Introduction to Integer Programming Modeling and Methods Michael Trick Carnegie Mellon University...
-
Upload
jenna-deer -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Introduction to Integer Programming Modeling and Methods Michael Trick Carnegie Mellon University...
Introduction to Integer Programming Modeling and Methods
Michael TrickCarnegie Mellon UniversityCPAI-OR School, Le Croisic
2002
Some History Integer Programming goes back a long way:
Schrijver takes it back to ancient times (linear diophantine equations), Euler (1748), Monge (1784) and much more.
“Proper” study began in the 1950s Dantzig (1951): linear programming Gomery (1958): cutting planes Land and Doig (1960): branch and bound
Survey books practically every five years since Tremendous practical success in last 10-15 years
Scope This talk will not be
comprehensive! Attempt to get across main
concepts of integer programming Relaxations Primal Heuristics Branch and Bound Cutting Planes
Integer Program (IP)
Minimize cxSubject to Ax=b l<=x<=u some or all of xj integral
X: variables
Linear objective
Linear constraints
Makes things hard!
Rules of the Game Must put in that form! Seems limiting, but 50 years of
experience gives “tricks of the trade”
Many formulations for same problem
Example Formulations
Warehouse location: n stores, m possible warehouses; cost k[j] to open warehouse m; cost c[i,j] to handle store i out of warehouse j.
Minimize the total opening costs plus handling costs
Subject toEach store assigned to one open warehouse
Warehouse Formulation
Variables x[i,j] = 1 if store i served by
warehouse j; 0 otherwise y[j] = 1 if warehouse j open; 0
otherwise
Objective Minimize sum_j k[j]y[j]+sum_i,j c[i,j]x[i,j]
Warehouse Formulation Constraints:
sum_j x[i,j] = 1 for all isum_i x[i,j] <= ny[j] for all j
Binary Integer Programs Restrict variables to be 0-1 Many specialized methods OR people are real good at
formulating difficult problems within these restrictions
Key concepts Relaxation R(IP)
“easily” solved problem such that Optimal solution value is no more than that of IP If solution is feasible for IP then is optimal for IP If R(IP) infeasible then so is IP
Most common is “linear relaxation”: drop integrality requirements and solve linear program
Others possible: lagrangian relaxation, lagrangian decomposition, bounds relaxation, etc.
Illustration
Linear Relaxation
Why this fetish with Linear Relaxations? IP people are very focused on
linear relaxations. Why? Sometimes linear=integer Linear relaxations as global
constraints Duals and reduced costs
Linear=integer formulations Happens naturally for some
problems Network flows Totally unimodular constraint matrices
Takes more work, but defined for Matchings Minimum spanning trees
Closely associated with polynomial solvability
Duals and Reduced Costs
Associated with the solution of a linear program are the dual values--- one per constraint--- measures the marginal value of changing the right-hand-side of the constraint
--- Useful in many algorithmic ways
Dual exampleSum_i x[i,j]-y[j] <= 0
Suppose facility j* has cost 10 and y*[j*] = 0. The dual value of this constraint is 4. What
cost must facility j* have to be appealing?
Answer: no more than 10-4=6.
Dual Example 2 Products 1, 2, 3 use chemicals A, B
Maximize 3x1+2x2+2x3Subject to x1+x2+2x3 <= 10; (.667) 5x1+2x2+x3 <= 20; (.667)
Solution: x2=6.67 x1=1.67What objective must a product that uses 4 of A
and 3 of B have to be appealing: at least 4.67
Final advantage of linear relaxations: Global Linear relaxations are
Relatively easy to solve: huge advances in 15 years
Incorporate “global” information Often provide good bounds and guidelines
for integer program Variables with very bad reduced cost likely not in
optimal integer solution Rounding doesn’t always work, but often gets
good feasible solutions
Feasible solutions Solutions that satisfy all the
constraints but might not be optimal Generally found by heuristics Can be problem specific
Must have value greater than or equal to optimal value (for minimizing)
Feasible Solution
Feasible solution
Fundamental Branch and Bound AlgorithmSolve relaxation to get x*If infeasible, then IP infeasibleElse If x* feasible to IP, then x*
optimal to IPElse create new problems IP1 and IP2
by branching; solve recursively, stop if prove subproblem cannot be optimal to IP (bounding)
Branching Create two or more subproblems IP1,
IP2,… IPn such that Every feasible solution to IP appears in at
least one (often exactly one) of IP1, IP2, … IPn
x* is infeasible to each of R(IP1), R(IP2), … R(IPn)
For linear relaxation, can choose a fraction xj* and have one problem with xj <=[xj] and the other with xj >= [xj]+1 ([x]: round down of x)
Illustration
x*
IP1
IP2
Bounding Along way, we may find solution x’
that is feasible to IP. If any subproblem has relaxation value c* >= cx’ then we can prune that subproblem: it cannot contain the optimal solution. There is no sense continuing on that subproblem.
Stopping Technique can stop early with
solution within a provable percentage of optimal (compare to be relaxation value)
Can also modify to generate all solutions (do not prune on ties)
How to make work better? Better formulations Better relaxations (cuts) Better feasible solutions
(heuristics)
Formulations Different formulations of integer
programs may act very differently: their relaxations might have radically different bounds
“Good Formulation” of integer program: provides a better relaxation value (all else being equal).
Back to Warehouse Example Alternative formulation of “Only use if
open constraint”
x[i,j] <= y[j] for all i,j(versus)sum_i x[i,j] <= ny[j]
Which is better?
Comparing Positives to original
Fewer constraints: linear relaxation should solve faster
Positives to disaggregate formulation Much better bounds (consider having x[i,j]=1
for a particular i,j. What would y[j] be in the two formulations?)
(Almost) no comparison! Formulation with more constraints works much better.
Ideal
Formulation gives convex hull of feasible integer points
Embarrassing Formulations Some things are very hard to formulate
with integer programming: Traveling Salesman problem: great success
story (IP approaches can optimize 15,000 city problems!), but best IP approaches begin with an exponentially sized formulation (no “good” compact formulation known).
Complicated operational requirements can be hard to formulate.
Further approaches Branch and Price
Formulations with exponential number of variables with complexity in generating “good” variables (see Nemhauser): heavy use of dual values
Branch and Cut Improving formulations by adding
additional constraints to “cut off” linear relaxation solutions (more later)
Algorithmic Details
PreprocessingPrimal HeuristicsBranchingCut Generation
Preprocessing Process individual rows to
detect infeasibilities detect redundancies tighten right-hand-sides tighten variable bounds
Probing: examine consequences of fixing 0-1 variable If infeasible, fix to opposite bound If other variables are fixed, inequalities
Preprocessing Much like simple Constraint
Programming
Improving Coefficients
3x1-2x2 11. Convert to with pos. coefficients with y1
= 1-x1
3y1 + 2x2 22. Note that constraint always satisfied when
y1 = 1, so change coefficient 3 to 22y1 + 2x2 2
3. Convert back to originalx1 -x2 1
Improving (?) Coefficients
1
1
Cuts off (1/2, 1/4) and others
Manual or Automatic? Modeling issue
Automatic identification not foolproof
Generally easy to see
Can provide problem-knowledge to further reduce coefficients
Automatic issue Many
opportunities will only occur within Branch and Bound tree as variables are fixed
“More foolproof” as models change
Identifying Redundancy and InfeasibilityUse upper and lower bounds on
variables: Redundancy
3x1 - 4x2 + 2x3 6 (max lhs is 5) Infeasibility
3x1 - 4x2 + 2x3 6 (max lhs is 5)
While very simple, can be used to fix variables, particularly within B&B tree
PP: Fixing VariablesSimple idea: if setting a variable to a
value leads to infeasibility, then must set to another value
3x1-4x2+2x3-3x4 3
Setting x4 to 1 leads to previous infeasible constraint, so x4 must be 0
PP: Implication Inequalities
Many constraints embed restrictions that at most one of x and y (or their complements) are 1.
This can lead to implication inequalities.
PP: Implication InequalitiesFacility location
x1+x2+…+xm mx0
x0 = 0 x1 = 0
x0 = 0 x2 = 0, etc.
(1-x0) + x1 1 (or x1 x0)
x2 x0 , etc.
Automatic disaggregation (stronger!)
PP: Clique InequalitiesThese inequalities found by “probing” (fix
variable and deduce implications).
These simple inequalities can be strengthened by combining mutually exclusive variables into a single constraint.
Resulting clique inequalities are very “strong” when many variables combined.
Example: Sports SchedulingProblem: Given n teams, find an “optimal”
(minimum distance, equal distance, etc.) double round robin (every team plays at every other team) schedule.
A: @B @C D B C @DB: A D @C @A @D CC: @D A B D @A @BD: C @B @A @C B A
Sports Scheduling
Many formulations (not wholly satisfactory)
One method: One variable for every “home stand” (series of home games) and “away trip” (series of away games).
Variables (team A)
Some variables:
2 3 41
H
@B @C
@C @D
H H
@E @F
y1
x1
x2
y1
x3
Constraints Can only do one thing in a time slot
y1+x1+x2 1x1+x2+y2 1
No “Away after Away”x1+x2+x3 1
No “Home after Home”y1+y2 1
Additional constraints link teams
Improving Formulation
Create Implication Graph
2 3 41
H
@B @C
@C @D
H H
@E @F
y1
x1
x2
y2
x3
Find cliques Cliques in graph: can only have
one
2 3 41
H
@B @C
@C @D
H H
@E @F
y1
x1
x2
y2
x3
Constraints Can only do one thing in a time slot
y1+x1+x2 1x1+x2+y2 1
No “Away after Away”x1+x2+x3 + y2 1
No “Home after Home”y1+y2 + x1 + x2 1
Additional constraints link teams
Clique Inequalities Resulting formulation is much tighter
(turns formulation from hopeless to possible)
Idea generalized to variables and their complements
Can be found automatically, but may be a huge number (and clique generally hard)
On divide of “automatic” and “manual” modeling issue
Primal Heuristics Feasible solutions at B&B nodes
can greatly decrease the solution time
Most common: problem-specific heuristics embedded with B&B
Some general purpose heuristics: LP Diving, Pivot and Complement
LP-Diving
1. Solve LP2. Stop if infeasible or integral3. Fix all integral variables (or all 1’s)4. Select fractional variable and fix
to integer5. Go to 1
Branching Two decisions: which B&B node to
branch on and how to divide into two problems
Node selection Depth First: try for integral solution Best Bound: explore “appealing” nodes Adaptive: Depth First first, then best
bound
Branching: How to branch Priorities on variables and sets is
extremely important Normal branching is on a variable
equals 0 or equals 1, but much more complicated branching possible:
x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 1Could lead to two problems:a) x1 + x2 = 0
b) x3 + x4 =0
Branching as Modeling
Specially Ordered Sets of Type 2 (no more than 2 positive, must be adjacent): used to model piecewise linear functions:
x1,x2,x3,… xm
can lead to two problems:1 k-2 k-1 k+1 k+2 mk
Either all of the blue or all of the red are 0
Adding constraints Constraints can strengthen
formulation: we have seen clique inequalities already
Can be added on an “as needed” basis during calculations (generally to move away from current fractional solution).
Separation Problem
Given a fractional solution to the LP relaxation, find an inequality that is not satisfied by the fractional solution. Algorithm should be- fast- yield strong inequality
- heuristics acceptable
Types of Constraints
1. Feasibility: A large number of constraints is used in formulation- connectivity constraints (i.e. TSP)
- nonlinearities2. Problem specific facets - blossom inequalities for matching - comb inequalities for TSP3. General IP constraints
Gomory Constraints Any fractional solution from the simplex
method can be separated:xb + 2.5 x1 - 3.2 x2 = 2.1
where current sol. is xb =2.1, x1 = x2 = 0
xb + 2 x1 - 4 x2 - 2 = .1 - .5 x1 -.8 x2
LHS is integer so RHS must be also.1 - .5 x1 -.8 x2 0
is valid and violated by current solution
“Real Version” of Gomory Cuts
y+ sum_j ajxj =d Let d=[d]+f; let aj=[aj] + fj t=y+sum_(j:fj<=f) [aj]xj + sum_(j:fj>f) ([aj]+1)xjSo d-t = sum_(j:fj<=f) fjxj+sum_(j:fj>f) (fj-1)xjEithert<=[d] => sum_(j:fj<=f) fjxj >= ft>=[d]+1 => sum_(j: fj>f) (1-fj)xj >= 1-fDivide through to get RHS of 1 in each case. Result
givessum(j:fj<=f) (fj/f)xj + sum(j: fj>f) (1-fj)/(1-f)xj >= 1
Working through example
Previous example becomes
.5x1+.2x2 >= .9, which is a good, strong constraint
(can extend all this to mixed integer programs easily)
Gomory Constraints (modeling) Are we done? Very good to have
available but likely not the only tool in the arsenal.
0-1 Knapsack Covers
For problems that contain constraints like:
j N ajxj b
C N is a cover if j C aj > b
thenj C xj |C| - 1
is valid
Separation of Cover Inequalities
Given fractional LP solution x*, is there a cover C for which x* violates the cover inequality?
Solvable by a binary knapsack problem (one constraint IP): can be solved heuristically, or exactly by dynamic programming
Lifting of Cover Inequalities
Constraints can be strengthened:20x1+16x2+15x3+10x4+30x5 40
Cover on {1,2,3} leads to x1+x2+x3+0x4+0x5 2
Is the “0” coefficient on x4 the best possible? Can solve knapsack to get
x1+x2+x3+x4+0x5 2
Lifing of Cover Inequalities
We could continue to x5 to get
x1+x2+x3+x4+x5 2
If we had done x5 first, we would have got
x1+x2+x3+0x4+2x5 2
Different lifting sequences lead to different inequalities
Modeling implications Cover inequalities generally part of the
software, rather than the modeling (but if software has capability, do not include in model).
Decision is whether to use the inequalities or not essentially numerical question
Lifting is extremely important, as is relationship of covers in subproblems to full problem
Conclusions There is lots to integer
programming! Interesting interplay between
formulations and algorithms Much intelligence embedded in
software, making formulations a bit more “fool-proof”
Papers to Read
Progress in Linear Programming Based Branch and Bound Algorithms: An exposition, Ellis Johnson, George Nemhauser, and Martin Savelsbergh
MIP: Theory and Practice – Closing the Gap, Robert Bixby, Mary Fenelon, Zonghao Gue, Ed Rothberg, and Roland Wunderling