods of Operations Research, vol.55(1985),109-125.
J. Zhang and B. Mond, Second order B-invexity and duality in mathematical programming.Utilitas Math. 50 (1996), 1931.
V.Preda,Duality for multiobjective fractional programming problems involving n-set functions,In:C.A.Cazacu,W.E.Lehto and T.M.Rassias(Eds.)Analysis
and Topology,Academic Press(1998),569-583.
S.K. Mishra and N.G. Rueda, Higher order generalized invexity and duality in mathematical programming. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 247 (2000), 173182.
M.Ferrara, M.V.Stefanescu, Optimality condition and duality in multiobjective programming with (, ) -invexity,Yugoslav Journal of Operations
Research,vol.18(2008)No.2,153-165.
A. Batatorescu, V.Preda and M.Beldiman , Higher-order symmetric multiobjective duality involving generalized ( F , , , b) -convexity,Rev. Rou. Math.
Pur. Appl.52(2007)6,619-630.
V.Preda, On efficiency and duality for multiobjective programs, J.Math. Anal.Appl. 166(1992),365-377.
J.P.Vial, Strong and weak convexity of sets and functions, Math. Operations Research,8(1983),231-259.
Z.Xu, Mixed type duality in multiobjective programming problems, J.Math.Anal.Appl. 198(1995)621-635.
D.B.Ojha, Some results on symmetric duality on mathematical fractional programming with generalized F-convexity in complex spaces, Tamkang Journal of
Math vol.36, No.2(2005).
)-invexity, European Journal of Operational
D.B.Ojha and R.N.Mukherjee, Some results on symmetric duality of multiobjective programmes with (F,
Reaearch,168(2006),333-339.

161

Deo Brat Ojha., World Applied Programming, Vol (1), No (3), August 2011.

[23] S.K.Mishra, Second order symmetric duality in mathematical programming with F-convexity, Euro. Journal of Operational Reaearch,127(2000),507-518.
[24] Z.A. Liang, H.X.Huang and P.M.Pardalos, Efficiency conditions and duality for a class of multiobjective fractional programming problems, Journal of
Global Optimization, 27(2003),447-471.
[25] M.Hachimi,Sufficiency and duality in differentiable multiobjective programming involving generalized type-I functions, J.M.Anal.Appl.296(2004),382-392.
[26] A.Puglisi, Generalized convexity and invexity in optimization theory: Some new results, Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol.3,No.47(2009),2311-2325.
[27] I.Ahmad,Z.Husain,Nondifferentiable second order symmetric duality in multiobjective programming, Applied Mathematics Letters 18(2005)721728
[28] S. Chandra, B.D. Craven, B. Mond, Generalized concavity and duality with a square root term, Optimization 16 (1985)653662.
[29] S. Chandra, A. Goyal, I. Husain, On symmetric duality in mathematical programming with F-convexity, Optimization 43(1998) 118.
[30] S. Chandra, I. Husain, Nondifferentiable symmetric dual programs, Bull.Austral. Math. Soc. 24 (1981) 295307.
[31] S. Chandra, D. Prasad, Symmetric duality in multiobjective programming, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Ser. B) 35 (1993) 198206.
[32] B.D. Craven, Lagrangian conditions and quasiduality, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 16 (1977) 325339.
[33] T.R. Gulati, I. Ahmad, I. Husain, Second order symmetric duality with generalized convexity, Opsearch 38 (2001)210222.
[34] D.S. Kim,Y.B. Yun, H. Kuk, Second order symmetric and self duality in multiobjective program.,Appl. Math. Lett.10(1997)172 2 .
[35] S.K.Mishra, Second order symmetric duality in mathematical programming with F-convexity,Euro. J.Oper. Res. 127(2000) 507518.
[36] B. Mond, I. Husain, M.V. Durga Prasad, Duality for a class of nondifferentiable multiobjective programming,Util. Math.39(1991)319.
[37] P.S. Unger, A.P. Hunter Jr., The dual of the dual as a linear approximation of the primal, Int. J. Syst. Sci. 12 (1974)11191130.
[38] T.Weir, B.Mond, Symmetric and self duality in multiobjective programming, Asia-Pacific J. Oper. Res. 5 (1988) 124133.
[39] X.M. Yang, S.H. Hou, Second order symmetric duality in multiobjective programming, Appl. Math. Lett. 14 (2001)587592.
[40] W.S.Dorn, Self dual quadratic programs, SIAM J.Appl.Math.9(1961)51-54.
[41] X. Chen, Higher-order symmetric duality in nondifferentiable multiobjective programming problems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 290 (2004), 423435.
[42] G. Devi, Symmetric duality for nonlinear programming problem involving -bonvex functions.European J. Oper. Res. 104 (1998), 615621.
[43] D.J. Mahajan, Contributions to optimality conditions and duality theory in nonlinear programming. Ph.D. Thesis, 1977.
[44] B. Mond and M. Schechter, Nondifferentiable symmetric duality. Bull. Austral. Math.Soc. 53 (1996), 177188.
[45] B. Mond and J. Zhang, Higher order invexity and duality in mathematical programming.In: J.P. Crouzeix et al. (Eds.), Generalized Convexity, Generalized
Monotonicity: Recent Results, pp. 357372. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998.
[46] S. Pandey, Duality for multiobjective fractional programming involving generalized -bonvex functions. Opsearch 28 (1991), 3643.
[47] X.Q. Yang, Second order global optimality conditions for convex composite optimization.Math. Programming 81 (1998), 327347.

162