Mathematical Programming

, Volume 162, Issue 1–2, pp 523–535 | Cite as

Bounding the gap between the McCormick relaxation and the convex hull for bilinear functions

  • Natashia Boland
  • Santanu S. Dey
  • Thomas Kalinowski
  • Marco Molinaro
  • Fabian Rigterink
Short Communication

Abstract

We investigate how well the graph of a bilinear function \(b{:}\;[0,1]^n\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) can be approximated by its McCormick relaxation. In particular, we are interested in the smallest number c such that the difference between the concave upper bounding and convex lower bounding functions obtained from the McCormick relaxation approach is at most c times the difference between the concave and convex envelopes. Answering a question of Luedtke, Namazifar and Linderoth, we show that this factor c cannot be bounded by a constant independent of n. More precisely, we show that for a random bilinear function b we have asymptotically almost surely \(c\geqslant \sqrt{n}/4\). On the other hand, we prove that \(c\leqslant 600\sqrt{n}\), which improves the linear upper bound proved by Luedtke, Namazifar and Linderoth. In addition, we present an alternative proof for a result of Misener, Smadbeck and Floudas characterizing functions b for which the McCormick relaxation is equal to the convex hull.

Keywords

Global optimization Bilinear function Convex hull 

Mathematics Subject Classification

90C26 90C20 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the ARC Linkage Grant no. LP110200524, Hunter Valley Coal Chain Coordinator (hvccc.com.au) and Triple Point Technology (tpt.com).

We thank Jeff Linderoth and James Luedtke for fruitful discussions of the topics presented in this paper, both during a visit of Jeff Linderoth to Newcastle, Australia, and at the 22nd ISMP in Pittsburgh. We also thank Aleksandar Nikolov for pointing us to the “old arguments by Spencer and Erdős” used in the proof of Theorem 3 (see [14]).

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Khayyal, F.A., Falk, J.E.: Jointly constrained biconvex programming. Math. Oper. Res. 8(2), 273–286 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belotti, P., Lee, J., Liberti, L., Margot, F., Wächter, A.: Branching and bounds tightening techniques for non-convex MINLP. Optim. Methods Softw. 24(4–5), 597–634 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bollobás, B., Scott, A.D.: Discrepancy in graphs and hypergraphs. In: Györy, E., Katona, G.O.H., Lovász, L. (eds.) Bolyai Society Mathematical Studies, pp. 33–56. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chazelle, B.: The Discrepancy Method. Randomness and Complexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crama, Y.: Concave extensions for nonlinear \(0-1\) maximization problems. Math. Program. 61(1–3), 53–60 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Erdős, P., Spencer, J.: Imbalances in k-colorations. Networks 1(4), 379–385 (1971)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erdős, P., Goldberg, M., Pach, J., Spencer, J.: Cutting a graph into two dissimilar halves. J. Graph Theory 12(1), 121–131 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haagerup, U.: The best constants in the Khintchine inequality. Stud. Math. 70(3), 231–283 (1981)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horst, R., Tuy, H.: Global Optimization: Deterministic Approaches, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin (2013)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luedtke, J., Namazifar, M., Linderoth, J.: Some results on the strength of relaxations of multilinear functions. Math. Program. 136(2), 325–351 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCormick, G.P.: Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: Part I—Convex underestimating problems. Math. Program. 10(1), 147–175 (1976)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Misener, R., Smadbeck, J.B., Floudas, C.A.: Dynamically generated cutting planes for mixed-integer quadratically constrained quadratic programs and their incorporation into GloMIQO 2. Optim. Methods Softw. 30(1), 215–249 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nazarov, F.L., Podkorytov, A.N.: Ball, Haagerup, and distribution functions. In: Havin, V.P., Nikolski, N.K. (eds.) Complex Analysis, Operators, and Related Topics, pp. 247–267. Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nikolov, A.: Combinatorial discrepancy of the system of all cuts. Theoretical Computer Science Stack Exchange. http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/32072cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/32072 (version: July 26, 2015)
  15. 15.
    Rikun, A.D.: A convex envelope formula for multilinear functions. J. Glob. Optim. 10(4), 425–437 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sahinidis, N.V.: BARON: a general purpose global optimization software package. J. Glob. Optim. 8(2), 201–205 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sherali, H.D.: Convex envelopes of multilinear functions over a unit hypercube and over special discrete sets. Acta Math. Vietnam. 22(1), 245–270 (1997)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith, E., Pantelides, C.: A symbolic reformulation/spatial branch-and-bound algorithm for the global optimisation of nonconvex MINLPs. Comput. Chem. Eng. 23(4–5), 457–478 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tawarmalani, M., Richard, J.-P., Xiong, C.: Explicit convex and concave envelopes through polyhedral subdivisions. Math. Program. 138, 531–577 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and Mathematical Optimization Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia
  3. 3.PUC-RioRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations