Refine
Year of publication
- 2016 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- ZIB-Report (2)
- In Proceedings (1)
Language
- English (3)
Keywords
Institute
- Mathematical Optimization (3) (remove)
In this article, we introduce parallel mixed integer linear programming (MILP) solvers. MILP solving algorithms have been improved tremendously in the last two decades. Currently, commercial MILP solvers are known as a strong optimization tool. Parallel MILP solver development has started in 1990s. However, since the improvements of solving algorithms have much impact to solve MILP problems than application of parallel computing, there were not many visible successes. With the spread of multi-core CPUs, current state-of-the-art MILP solvers have parallel implementations and researches to apply parallelism in the solving algorithm also getting popular. We summarize current existing parallel MILP solver architectures.
This paper describes how we solved 12 previously unsolved mixed-integer program- ming (MIP) instances from the MIPLIB benchmark sets. To achieve these results we used an enhanced version of ParaSCIP, setting a new record for the largest scale MIP computation: up to 80,000 cores in parallel on the Titan supercomputer. In this paper we describe the basic parallelization mechanism of ParaSCIP, improvements of the dynamic load balancing and novel techniques to exploit the power of parallelization for MIP solving. We give a detailed overview of computing times and statistics for solving open MIPLIB instances.
Modern MIP solvers employ dozens of auxiliary algorithmic components to support the branch-and-bound search in finding and improving primal solutions and in strengthening the dual bound.
Typically, all components are tuned to minimize the average running time to prove optimality. In this article, we take a different look at the run of a MIP solver. We argue that the solution process consists of three different phases, namely achieving feasibility, improving the incumbent solution, and proving optimality. We first show that the entire solving process can be improved by adapting the search strategy with respect to the phase-specific aims using different control tunings. Afterwards, we provide criteria to predict the transition between the individual phases and evaluate the performance impact of altering the algorithmic behavior of the MIP solver SCIP at the predicted phase transition points.