Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 89–106 | Cite as

A sequential LCP method for bilevel linear programming

  • J. J. Júdice
  • A. M. Faustino


In this paper, we discuss an SLCP algorithm for the solution of Bilevel Linear Programs (BLP) which consists of solving a sequence of Linear Complementarity Problems (LCP) by using a hybrid enumerative method. This latter algorithm incorporates a number of procedures that reduce substantially the search for a solution of the LCP or for showing that the LCP has no solution. Computational experience with the SLCP algorithm shows that it performs quite well for the solution of small- and medium-scale BLPs with sparse structure. Furthermore, the algorithm is shown to be more efficient than a branch-and-bound method for solving the same problems.


Computational Experience Complementarity Problem Linear Complementarity Problem Sparse Structure Bilevel Linear Program 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    F.A. Al-Khayyal, An implicit enumeration procedure for the general linear complementarity problem, Math. Progr. Studies 31(1987)1–20.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    G. Anandalingam and D.I. White, A penalty function approach for solving bilevel linear programs, Department of Systems, University of Pennsylvania (1988).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J.F. Bard and J.J. Moore, A branch-and-bound algorithm for the bilevel linear program, SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comput. 11(1990)281–292.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    O. Ben-Ayed, C.E. Blair and D.E. Boyce, Solving a real world highway network design problem using bilevel linear programming, BEBR Faculty Working Paper 1463, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1988).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    W.F. Bialas and M.H. Karwan, Two-level linear programming, Manag. Sci. 30(1984)1004–1020.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R.G. Bland, New finite pivoting rules for the simplex method, Math. Oper. Res. 2(1977)103–107.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. Hansen, B. Jaumard and G. Savard, A variable elimination algorithm for bilevel linear programming, RUTCOR, Rutgers University (1989).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J.J. Júdice and A.M. Faustino, An experimental investigation of enumerative methods for the linear complementarity problem, Comput. Oper. Res. 15(1988)417–426.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J.J. Júdice and A.M. Faustino, The solution of the linear bilevel linear programming problem by using the linear complementarity problem, Investigação Operacional 8(1988)77–95.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    C.D. Kolstad and L.S. Lasdon, Derivate evaluation and computational experience with large bilevel mathematical programs, Faculty Working Paper 1266, College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1986).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    C.D. Kolstad, A review of the literature on bilevel mathematical programming, Technical Report LA-10284-MS, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1985).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    P. Marcotte, Network design problem with congestion effects: A case of bilevel programming, Math. Progr. 34(1986)142–162.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    K.G. Murty,Linear Programming (Wiley, New York, 1983).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    K.G. Murty,Linear Complementarity, Linear and Nonlinear Programming (Heldermann, Berlin, 1988).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J.K. Reid, A sparsity-exploitation variant of the Bartels-Golub decomposition of linear programming bases, Math. Progr. 24(1982)55–69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© J.C. Baltzer AG, Scientific Publishing Company 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. J. Júdice
    • 1
  • A. M. Faustino
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de MatemáticaUniversidade de CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Departamento de Engenharia CivilUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations