Advertisement

Branch-and-Check: A Hybrid Framework Integrating Mixed Integer Programming and Constraint Logic Programming

  • Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2239)

Abstract

We present Branch-and-Check, a hybrid framework integrating Mixed Integer Programming and Constraint Logic Programming, which encapsulates the traditional Benders Decomposition and Branch-and-Bound as special cases. In particular we describe its relation to Benders and the use of nogoods and linear relaxations.We give two examples of how problems can be modelled and solved using Branch-and-Check and present computational results demonstrating more than order-of-magnitude speedup compared to previous approaches.We also mention important future research issues such as hierarchical, dynamic and adjustable linear relaxations.

Keywords

Constraint Programming Master Problem Valid Inequality Global Constraint Linear Relaxation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    J. F. Benders. Partitioning procedures for solving mixed-variables programming problems. Numer. Math., 4:238–252, 1962.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    H. Beringer and B. De Backer. Combinatorial problem solving in constraint logic programming with cooperating solvers. In C. Beierle and L. Plümer, editors, Logic Programming: Formal Methods and Practical Applications, Studies in Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, chapter 8, pages 245–272. Elsevier, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Bockmayr and T. Kasper. Branch-and-infer: A unifying framework for integer and finite domain constraint programming. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 10(3):287–300, 1998.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    K. Darby-Dowman and J. Little. The significance of constraint logic programming to operational research. Operational Research Tutorial Papers, pages 20–45, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    K. Darby-Dowman and J. Little. Properties of some combinatorial optimization problems and their effect on the performance of integer programming and constraint logic programming. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 10(3):276–286, Summer 1998.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    I. R. de Farias, E. L. Johnson, and G. L. Nemhauser. A branch-and-cut approach without binary variables to combinatorial optimization problems with continuous variables and combinatorial constraints. Knowledge Engineering Review, special issue on AI/OR, submitted, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    F. Focacci, A. Lodi, and M. Milano. Cutting planes in constraint programming: An hybrid approach. In CP-AI-OR’00Workshop on Integration of AI and OR techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization Problems, March 2000.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    A. M. Geoffrion. Generalized Benders decomposition. Journal of Optimization theory and Applications, 10:237–260, 1972.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    I. Harjunkoski, V. Jain, and I. E. Grossmann. Hybrid mixed-integer/constraint logic programming strategies for solving scheduling and combinatorial optimization problems. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 24:337–343, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. N. Hooker. Logic-based methods for optimization. In Alan Borning, editor, Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, volume 874 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, May 1994. (PPCP’94: Second International Workshop, Orcas Island, Seattle, USA).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J. N. Hooker. Logic-Based Methods for Optimization. Wiley, NewYork, 2000.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. N. Hooker and M. A. Osorio. Mixed logical/linear programming. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 96–97(1–3):395–442, 1999.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    John N. Hooker, Hak-Jin Kim, and Greger Ottosson. A declarative modeling framework that integrates solution methods. Annals of Operations Research, Special Issue on Modeling Languages and Approaches, to appear, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    John N. Hooker and Greger Ottosson. Logic-based Benders decomposition. Mathematical Programming, 2000. Submitted.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    John N. Hooker, Greger Ottosson, Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson, and Hak-Jin Kim. On integrating constraint propagation and linear programming for combinatorial optimization. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-99), pages 136–141. AAAI, The AAAI Press/The MIT Press, July 1999.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    John N. Hooker, Greger Ottosson, Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson, and Hak-Jin Kim. Ascheme for unifying optimization and constraint satisfaction methods. Knowledge Engineering Review, Special Issue on Artifical Intelligence and Operations Research, 15(1):11–30, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    John N. Hooker and Hong Yan. Logic circuit verification by Benders decomposition. In V. Saraswat and P. Van Hentenryck, editors, Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming: The Newport Papers, pages 267–288. MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    V. Jain and I. E. Grossmann. Algorithms for hybrid MILP/CP models for a class of optimization problems. INFORMS, 2000. Presented at INFORMS Salt Lake City, paper SD32.1.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    R. G. Jeroslow and J. Wang. Dynamic programming, integral polyhedra, and horn clause knowledge bases. ORSA Journal on Computing, 1(1):7–19, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Michela Milano, Greger Ottosson, Philippe Refalo, and Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson. Global constraints: When constraint programming meets operation research. INFORMS Journal on Computing, Special Issue on the Merging of Mathematical Programming and Constraint Programming, March 2001. Submitted.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Greger Ottosson, Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson, and John N. Hooker. Mixed global constraints and inference in hybrid CLP-IP solvers. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Large Scale Combinatorial Optimisation and Constraints, March 2001. Accepted for publication.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Philippe Refalo. Tight cooperation and its application in piecewise linear optimization. In Joxan Jaffar, editor, Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, volume 1713 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, October 1999.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Robert Rodošek, Mark Wallace, and Mozafar Hajian. A new approach to integrating mixed integer programming and constraint logic programming. Annals of Operations Research, Advances in Combinatorial Optimization, 86:63–87, 1999.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson and Greger Ottosson. Linear relaxations and reduced-cost based propagation of continuous variable subscripts. Annals of Operations Research, Special Issue on Integration of Constraint Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Operations Research Methods, January 2001. Submitted.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    P. Van Hentenryck. The OPL Optimization Programming Language. MIT Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Industrial AdministrationCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations