INTEGER PROGRAMMING:CONCLUSIONS

By -

CONCLUSIONS

IP problems arise frequently because some or all of the decision variables must be restricted to integer values. There also are many applications involving yes-or-no decisions (including combinatorial relationships expressible in terms of such decisions) that can be represented by binary (0–1) variables. These factors have made integer programming one of the most widely used OR techniques.

IP problems are more difficult than they would be without the integer restriction, so the algorithms available for integer programming are generally considerably less efficient than the simplex method. However, there has been tremendous progress over the past two or three decades in the ability to solve some (but not all) huge IP problems with tens or even hundreds of thousands of integer variables. This progress is due to a combination of three factors—dramatic improvements in IP algorithms, striking improvement in the linear programming algorithms used within IP algorithms, and the great speedup in com- puters. However, IP algorithms also will occasionally still fail to solve rather small problems (even as few as a hundred integer variables). Various characteristics of an IP problem in addition to its size, have a great influence on how readily it can be solved.

Nevertheless, size is one key factor in determining the time required to solve an IP problem, if it can be solved at all. The most important determinants of computation time for an IP algorithm are the number of integer variables and whether the problem has some special structure that can be exploited. For a fixed number of integer variables, BIP prob- lems generally are much easier to solve than problems with general integer variables, but adding continuous variables (MIP) may not increase computation time substantially. For special types of BIP problems containing a special structure that can be exploited by a special-purpose algorithm, it may be possible to solve very large problems (thousands of binary variables) routinely.

Computer codes for IP algorithms now are commonly available in mathematical programming software packages. Traditionally, these algorithms usually have been based on the branch-and-bound technique and variations thereof.

More modern IP algorithms now use the branch-and-cut approach. This algorithmic approach involves combining automatic problem preprocessing, the generation of cut- ting planes, and clever branch-and-bound techniques. Research in this area is continuing, along with the development of sophisticated new software packages that incorporate these techniques.

The latest development in IP methodology is to begin incorporating constraint programming. It appears that this approach will greatly expand our ability to formulate and solve IP models.

In recent years, there has been considerable investigation into the development of algorithms (including heuristic algorithms) for integer nonlinear programming, and this area continues to be an active area of research. (Selected Reference 7 describes some of the progress in this area.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NETWORK OPTIMIZATION MODELS:THE MINIMUM SPANNING TREE PROBLEM

By -
Image
THE MINIMUM SPANNING TREE PROBLEM The minimum spanning tree problem bears some similarities to the main version of the shortest-path problem presented in the preceding section. In both cases, an undi r ecte d and connected network is being considered, where the given information includes some mea- sure of the positive length (distance, cost, time, etc.) associated with each link. Both problems also involve choosing a set of links that have the shortest total length among all sets of links that satisfy a certain property. For the shortest-path problem, this property is that the chosen links must provide a path between the origin and the destination. For the minimum spanning tree problem, the required property is that the chosen links must provide a path between ea c h pair of nodes. The minimum spanning tree problem can be summarized as follows: 1. You are given the nodes of a network but not the links. Instead, you are given the po- tential links and the positive length for each
Read more

DUALITY THEORY:THE ESSENCE OF DUALITY THEORY

By -
Image
THE ESSENCE OF DUALITY THEORY Given our standard form for the primal problem at the left (perhaps after conversion from another form), its dual problem has the form shown to the right. Thus, with the primal problem in maximizatio n form, the dual problem is in minimization form instead. Furthermore, the dual problem uses exactly the same pa r amete r s as the primal problem, but in different locations, as summarized below. 1. The coefficients in the objective function of the primal problem are the right-hand sides of the functional constraints in the dual problem. 2. The right-hand sides of the functional constraints in the primal problem are the coef- ficients in the objective function of the dual problem. 3. The coefficients of a variable in the functional constraints of the primal problem are the coefficients in a functional constraint of the dual problem. To highlight the comparison, now look at these same two problems in matrix notation (as introduced at the beginn
Read more

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS:DIALOG GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

By -
Image
DIALOG GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS In our efforts in this chapter, we envision a basic DSS structure of the form shown in Figure 12. This figure also shows many of the operational functions of the database management system (DBMS) and the model base management system (MBMS). The primary purpose of the dialog generation and management system (DGMS) is to enhance the propensity and ability of the system user to use and benefit from the DSS. There are doubtless few users of a DSS who use it because of necessity. Most uses of a DSS are optional, and the decision maker must have some motivation and desire to use a DSS or it will likely remain unused. DSS use can occur in a variety of ways. In all uses of a DGMS, it is the DGMS that the user interacts with. In an early seminal text, Bennett (1983) posed three questions to indicate this centrality: 1. What presentations is the user able to see at the DSS display terminal? 2. What must the user know about what is seen at the display
Read more