Skip to main content
Log in

Branch-and-bound solves random binary IPs in poly(n)-time

  • Full Length Paper
  • Series A
  • Published:
Mathematical Programming Submit manuscript

Abstract

Branch-and-bound is the workhorse of all state-of-the-art mixed integer linear programming (MILP) solvers. These implementations of branch-and-bound typically use variable branching, that is, the child nodes are obtained via disjunctions of the form \(x_j \le \lfloor \bar{x}_j \rfloor \vee x_j \ge \lceil \bar{x}_j \rceil \), where \(\bar{x}\) is an optimal solution to the LP corresponding to the parent node. Even though modern MILP solvers are able to solve very large-scale instances efficiently, relatively little attention has been given to understanding why the underlying branch-and-bound algorithm performs so well. In this paper, our goal is to theoretically analyze the performance of the standard variable branching based branch-and-bound algorithm. In order to avoid the exponential worst-case lower bounds, we follow the common idea of considering random instances. More precisely, we consider random integer programs where the entries of the coefficient matrix and the objective function are randomly sampled. Our main result is that with good probability branch-and-bound with variable branching explores only a polynomial number of nodes to solve these instances, for a fixed number of constraints. To the best of our knowledge this is the first known such result for a standard version of branch-and-bound. We believe that this result provides an indication as to why branch-and-bound with variable branching works so well in practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. We assume throughout that the \(C/2^\ell \)’s are integral to simplify the notation, but it can be easily checked that using \(\lceil C/2^\ell \rceil \) instead does not change the results.

References

  1. Santanu, S.D., Yatharth, D., Marco, M.: Branch-and-bound solves random binary ips in polytime. In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 579–591. SIAM (2021)

  2. Alisa, H.L., Alison, G.D.: An automatic method of solving discrete programming problems. Econometrica 28, 497–520 (1960)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. George, L.: Integer and Combinatorial Optimization. In: Nemhauser and laurence a wolsey, vol. 55. Wiley, New Jersey (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Michele, C., Gérard, C., Giacomo, Z., et al.: Integer Programming, vol. 271. Springer, New York (2014)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Hendrik, W.L., Jr.: Integer programming with a fixed number of variables. Math. Oper. Res. 8(4), 538–548 (1983)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Hendrik, W.L., Arjen, K.L., László, L., et al.: Factoring polynomials with rational coeficients. Math. Ann. 261, 515–534 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Gábor, P., Mustafa, T., Erick, B.W. Basis reduction and the complexity of branch-and-bound. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 1254–1261. SIAM (2010)

  8. Karen, A., Robert, E.B., Cor, A.J.H., Arjen, K.L., Job, W.S.: Market split and basis reduction: towards a solution of the cornuéjols-dawande instances. INFORMS J. Comput. 12(3), 192–202 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Bixby, R., Rothberg, E.: Progress in computational mixed integer programming-a look back from the other side of the tipping point. Ann. Oper. Res. 149(1), 37 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Thomas F.C. (ed.).: Chapter 3: Large Sparse Linear Programming, pp. 35–46. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-12914-6_3

  11. Matthias, W.: Sparsity of lift-and-project cutting planes. In: Operations Research Proceedings 2012, pp. 9–14. Springer, New York (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Santanu, S.D., Marco, M., Qianyi, W.: Approximating polyhedra with sparse inequalities. Math. Program. 154(1–2), 329–352 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Santanu, S.D., Marco, M., Qianyi, W.: Analysis of sparse cutting planes for sparse milps with applications to stochastic milps. Math. Oper. Res. 43(1), 304–332 (2018)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Chvátal, Vasek: Hard knapsack problems. Oper. Res. 28(6), 1402–1411 (1980)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Robert, G.J.: Trivial integer programs unsolvable by branch-and-bound. Math. Program. 6(1), 105–109 (1974)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Sanjeeb, D.: An exponential lower bound on the length of some classes of branch-and-cut proofs. In: International Conference on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization, pp. 145–160. Springer (2002)

  17. Kevin K.H., Cheung, A.M.G., Daniel E.S.: Verifying integer programming results. In: Friedrich, E., Jochen, K. (eds.) Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization - 19th International Conference, IPCO 2017, Waterloo, ON, Canada, June 26-28, 2017, Proceedings, Volume 10328 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 148–160. Springer, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59250-3_13

  18. Daniel, A.S., Shang-Hua, T.: Smoothed analysis of algorithms: why the simplex algorithm usually takes polynomial time. J. ACM (JACM) 51(3), 385–463 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Jeff, T.L., Martin, W.P.S.: A computational study of search strategies for mixed integer programming. INFORMS J. Comput. 11(2), 173–187 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Achterberg, T., Koch, T., Martin, A.: Branching rules revisited. Oper. Res. Lett. 33(1), 42–54 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Lueker, G.S.: On the average difference between the solutions to linear and integer knapsack problems. In: Applied Probability – Computer Science, The Interface, vol. 1. Birkhäuser (1982)

  22. Andrew, V.G., Alberto, M.-S.: On finding the exact solution of a zero-one knapsack problem. In: Richard, A.D. (ed.). STOC, pp. 359–368. ACM (1984). URL http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/stoc/stoc84.html#GoldbergM84

  23. René, B., Berthold, V.: Random knapsack in expected polynomial time. In: Lawrence L.L., Michel, X.G. (eds.) STOC, pp. 232–241. ACM (2003). URL http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/stoc/stoc2003.html#BeierV03

  24. René, B., Berthold V.: Probabilistic analysis of knapsack core algorithms. In: Ian Munro, J. (ed.) SODA, pp. 468–477. SIAM (2004). URL http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/soda/soda2004.html#BeierV04

  25. Dyer, M.E., Frieze, A.M.: Probabilistic analysis of the multidimensional knapsack problem. Math. Oper. Res. 14(1), 162–176 (1989)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Sander, B., Daniel, D., Sophie, H., Samarth, T.: On the integrality gap of binary integer programs with gaussian data. In: IPCO, pp. 427–442 (2021)

  27. Alan, M.F.: On the expected efficiency of branch and bound for the asymmetric tsp. (2020)

  28. Vazirani, V.: Approximation Algorithms. Springer, New Year (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Aharon, B.-T., Arkadi, N.: Lectures on Modern Convex Optimization: Analysis, Algorithms, and Engineering Applications. SIAM (2001)

  30. Roman, V.: High-Dimensional Probability: An Introduction with Applications in Data Science. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2018). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108231596

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Keith, B.: Cube slicing in \(\mathbb{R} ^n\). Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 97(3), 465–473 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Koltchinskii, V.: Oracle Inequalities in Empirical Risk Minimization and Sparse Recovery Problems. Springer-Verlag, New York (2011)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are extremely grateful to Daniel Dadush for suggesting several improvements to the paper. Santanu S. Dey would like to gratefully acknowledge the support given by the Airforce office of scientific research, award number FA9550-22-1-0052. Marco Molinaro was supported in part by the Coordenaccão de Aperfeiccoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, Brasil) - Finance Code 001, by Bolsa de Produtividade em Pesquisa \(\#3\)12751/2021-4 from CNPq, FAPERJ grant “Jovem Cientista do Nosso Estado”, and by the CAPES-PrInt program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yatharth Dubey.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The contributions of this manuscript overlap with those of [1]. The differences are noted in the final paragraph of Sect. 1

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dey, S.S., Dubey, Y. & Molinaro, M. Branch-and-bound solves random binary IPs in poly(n)-time. Math. Program. 200, 569–587 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-022-01895-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-022-01895-4

Mathematics Subject Classification

Navigation