Mathematical Programming

, Volume 110, Issue 1, pp 21–56 | Cite as

Smoothed analysis of integer programming

  • Heiko Röglin
  • Berthold Vöcking


We present a probabilistic analysis of integer linear programs (ILPs). More specifically, we study ILPs in a so-called smoothed analysis in which it is assumed that first an adversary specifies the coefficients of an integer program and then (some of) these coefficients are randomly perturbed, e.g., using a Gaussian or a uniform distribution with small standard deviation. In this probabilistic model, we investigate structural properties of ILPs and apply them to the analysis of algorithms. For example, we prove a lower bound on the slack of the optimal solution. As a result of our analysis, we are able to specify the smoothed complexity of classes of ILPs in terms of their worst case complexity. This way, we obtain polynomial smoothed complexity for packing and covering problems with any fixed number of constraints. Previous results of this kind were restricted to the case of binary programs.


Probabilistic analysis Integer programming 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

68Q25 90C10 90C27 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ackermann, H., Newman, A., Röglin, H., Vöcking, B.: Decision making based on approximate and smoothed pareto curves. In: Proceedings of the 16th annual international symposium on algorithms and computation (ISAAC), pp. 675–684 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banderier, C., Beier, R., Mehlhorn, K.: Smoothed analysis of three combinatorial problems. In: Proceedings 28th international symposium on mathematical foundations of computer science (MFCS), vol. 97, pp. 198–207 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beier, R., Vöcking, B.: Probabilistic analysis of knapsack core algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 15th annual symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA), pp. 468–477 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beier R. and Vöcking B. (2004). Random knapsack in expected polynomial time. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 69(3): 306–329 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beier R. and Vöcking B. (2006). An experimental study of random knapsack problems. Algorithmica 45(1): 121–136 CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beier R. and Vöcking B. (2006). Typical properties of winners and losers in discrete optimization. SIAM J. Comput. 35(4): 855–881 zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borgwardt K.H. and Brzank J. (1994). Average saving effects in enumerative methods for solving knapsack problems. J. Complexity 10: 129–141 zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crescenzi, P., Kann, V., Halldorsson, M., Karpinski, M., Woeginger, G.: A compendium of np optimization problems. Http:// Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dyer M.E. and Frieze A.M. (1989). Probabilistic analysis of the multidimensional knapsack problem. Math. Oper. Res. 14(1): 162–176 zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garey M. and Johnson D. (1979). Computers and Intractability. Freeman, W. H. Sanfroncisco zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldberg, A., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A.: On finding the exact solution to a zero-one knapsack problem. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 359–368 (1984)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lueker G.S. (1998). Average-case analysis of off-line and on-line knapsack problems. J. Algorithms 29(2): 277–305 zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manthey, B., Reischuk, R.: Smoothed analysis of binary search trees. In: Proceedings of the 16th annual international symposium on algorithms and computation (ISAAC), pp. 483–492 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spielman D.A. and Teng S.H. (2004). Smoothed analysis of algorithms: why the simplex algorithm usually takes polynomial time. J. ACM 51(3): 385–463 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceRWTH AachenAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations