Advertisement

Tight Relaxations for Nonconvex Optimization Problems Using the Reformulation-Linearization/Convexification Technique (RLT)

  • Hanif D. Sherali
Part of the Nonconvex Optimization and Its Applications book series (NOIA, volume 62)

Abstract

This paper provides an expository discussion on applying the Reformulation-Linearization/Convexification Technique (RLT) to design exact and approximate methods for solving nonconvex optimization problems. While the main focus here is on continuous nonconvex programs, we demonstrate that this approach provides a unifying framework that can accommodate discrete problems such as linear zero-one mixed-integer programming problems and general bounded-variable integer programs as well. The basic RLT approach is designed to solve polynomial programming problems having nonconvex polynomial objective functions and constraints. The principal RLT construct for such problems is to first reformulate the problem by adding a suitable set of polynomial constraints and then to linearize this resulting problem through a variable substitution process in order to produce a tight higher dimensional linear programming relaxation. Various additional classes of valid inequalities, filtered through a constraint selection scheme or a separation routine, are proposed to further tighten the developed relaxation while keeping it manageable in size. This relaxation can be embedded in a suitable branch-and-bound scheme in order to solve the original problem to global optimality via a sequence of linear programming problems. Because of the tight convexification effect of this technique, a limited enumeration or even the use of a local search method applied to the initial relaxation’s solution usually serves as an effective heuristic strategy. We also discuss extensions of this approach to handle polynomial programs having rational exponents, as well as general factorable programming problems, and we provide recommendations for using RLT to solve even more general unstructured classes of nonconvex programming problems. Some special case applications to solve squared-Euclidean, Euclidean, or ℓ p -distance location-allocation problems are discussed to illustrate the RLT methodology.

Keywords

Programming Problem Linear Programming Relaxation Convex Envelope Product Constraint Incumbent Solution 
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. Al-Khayyal, F.A. and Falk, J.E. (1983). Jointly constrained biconvex programming. Mathematics of Operations Research,pages 273–286. Google Scholar
  2. Audet, C., Hansen, P., Jaumard, B., and Savard, G. (2000). A branch and cut algorithm for nonconvex quadratically constrained quadratic programming. Mathematical Programming, 87(1):131–152. Google Scholar
  3. Bazaraa, M.S., Jarvis, J.J., and Sherali, H.D. (1990). Linear Programming and Network Flows. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2 edition.Google Scholar
  4. Bazaraa, M.S., Sherali, H.D., and Shetty, C.M. (1993). Nonlinear Programming: Theory and Algorithms. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2 edition.Google Scholar
  5. Brimberg, J. and Love, R.F. (1991). Estimating travel distances by the weighted l? norm. Naval Research Logistics, 38:241–259. Google Scholar
  6. Bromberg, M. and Chang, T. (1992). One dimensional global optimization using linear lower bounds. In Floudas, C.A. and Pardalos, P.M., editors, Recent Advances in Global Optimization,pages 200–220. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, L. (1972). The transportation-location problem. Operations Research, 20(1):94–108. Google Scholar
  8. Duffin, R.J., Peterson, E.L., and Zener, C. (1967). Geometric Programming. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.Google Scholar
  9. Falk, J.E. and Soland, R.M. (1969). An algorithm for separable nonconvex programming problems. Management Science, 15:550–569. Google Scholar
  10. Fiacco, A.V. and McCormick, G.P. (1968). Nonlinear Programming: Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Techniques. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.Google Scholar
  11. Floudas, C.A. and Pardalos, P.M. (1990). A Collection of Test Problems for Constrained Global Optimization Algorithms,volume 455 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. G. Goos and J. Hartmanis (eds.).Google Scholar
  12. Floudas, C.A. and Visweswaran, V. (1990). A global optimization algorithm (GOP) for certain classes of nonconvex NLP’s-1. theory. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 14:1397–1417. Google Scholar
  13. Floudas, C.A. and Visweswaran, V. (1993). A primal-relaxed dual global optimization approach. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 78(2):187–225. Google Scholar
  14. Floudas, C.A. and Visweswaran, V. (1995). Quadratic optimization. In Horst, R. and Pardalos, P.M., editors, Handbook of Global Optimization,pages 217–270. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  15. Francis, R.L., McGinnis, Jr., L.F., and White, J.A. (1992). Facility Layout and Location: An Analytical Approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2 edition.Google Scholar
  16. Ghotb, F. (1987). Constrained nonlinear optimization with factorable programming. In Teo, K.L., Paul, H., Cheu, K.L., and Wang, C.M., editors, Proceedings of the International Conference on Optimization: Techniques and Applications, pages 842–857, Singapore. National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
  17. Named, A.S.E. and McCormick, G.P. (1993). Calculation of bounds on variables satisfying nonlinear inequality constraints. Journal of Global Optimization, 3: 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansen, P. and Jaumard, B. (1992). Reduction of indefinite quadratic progress to bilinear programs. Journal of Global Optimization, 2 (1): 4160.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen, P., Jaumard, B., and Lu, S. (1991). An analytical approach to global optimization. Mathematical Programming, 52: 227–254.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen, P., Jaumard, B., and Xiong, J. (1993). Decomposition and interval arithmetic applied to global minimization of polynomial and rational functions. Journal of Global Optimization, 3: 421–437.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hines, W.W. and Montgomery, D.C. (1972). Probability and Statistics in Engineering and Management Science. The Ronald Press Company, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  22. Hock, W. and Schittkowski, K. (1981). Test Examples for Nonlinear Programming Codes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  23. Horst, R. and Thy, H. (1993). Global Optimization: Deterministic Approaches. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2 edition.Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, R.H.F. and McCormick, G.P. (1988). Second-order sensitivity analysis in factorable programming: theory and applications. Mathematical Programming, 41 (1): 1–27.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kojima, M. and Tuncel, L. (1998). Discretization and localization in successive convex relaxation methods for nonconvex quadratic optimization problems. Technical Report B-341, Department of Mathematical and Computing Sciences, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  26. Konno, H. and Kuno, T. (1995). Multiplicative programming problems. In Horst, R. and Pardalos, P.M., editors, Handbook of Global Optimization, pages 369–405. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  27. Kortanek, K.L., Xu, X., and Ye, Y. (1995). An infeasible interior-point algorithm for solving primal and dual geometric programs. Technical report, Department of Management Science, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
  28. Kostreva, M.M. and Kinard, L.A. (1991). A differentiable homotopy approach for solving polynomial optimization problems and noncooperative games. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 21 (6/7): 135–143.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lasdon, L.S., Waren, A.D., Sarkas, S., and Palacios, F. (1979). Solving the pooling problem using generalized reduced gradient and successive linear programming algorithms. ACM SIGMAP Bulletin, 27 (E): 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Love, R.F. and Juel, H. (1982). Properties and solution methods for large location-allocation problems. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 33 (5): 443–452.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Manber, U. (1989). Introduction to Algorithms: A Creative Approach. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  32. Maranas, C.D. and Floudas, C.A. (1994). Global optimization in generalized geometric programming. Working paper, Department of Chemical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  33. McCormick, G.P. (1976). Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: Part I–convex underestimating problems. Mathematical Programming, 10: 147–175.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murtagh, B.A. and Saunders, M.A. (1987). MINOS 5.1 User’s Guide. Technical Report Sol 83–20R, Systems Optimization Laboratory, Department of Operations Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. (Update: MINOS 5.4.).Google Scholar
  35. Pardalos, P.M. and Rosen, J.B. (1987). Constrained Global Optimization: Algorithms and Applications, volume 268 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. G. Coos and J. Hartmanis (eds.).Google Scholar
  36. Peterson, E.L. (1976). Geometric programming. SIAM Review, 18: 1–15.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ryoo, H.S. and Sahinidis, N.V. (1995). Global optimization of nonconvex NLPs and MINLPs with applications in process design. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 19 (5): 551–566.Google Scholar
  38. Sherali, H.D., Al-Loughani, I., and Subramanian, S. (1999). Global optimization procedures for the capacitated euclidean and t p distance multifacility location-allocation problems. Technical report, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. To appear in Operations Research.Google Scholar
  39. Sherali, H.D. and Ganesan, V. (2001). Global optimization approximation procedures for solving the container ship design problem. Technical report, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.Google Scholar
  40. Shectman, J.P. and Sahinidis, N.V. (1996). A finite algorithm for global minimization of separable concave programs. In Floudas, C.A. and Pardalos, P.M., editors, State of the Art in Global Optimization, pages 303–338. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sherali, H.D. (1998). Global optimization of nonconvex polynomial programming problems having rational exponents. Journal of Global Optimization, 12 (3): 267–283.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sherali, H.D. and Adams, W.P. (1990). A hierarchy of relaxations between the continuous and convex hull representations for zero-one programming problems. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 3 (3): 411–430.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sherali, H.D. and Adams, W.P. (1994). A hierarchy of relaxations and convex hull characterizations for mixed-integer zero-one programming problems. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 52: 83–106.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sherali, H.D. and Adams, W.P. (1999). A Reformulation-Linearization Technique for Solving Discrete and Continuous Nonconvex Problems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  45. Sherali, H.D., Adams, W.P., and Driscoll, P. (1998). Exploiting special structures in constructing a hierarchy of relaxations for 0–1 mixed integer problems. Operations Research, 46 (3): 396–405.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sherali, H.D., Al-Loughani, I., and Subramanian, S. (1999). Global optimization procedures for the capacitated euclidean and t p distance multifacility location-allocation problems. Technical report, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. To appear in Operations Research.Google Scholar
  47. Sherali, H.D. and Ganesan, V. (2001). Global optimization approximation procedures for solving the container ship design problem. Technical report, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.Google Scholar
  48. Sherali, H.D. and Alameddine, A. (1992). A new reformulation-linearization algorithm for solving bilinear programming problems. Journal of Global Optimization, 2: 379–410.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sherali, H.D. and Fraticelli, B.M.P. (2000). Enhancing RLT relaxations via a new class of semidefinite cuts. Technical report, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. To appear in Journal of Global Optimization.Google Scholar
  50. Sherali, H.D. and Ganesan, V. (2001). Global optimization approximation procedures for solving the container ship design problem. Technical report, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.Google Scholar
  51. Sherali, H.D. and Nordai, F. (1988). NP-hard, capacitated, balanced p-median problems on a chain graph with a continuum of link demands. Mathematics of Operations Research, 13 (1): 32–49.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sherali, H.D. and Smith, E.P. (1995). A global optimization approach to a water distribution network problem. Journal of Global Optimization, 11: 107–132.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sherali, H.D. and Tuncbilek, C.H. (1992a). A global optimization algorithm for polynomial programming problems using a reformulation-linearization technique. Journal of Global Optimization, 2: 101–112.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sherali, H.D. and Tuncbilek, C.H. (1992b). A squared-Euclidean distance location-allocation problem. Naval Research Logistics, 39: 447469.Google Scholar
  55. Sherali, H.D. and Tuncbilek, C.H. (1997a). Comparison of two reformulation-linearization technique based linear programming relaxations for polynomial programming problems. Journal of Global Optimization, 10: 381–390.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sherali, H.D. and Tuncbilek, C.H. (1995). A reformulation-convexification approach for solving nonconvex quadratic programming problems. Journal of Global Optimization, 7: 1–31.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sherali, H.D. and Tuncbilek, C.H. (1997a). Comparison of two reformulation-linearization technique based linear programming relaxations for polynomial programming problems. Journal of Global Optimization, 10: 381–390.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sherali, H.D. and Tuncbilek, C.H. (1997b). New reformulation-linearization/convexification relaxations for univariate and multivariate polynomial programming problems. Operations Research Letters, 21 (1): 110.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sherali, H.D. and Ulular, 0. (1989). A primal-dual conjugate subgradient algorithm for specially structured linear and convex programming problems. Applied Mathematics and Optimization, 20: 193–221.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sherali, H.D. and Wang, H. (2001). Global optimization of nonconvex factorable programming problems. Mathematical Programming, 89 (3): 459–478.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shor, N.Z. (1990). Dual quadratic estimates in polynomial and boolean programming. Annals of Operations Research, 25 (1–4): 163–168.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sherali, H.D. and Ulular, 0. (1989). A primal-dual conjugate subgradient algorithm for specially structured linear and convex programming problems. Applied Mathematics and Optimization, 20: 193–221.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tuncbilek, C.H. (1994). Polynomial and Indefinite Quadratic Programming Problems: Algorithms and Applications. PhD thesis, Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.Google Scholar
  64. Visweswaran, V. and Floudas, C.A. (1992). Unconstrained and constrained global optimization of polynomial functions in one variable. Journal of Global Optimization, 2: 73–99.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Visweswaran, V. and Floudas, C.A. (1993). New properties and computational improvement of the GOP algorithm for problems with quadratic objective function and constraints. Journal of Global Optimization, 3: 439–462.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Watson, L.T., Billups, S.C., and Morgan, A.P. (1987). Algorithm 652 HOMPACK: A suite of codes for globally convergent homotopy algorithms. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 13 (3): 281–310.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wendell, R.E. and Hurter, A.P. (1973). Location theory, dominance and convexity. Operations Research, 21 (1): 314–320.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wolkowicz, H., Saigal, R., and Vandenberge, L., editors (2000). Handbook of Semidefinite Programming Theory, Algorithms, and Applications, volume 27 of International Series in Operations Research and Management Science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/ London.Google Scholar
  69. Zikan, K. (1990). `back initialization and multiple object tracking problem. Technical report, Department of Operations Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanif D. Sherali
    • 1
  1. 1.Grado Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering (0118)Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations