Advertisement

Cybernetics and Systems Analysis

, Volume 46, Issue 5, pp 807–812 | Cite as

On estimates of the complexity of numerical characteristics of postoptimality analysis for discrete optimization problems

  • V. A. Mikhailyuk
Article

Abstract

A function is introduced that characterizes the complexity of postoptimality analysis of discrete optimization problems. For this function, the upper O(2poly(n)) and lower \( \Omega \left( {\frac{{{2^n}}}{{\sqrt {{n + 1}} }}} \right) \) 2 bounds are obtained in the class of branch and bound methods for the knapsack problem. A class of set covering problems with a polynomial estimate of this function is observed

Keywords

postoptimality analysis complexity of the branch and bound method completely unimodular matrix 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    L. N. Kozeratskaya, T. T. Lebedeva, and I. V. Sergienko, “Stability, parametric, and postoptimal analysis of discrete-optimization problems,” Cybernetics, 4, 522–534 (1983).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. V. Sergienko and V. P. Shilo, Discrete Optimization: Problems, Solution Methods, and Investigations [in Russian], Naukova Dumka, Kiev (2003).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. M. Geoffrion and R. Nauss, “Parametric and postoptimality analysis in integer linear programming,” Management Sci., 23, No. 5, 453–466 (1977).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. M. Roodman, “Post optimality analysis in zero one programming by implicit enumeration,” Naval Res. Logist. Quart., 19, No. 3, 435–447 (1972).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. J. Greenberg, “An annotated bibliography for post-solution analysis in mixed integer programming and combinatorial optimization,” in: D. L. Woodruff (ed.), Advances in Comput. and Stochast. Optimization, Logic Program., and Heuristic Search, Kluwer, Berlin (1998), pp. 97–148.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eitan M. Gurari, An Introduction to the Theory of Computation, Comput. Sci. Press, Ohio State University (1989).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. P. Grishukhin, “Efficiency of the branch and bound method in problems with Boolean variables,” in: Investigations on Discrete Optimization, Nauka, Moscow (1976), pp. 203–230.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yu. Yu. Finkelstein, Approximate Methods and Applied Problems of Discrete Programming [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow (1976).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. M. Kolpakov, M. A. Posypkin, and I. Kh. Sigal, “On the complexity of solution of the Boolean knapsack problem,” in: Trans. VIIth Intern. Conf. “Discrete Models in Control Systems Theory,” MAKS Press, Moscow (2006), pp. 166–171.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. M. Kolpakov and M. A. Posypkin, “An asymptotic estimate of complexity of the branch and bound method with branching along a fractional variable for the knapsack problem,” Diskr. Anal. Issl. Operats., 15, No. 1, 58–81 (2008).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Schrijver, Theory of Linear and Integer Programming [Russian translation], Vol. 1, Mir, Moscow (1991).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Schrijver, Theory of Linear and Integer Programming [Russian translation], Vol. 2, Mir, Moscow (1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.V. M. Glushkov Cybernetics InstituteNational Academy of Sciences of UkraineKievUkraine

Personalised recommendations