Mathematical Programming

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 241–262

On the average number of steps of the simplex method of linear programming

  • Steve Smale


The goal is to give some theoretical explanation for the efficiency of the simplex method of George Dantzig. Fixing the number of constraints and using Dantzig's self-dual parametric algorithm, we show that the number of pivots required to solve a linear programming problem grows in proportion to the number of variables on the average.

Key Words

Linear Programming Simplex Method Complexity Theory Algorithms Linear Complementarity Problem Path Following 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    I. Adler and S. Berenguer, “Random linear programs”, Technical Report ORC 81-4, Operations Research Center, University of California (Berkeley, 1981).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    C. Allendoerfer and A. Weil, “The Gauss-Bonnet theorem for Riemannian polyhedra”, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 53 (1943) 101–129.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    K.-H. Borgwardt, “The average number of steps required by the simplex method is polynomial”, to appear in Zeitschrift für Operations Research.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    R.W. Cottle and G.B. Dantzig, “Complementary pivot theory of mathematical programming”, in: G.B. Dantzig and A.F. Veinott, Jr., eds., Mathematics of the Decision Sciences, Part 1 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1968) pp. 115–136.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    G.B. Dantzig, Linear programming and extensions (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1963).MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    G.B. Dantzig, “Expected number of steps of the simplex method for a linear program with a convexity constraint”, Technical Report SOL 80-3, Systems Optimization Laboratory, Department of Operations Research, Stanford University (Stanford, CA, 1980).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    B.C. Eaves and H. Scarf, “The solution of systems of piecewise linear equations”, Mathematics of Operations Research 1 (1976) 1–27.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    W. Feller, An introduction to probability theory and its applications, 2nd ed., Vol. 1 (Wiley, New York, 1957).MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    D. Gale, H.W. Kuhn, and A.W. Tucker, “Linear programming and the theory of games”, in: T.C. Koopmans, ed., Activity analysis of production and allocation (Wiley, New York, 1951).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Hirsch and S. Smale, “On algorithms for solvingf(x)=0”, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 32 (1979) 281–312.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. Howe, “Linear complementarity and the degree of mappings”, Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 452, Yale University (New Haven, CT, 1980).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    V. Klee and G. Minty, “How good is the simplex algorithm?”, in: O. Shisha, ed., Inequalities III (Academic Press, New York, 1972) pp. 159–175.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    T.M. Liebling, “On the number of iterations of the simplex method”, in: R. Henn, H. Künzi, and H. Schubert, eds., Operations Research Verfahren/Methods of Operations Research XVII (1973) 248–264.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    L. Lovász, “A new linear programming algorithm—Better or worse than the simplex method?”, The Mathematical Intelligencer 2 (1980) 141–146.MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. May and R. Smith, “Random polytopes: Their definition, generation, and aggregate properties, Mathematical Programming 24 (1982) 39–54.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    K.G. Murty, “Computational complexity of complementary pivot methods”, Mathematical Programming Study 7 (1978) 61–73.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. Shub and S. Smale, “Computational complexity: On the geometry of polynomials and a theory of cost, Part I”, preprint (1982).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    S. Smale, “A convergent process of price adjustment and global Newton methods”, Journal of Mathematical Economics 3 (1976) 107–120.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    S. Smale, “The fundamental theorem of algebra and complexity theory”, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 4 (1981) 1–36.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    J. Traub and H. Woźniakowski, “Complexity of linear programming”, Operations Research Letters 1 (1982) 59–62.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    P. Wolfe, “The ellipsoid algorithm” (Letter to the Editor), Science 208 (1980) 240–242.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Mathematical Programming Society, Inc. 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steve Smale
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations