Refine
Document Type
- ZIB-Report (19) (remove)
Language
- English (19)
Has Fulltext
- yes (19)
Keywords
- linear programming (3)
- mixed-integer semidefinite programming (3)
- Steiner tree optimization (2)
- branch-and-cut (2)
- branch-and-price (2)
- column generation framework (2)
- constraint integer programming (2)
- mixed integer programming (2)
- mixed-integer linear programming (2)
- mixed-integer nonlinear programming (2)
Two essential ingredients of modern mixed-integer programming (MIP) solvers are diving heuristics that simulate a partial depth-first search in a branch-and-bound search tree and conflict analysis of infeasible subproblems to learn valid constraints. So far, these techniques have mostly been studied independently: primal heuristics under the aspect of finding high-quality feasible solutions early during the solving process and conflict analysis for fathoming nodes of the search tree and improving the dual bound. Here, we combine both concepts in two different ways. First, we develop a diving heuristic that targets the generation of valid conflict constraints from the Farkas dual. We show that in the primal this is equivalent to the optimistic strategy of diving towards the best bound with respect to the objective function. Secondly, we use information derived from conflict analysis to enhance the search of a diving heuristic akin to classical coefficient diving. The computational performance of both methods is evaluated using an implementation in the source-open MIP solver SCIP. Experiments are carried out on publicly available test sets including Miplib 2010 and Cor@l.
The analysis of infeasible subproblems plays an import role in solving mixed integer programs (MIPs) and is implemented in most major MIP solvers. There are two fundamentally different concepts to generate valid global constraints from infeasible subproblems. The first is to analyze the sequence of implications obtained by domain propagation that led to infeasibility. The result of the analysis is one or more sets of contradicting variable bounds from which so-called conflict constraints can be generated. This concept has its origin in solving satisfiability problems and is similarly used in constraint programming. The second concept is to analyze infeasible linear programming (LP) relaxations. The dual LP solution provides a set of multipliers that can be used to generate a single new globally valid linear constraint. The main contribution of this short paper is an empirical evaluation of two ways to combine both approaches. Experiments are carried out on general MIP instances from standard public test sets such as Miplib2010; the presented algorithms have been implemented within the non-commercial MIP solver SCIP. Moreover, we present a pool-based approach to manage conflicts which addresses the way a MIP solver traverses the search tree better than aging strategies known from SAT solving.
The analysis of infeasibility plays an important role in solving satisfiability problems (SAT) and mixed integer programs (MIPs). In mixed integer programming, this procedure is called conflict analysis. So far, modern MIP solvers use conflict analysis only for propagation and improving the dual bound, i.e., fathoming nodes that cannot contain feasible solutions. In this short paper, we present a new approach which uses conflict information to improve the primal bound during a MIP solve. To derive new improving primal solutions we use a conflict driven diving heuristic called conflict diving that uses the information obtained by conflict analysis. Conflict diving pursues a twofold strategy. By using conflict information the new diving approach is guided into parts of the search space that are usually not explored by other diving heuristics. At the same time, conflict diving has a fail-fast-strategy to reduce the time spent if it cannot find a new primal solution. As a byproduct, additional valid conflict constraints can be derived, from which a MIP solver can gain benefit to improve the dual bound as well. To show the added-value of conflict diving within a MIP solver, conflict diving has been implemented within the non-commercial MIP solver SCIP. Experiments are carried out on general MIP instances from standard public test sets, like MIPLIB2010 or Cor@l.
We consider the problem of pattern detection in large scale
railway timetables. This problem arises in rolling stock optimization planning
in order to identify invariant sections of the timetable for
which a cyclic rotation plan is adequate.
We propose a dual reduction technique which leads to an decomposition
and enumeration method. Computational results for real
world instances demonstrate that the method is able to
produce optimal solutions as fast as standard MIP solvers.
Recently, there have been many successful applications of optimization algorithms that solve a sequence of quite similar mixed-integer programs (MIPs) as subproblems. Traditionally, each problem in the sequence is solved from scratch. In this paper we consider reoptimization techniques that try to benefit from information obtained by solving previous problems of the sequence. We focus on the case that subsequent MIPs differ only in the objective function or that the feasible region is reduced. We propose extensions of the very complex branch-and-bound algorithms employed by general MIP solvers based on the idea to ``warmstart'' using the final search frontier of the preceding solver run. We extend the academic MIP solver SCIP by these techniques to obtain a reoptimizing branch-and-bound solver and report computational results which show the effectiveness of the approach.
We consider reoptimization (i.e. the solution of a problem based on information available from solving a similar problem) for branch-and-bound algorithms and propose a generic framework to construct a reoptimizing branch-and-bound algorithm.
We apply this to an elevator scheduling algorithm solving similar subproblems to generate columns using branch-and-bound. Our results indicate that reoptimization techniques can substantially reduce the running times of the overall algorithm.
Conflict Analysis for MINLP
(2020)
The generalization of MIP techniques to deal with nonlinear, potentially non-convex, constraints have been a fruitful direction of research for computational MINLP in the last decade. In this paper, we follow that path in order to extend another essential subroutine of modern MIP solvers towards the case of nonlinear optimization: the analysis of infeasible subproblems for learning additional valid constraints. To this end, we derive two different strategies, geared towards two different solution approaches. These are using local dual proofs of infeasibility for LP-based branch-and-bound and the creation of nonlinear dual proofs for NLP-based branch-and-bound, respectively. We discuss implementation details of both approaches and present an extensive computational study, showing that both techniques can significantly enhance performance when solving MINLPs to global optimality.
Conflict learning plays an important role in solving mixed integer programs (MIPs) and is implemented in most major MIP solvers. A major step for MIP conflict learning is to aggregate the LP relaxation of an infeasible subproblem to a single globally valid constraint, the dual proof, that proves infeasibility within the local bounds. Among others, one way of learning is to add these constraints to the problem formulation for the remainder of the search.
We suggest to not restrict this procedure to infeasible subproblems, but to also use global proof constraints from subproblems that are not (yet) infeasible, but can be expected to be pruned soon. As a special case, we also consider learning from integer feasible LP solutions. First experiments of this conflict-free learning strategy show promising results on the MIPLIB2017 benchmark set.
The analysis of infeasible subproblems plays an important role in solving mixed integer programs (MIPs) and is implemented in most major MIP solvers. There are two fundamentally different concepts to generate valid global constraints from infeasible subproblems. The first is to analyze the sequence of implications, obtained by domain propagation, that led to infeasibility. The result of this analysis is one or more sets of contradicting variable bounds from which so-called conflict constraints can be generated. This concept is called conflict graph analysis and has its origin in solving satisfiability problems and is similarly used in constraint programming. The second concept is to analyze infeasible linear programming (LP) relaxations. Every ray of the dual LP provides a set of multipliers that can be used to generate a single new globally valid linear constraint. This method is called dual proof analysis. The main contribution of this paper is twofold. Firstly, we present three enhancements of dual proof analysis: presolving via variable cancellation, strengthening by applying mixed integer rounding functions, and a filtering mechanism. Further, we provide an intense computational study evaluating the impact of every presented component regarding dual proof analysis. Secondly, this paper presents the first integrated approach to use both conflict graph and dual proof analysis simultaneously within a single MIP solution process. All experiments are carried out on general MIP instances from the standard public test set MIPLIB 2017; the presented algorithms have been implemented within the non-commercial MIP solver SCIP and the commercial MIP solver FICO Xpress.
State-of-the-art solvers for mixed integer programs (MIP) govern a variety of algorithmic components. Ideally, the solver adaptively learns to concentrate its computational budget on those components that perform well on a particular problem, especially if they are time consuming.
We focus on three such algorithms, namely the classes of large neighborhood search and diving heuristics as well as Simplex pricing strategies.
For each class we propose a selection strategy that is updated based on the observed runtime behavior, aiming to ultimately select only the best algorithms for a given instance.
We review several common strategies for such a selection scenario under uncertainty, also known as Multi Armed Bandit Problem.
In order to apply those bandit strategies, we carefully design reward functions to rank and compare each individual heuristic or pricing algorithm within its respective class.
Finally, we discuss the computational benefits of using the proposed adaptive selection within the \scip Optimization Suite on publicly available MIP instances.