Advertisement

Mathematical Programming

, Volume 130, Issue 2, pp 359–413 | Cite as

Convex relaxations of non-convex mixed integer quadratically constrained programs: projected formulations

  • Anureet SaxenaEmail author
  • Pierre Bonami
  • Jon Lee
Full Length Paper Series A

Abstract

A common way to produce a convex relaxation of a Mixed Integer Quadratically Constrained Program (MIQCP) is to lift the problem into a higher-dimensional space by introducing variables Y ij to represent each of the products x i x j of variables appearing in a quadratic form. One advantage of such extended relaxations is that they can be efficiently strengthened by using the (convex) SDP constraint \({Y - x x^T \succeq 0}\) and disjunctive programming. On the other hand, the main drawback of such an extended formulation is its huge size, even for problems for which the number of x i variables is moderate. In this paper, we study methods to build low-dimensional relaxations of MIQCP that capture the strength of the extended formulations. To do so, we use projection techniques pioneered in the context of the lift-and-project methodology. We show how the extended formulation can be algorithmically projected to the original space by solving linear programs. Furthermore, we extend the technique to project the SDP relaxation by solving SDPs. In the case of an MIQCP with a single quadratic constraint, we propose a subgradient-based heuristic to efficiently solve these SDPs. We also propose a new eigen-reformulation for MIQCP, and a cut generation technique to strengthen this reformulation using polarity. We present extensive computational results to illustrate the efficiency of the proposed techniques. Our computational results have two highlights. First, on the GLOBALLib instances, we are able to generate relaxations that are almost as strong as those proposed in our companion paper even though our computing times are about 100 times smaller, on average. Second, on box-QP instances, the strengthened relaxations generated by our code are almost as strong as the well-studied SDP+RLT relaxations and can be solved in less than 2 s, even for large instances with 100 variables; the SDP+RLT relaxations for the same set of instances can take up to a couple of hours to solve using a state-of-the-art SDP solver.

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

90C26 Nonconvex programming global optimization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abhishek, K., Leyffer, S., Linderoth, J.T.: Filmint: An outer-approximation-based solver for nonlinear mixed integer programs. Preprint ANL/MCS-P1374-0906, Argonne National Laboratory, Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne, IL (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balas E.: Disjunctive programming: properties of the convex hull of feasible points. Discret. Appl. Math. 89(1–3), 3–44 (1998)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balas E., Ceria S., Cornuéjols G.: A lift-and-project cutting plane algorithm for mixed 0–1 programs. Math. Program. 58, 295–324 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balas, E.: Projection and lifting in combinatorial optimization. In: Juenger, M., Naddef, D. (eds.) Computational Combinatorial Optimization: Optimal or Provably Near-Optimal Solutions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2241, pp. 26–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balas E., Saxena A.: Optimizing over the split closure. Math. Program. 113(2), 219–240 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belotti, P., Lee, J., Liberti, L., Margot, F., Wächter, A.: Branching and bounds tightening techniques for non-convex MINLP, IBM Research Report RC24620, 08/2008Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ben-Tal A., Nemirovski A.: On polyhedral approximations of the second-order cone. Math. Oper. Res. 26, 193–205 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonami P., Biegler L.T., Conn A.R., Cornuéjols G., Grossmann I.E., Laird C.D., Lee J., Lodi A., Margot F., Sawaya N., Wächter A.: An algorithmic framework for convex mixed-integer nonlinear programs. Discret. Optim. 5, 186–204 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burer S., Monteiro R.D.C.: A nonlinear programming algorithm for solving semidefinite programs via low-rank factorization. Math. Program. (series B) 95, 329–357 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Jones, C.N., Kerrigan, E.C., Maciejowski, J.M.: Equality set projection: a new algorithm for the projection of polytopes in halfspace representation. CUED Technical Report CUED/F-INFENG/TR.463Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim S., Kojima M.: Second order cone programming relaxation of nonconvex quadratic optimization problems. Optim. Methods Softw. 15, 201–204 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee S., Grossmann I.E.: A global optimization algorithm for nonconvex generalized disjunctive programming and applications to process systems. Comput. Chem. Eng. 25, 1675–1697 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matsui T.: NP-hardness of linear multiplicative programming and related problems. J. Glob. Optim. 9, 113–119 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCormick G.P.: Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: part I Convex underestimating problems. Math. Program. 10, 147–175 (1976)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nazareth J.L.: The homotopy principle and algorithms for linear programming. SIAM J. Optim. 1, 316–332 (1991)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rendl F., Rinaldi G., Wiegele A.: A branch and bound algorithm for Max-Cut based on combining semidefinite and polyhedral relaxations. In: Fischetti, M., Williamson, D.P. (eds) Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization (Cornell 2007). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4513, pp. 295–309. Springer, Berlin (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saxena A., Bonami P., Lee J.: Disjunctive cuts for non-convex mixed integer quadratically constrained problems. In: Lodi, A., Panconesi, A., Rinaldi, G. (eds) Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization (Bertinoro, 2008). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5035, pp. 17–33. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saxena, A., Bonami, P., Lee, J.: Convex relaxations of mixed integer quadratically constrained programs: extended formulations, IBM Research Report RC24621, 08/2008Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saxena, A., Goyal, V., Lejeune, M.: MIP Reformulations of the probabilistic set covering problem, To appear in Mathematical ProgrammingGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sen S.: Relaxations for probabilistically constrained programs with discrete random variables. Oper. Res. Lett. 11(2), 81–86 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sherali H.D., Adams W.P.: A Reformulation-Linearization Technique for Solving Discrete and Continuous Nonconvex Problems. Kluwer, Dordecht (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stubbs R., Mehrotra S.: A branch-and-cut method for 0–1 mixed convex programming. Math. Program. 86, 515–532 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vandenbussche D., Nemhauser G.L.: A polyhedral study of nonconvex quadratic programs with box constraints. Math. Program. 102(3), 531–556 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vandenbussche D., Nemhauser G.L.: A branch-and-cut algorithm for nonconvex quadratic programs with box constraints. Math. Program. 102(3), 559–575 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vielma J.P., Ahmed S., Nemhauser G.L.: A lifted linear programming branch-and-bound algorithm for mixed integer conic quadratic programs. Inf. J. Comput. 20, 438–450 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wächter A., Biegler L.T.: On the implementation of a primal-dual interior point filter line search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming. Math. Program. 106(1), 25–57 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yamashita M., Fujisawa K., Kojima M.: Implementation and evaluation of SDPA 6.0 (SemiDefinite Programming Algorithm 6.0). Optim. Methods Softw. 18, 491–505 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer and Mathematical Programming Society 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Axioma IncAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Informatique Fondamentale de MarseilleCNRS-Marseille UniversitésMarseilleFrance
  3. 3.IBM T.J. Watson Research CenterYorktown HeightsUSA

Personalised recommendations