Preprocessing Complementarity Problems

  • Michael C. Ferris
  • Todd S. Munson
Part of the Applied Optimization book series (APOP, volume 50)


Preprocessing techniques are extensively used in the linear and integer programming communities as a means to improve model formulation by reducing size and complexity. Adaptations and extensions of these methods for use within the complementarity framework are detailed and shown to be effective on practical models. The preprocessor developed is comprised of two phases. The first recasts a complementarity problem as a variational inequality over a polyhedral set and exploits the uncovered structure to fix variables and remove constraints. The second discovers information about the function and utilizes complementarity theory to eliminate variables. The methodology is successfully employed to preprocess several models.


complementarity problems preprocessing variational inequalities 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    E. Andersen and K. Andersen. Presolving in linear programming. Mathematical Programming, 71:221–245, 1995.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Brearley, G. Mitra, and H. Williams. Analysis of mathematical programming problems prior to applying the simplex algorithm. Mathematical Programming, 8:54–83, 1975.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Brooke, D. Kendrick, and A. Meeraus. GAMS: A User’s Guide. The Scientific Press, South San Francisco, CA, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. P. Dirkse and M. C. Ferris. MCPLIB: A collection of nonlinear mixed complementarity problems. Optimization Methods and Software, 5:319–345, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    S. P. Dirkse and M. C. Ferris. The PATH solver: A non-monotone stabilization scheme for mixed complementarity problems. Optimization Methods and Software, 5:123–156, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. C. Ferris, R. Fourer, and D. M. Gay. Expressing complementarity problems and communicating them to solvers. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 9:991–1009, 1999.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. C. Ferris, M. P. Mesnier, and J. More. NEOS and Condor: Solving nonlinear optimization problems over the Internet. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, forthcoming, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. C. Ferris and T. S. Munson. Case studies in complementarity: Improving model formulation. In M. Thera and R. Tichatschke, editors, Ill-Posed Variational Problems and Regularization Techniques, number 477 in Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, pages 79–98. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. C. Ferris and T. S. Munson. Interfaces to PATH 3.0: Design, implementation and usage. Computational Optimization and Applications, 12:207–227, 1999.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. C. Ferris and T. S. Munson. Complementarity problems in GAMS and the PATH solver. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 24:165–188, 2000.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. C. Ferris and J. S. Pang. Engineering and economic applications of complementarity problems. SIAM Review, 39:669–713, 1997.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    R. Fourer, D. M. Gay, and B. W. Kernighan. AMPL: A Modeling Language for Mathematical Programming. Duxbury Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    D. M. Gay. Electronic mail distribution of linear programming test problems. COAL Newsletter, 13:10–12, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    M. S. Gowda. Applications of degree theory to linear complementarity problems. Mathematics of Operations Research, 18:868–879, 1993.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    M. S. Gowda. An analysis of zero set and global error bound properties of a piecewise affine function via its recession function. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 17:594–609, 1996.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    ILOG CPLEX Division, 889 Alder Avenue, Incline Village, Nevada. CPLEX Optimizer,
  17. [17]
    S. M. Robinson. Normal maps induced by linear transformations. Mathematics of Operations Research, 17:691–714, 1992.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    S. M. Robinson. A reduction method for variational inequalities. Mathematical Programming, 80:161–169, 1998.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    R. T. Rockafellar. Convex Analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1970.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    M. W. P. Savelsbergh. Preprocessing and probing techniques for mixed integer programming problems. ORSA Journal on Computing, 6:445–454, 1994.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    H. Sellami and S. M. Robinson. Implementation of a continuation method for normal maps. Mathematical Programming, pages 563–578, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    J. Tomlin and J. Welch. Finding duplicate rows in a linear programming model. Operations Research Letters, 5(1):7–11, 1986.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael C. Ferris
    • 1
  • Todd S. Munson
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Sciences DepartmentUniversity of Wisconsin at MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations