On Coupling Constraints in Pessimistic Linear Bilevel Optimization

Let x\in X be given and consider a fixed i\in[m]. Then, the i-th coupling constraint in (?) is equivalent to \min_{y}\{ B_{i\cdot}y\colon y\in S(x) \} \ge a_i - A_{i\cdot}x, which can be reformulated as B_{i\cdot}y^i \ge a_i - A_{i\cdot}x with y^i \in \operatorname*{arg\,min}_y \left\{ B_{i\cdot}y \colon y\in S(x) \right\}. Now, let \varphi denote the optimal-value function of the lower-level problem (?). It follows that x satisfies the i-th coupling constraint if and only if

We now show that the latter is equivalent to the stated conditions in the lemma. First, let us assume that (Proof) holds. Then, there exists \bar{y} such that \varphi(x) = f^\top \bar{y} and D\bar y \ge b - Cx is satisfied. Hence, the conditions of the lemma hold.

Conversely, assume that the conditions of the lemma are satisfied. The feasibility of \bar{y} implies

Hence, (Proof) is satisfied, which concludes the proof.

In line with the proof of Lemma 3.1, it follows that a given leader’s decision x \in X satisfies all coupling constraints in (?) if and only if, for each i \in [m], Condition (Proof) is satisfied. Consequently, if the latter conditions hold, there exists \bar{y} such that \varphi(x) = f^\top \bar{y} and D\bar y \ge b - Cx. This implies the conditions of the corollary. Conversely, assuming that the conditions of the corollary hold, the claim follows using Inequality (?) analogously to the proof of Lemma 3.1.

We prove the theorem with the help of an auxiliary and intermediate problem. To this end, let \tilde{\mathcal{S}} be the set of globally optimal solutions to the optimistic single-leader multi-follower problem

with \tilde{S}^i(x,\bar{y}) = \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{y'} \{B_{i\cdot} y'\defsepDy' \geq b - Cx, f^\top y' \leq f^\top \bar{y}\} and y = (y^i)_{i=1}^m. The identity \operatorname{proj}_x(\tilde{\mathcal{S}}) = \operatorname{proj}_x(\hat{\mathcal{S}}) is straightforward because all follower’s problems in (Proof) are independent. Hence, the proof is complete if we show \mathcal{S} = \operatorname{proj}_x(\tilde{\mathcal{S}}). We start by proving \mathcal{S} \subseteq \operatorname{proj}_x(\tilde{\mathcal{S}}). To this end, let x be feasible for Problem (3.3), implying x \in X.

By applying Corollary 3.2, there exist \bar{y} with D \bar{y} \geq b - Cx and, for every i \in [m], some y^i \in \operatorname*{arg\,min}_y \{B_{i\cdot} y\defsepDy \geq b - Cx, f^\top y \leq f^\top \bar{y}\} satisfying B_{i\cdot} y^i \geq a_i - A_{i\cdot} x. Thus, y^i \in \tilde{S}^i(x,\bar{y}) holds, meaning that, for the given x, there exists \bar{y} so that (x,\bar{y}) is feasible for (Proof). Since the respective upper-level objective functions coincide and only depend on x, we showed \mathcal{S} \subseteq \operatorname{proj}_x(\tilde{\mathcal{S}}). Due to Lemma 3.1 being an if-and-only-if statement, the other direction follows by using the same arguments.

Because x is bilevel feasible for (?), there exists a point y\in S(x) such that F_{\text{o}}(x) = c^\top x + d^\top y. Note that the objective function of (?) does not depend on \varepsilon. Moreover, for fixed x and any \bar{y} satisfying Cx + D\bar{y} \ge b, the inequality f^\top\bar{y} \ge f^\top y holds. Consequently, the optimal objective value of (?) is exactly f^\top y. Thus, for a given x and \bar{y} \mathrel{{\mathop:}{=}} y, we have (y,0)\in \tilde S(x,\bar{y}) and (x,\bar{y}) is a bilevel feasible point for (?) with F_{\text{oa}}(x,\bar{y}) = F_{\text{o}}(x).

Conversely, because (x,\bar{y}) is a globally optimal point for (?), there exists (y,\varepsilon)\in \tilde{S}(x,\bar{y}) with \varepsilon = 0. Consequently, f^{\top} y = f^{\top} \bar{y} holds. Following the same line of arguments as above, we obtain y\in S(x). This implies that x is feasible for (?). We are left to prove that F_{\text{oa}}(x,\bar{y}) = F_{\text{o}}(x) holds. Assume that this is not the case. Hence, d^\top y \neq d^\top \bar{y} needs to hold. If d^\top y < d^\top \bar{y}, we could choose (x, \hat{y}) with \hat{y} \mathrel{{\mathop:}{=}} y. This yields (y,0) \in \tilde{S}(x,\hat{y}), which again implies F_{\text{oa}}(x,\hat{y}) = F_{\text{o}}(x). This contradicts the optimality of (x, \bar{y}). If d^\top y > d^\top \bar{y}, then \bar{y} would be a better lower-level solution than y in terms of the leader’s objective function in (?), which, again, is a contradiction. Hence, F_{\text{oa}}(x,\bar{y}) = F_{\text{o}}(x) holds, which ends the proof.

Both problems have the same feasible sets. Moreover, for any feasible point (x,\bar{y}), the value of \varepsilon is uniquely determined. Thus, the inner minimization problem in (3.6) and the inner maximization problem in (3.7) have the same value. Thus, F_{\text{o}\kappa}(x, \bar{y}) = F_{\text{p}\kappa}(x, \bar{y}) holds.

The claim follows from Lemmas 3.5 and 3.6 as well as Proposition 3.7.