Mathematical Programming Computation

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 69–95 | Cite as

Testing cut generators for mixed-integer linear programming

  • François MargotEmail author
Full Length Paper


In this paper, a methodology for testing the accuracy and strength of cut generators for mixed-integer linear programming is presented. The procedure amounts to random diving towards a feasible solution, recording several kinds of failures. This allows for a ranking of the accuracy of the generators. Then, for generators deemed to have similar accuracy, statistical tests are performed to compare their relative strength. An application on eight Gomory cut generators and six Reduce-and-Split cut generators is given. The problem of constructing benchmark instances for which feasible solutions can be obtained is also addressed.

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

90C11 Mixed-integer programming 90C57 Polyhedral combinatorics branch-and-bound branch-and-cut 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Achterberg T., Koch T., Martin A.: MIPLIB 2003. Oper. Res. Lett. 34, 361–372 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amini M.M., Barr R.S.: Network reoptimization algorithms: A statistical design comparison. ORSA J. Comput. 5, 395–408 (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amini M.M., Racer M.: A rigorous computational comparison of alternative solution methods for the generalized assignment problem. Manage. Sci. 40, 868–890 (1994)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson K., Cornuéjols G., Li Y.: Reduce-and-split cuts: Improving the performance of mixed integer Gomory cuts. Manage. Sci. 51, 1720–1732 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Applegate D.L., Cook W., Dash S., Espinoza D.G.: Exact solutions to linear programming problems. Oper. Res. Lett. 35, 693–699 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balas E. et al.: Disjunctive programming: Cutting planes from logical conditions. In: Mangasarian, O.L. (eds) Nonlinear Programming, pp. 279–312. Academic Press, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bixby, R.E., Ceria, S., McZeal, C.M., Savelsbergh, M.W.P.: MIPLIB 3.0,
  8. 8.
    Cohen P.R.: Empirical Methods for Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 2. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Cook, W., Dash, S., Fukasawa, R., Goycoolea, M.: Numerically Safe Gomory Mixed-Integer Cuts. Working paper (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Danna E., Rothberg E., Le Pape C.: Exploring relaxation induced neighborhoods to improve MIP solutions. Math. Program. 102, 71–90 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dhiflaoui, M., Funke, S., Kwappik, C., Mehlhorn, K., Seel, M., Schömer, E., Schulte, R., Weber, D.: Certifying and Repairing Solutions to Large LPs. How Good are LP-solvers? In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (Baltimore, MD, 2003), pp. 255–256. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fischetti M., Lodi A.: Local branching. Math. Program. Ser. B 98(1–3), 23–47 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gomory, R.: An Algorithm for the Mixed Integer Problem, Technical Report RM-2597. The RAND Corporation (1960)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoaglin D.C., Klema V.C., Peters S.C.: Exploratory data analysis in a study on the performance of nonlinear optimization routines. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 8, 145–162 (1982)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hooker J.N.: Needed: An empirical science of algorithms. Oper. Res. 42, 201–212 (1994)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hooker J.N.: Testing heuristics: We have it all wrong. J. Heuristics 1, 33–42 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ILOG CPLEX 10.1 User’s Manual (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jeroslow R.: Cutting plane theory: Disjunctive methods. Ann. Discrete Math. 1, 293–330 (1972)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koch T.: The final netlib results. Oper. Res. Lett. 32, 138–142 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin B.W., Rardin R.L.: Controlled experimental design for statistical comparison of integer programming algorithms. Manage. Sci. 25, 1258–1271 (1979)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marchand H., Martin A., Weismantel R., Wolsey L.: Cutting planes in integer and mixed integer programming, workshop on discrete optimization, DO’99 (Piscataway, NJ). Discrete Appl. Math. 123, 397–446 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Margot, F.: BAC: A BCP Based Branch-and-cut Example. IBM Research Report RC22799 (W0305-064) (2003), revised August (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Margot F.: Testing cut generators for MILP. Optima 77, 6–9 (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    McGeoch C.C.: Toward an experimental method for algorithm simulation. INFORMS J. Comput. 8, 1–15 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McGeoch C.C.: Experimental analysis of algorithms. Notices Am. Math. Assoc. 48, 304–311 (2001)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McGeoch C.C.: Experimental Analysis of Optimization Algorithms. Handbook of Applied Optimization, pp. 1044–1052. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McGeoch, C.C.: Experimental Analysis of Algorithms. Handbook of Global Optimization. pp. 489–513. Vol. 2, Kluwer, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McGeoch C.C., Sanders P., Fleischer R., Cohen P.R., Precup D. et al.: Using finite experiments to study asymptotic performances. In: Fleischer, R. (eds) Experimental Algorithmics: From Algorithm Design to Robust and Efficient Software. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 93–126. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mittelmann, H.:, no longer available
  32. 32.
    Nance R.E., Moose R.L., Foutz R.V.: A statistical technique for comparing heuristics: An example from capacity assignment strategies in computer network design. Commun. ACM 30, 430–442 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nemhauser G.L., Wolsey L.A.: A recursive procedure to generate all cuts for 0–1 mixed integer programs. Math. Program. 46, 379–390 (1990)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Neumaier A., Shscherbina O.: Safe bounds in linear and mixed-integer linear programming. Math. Program. 99, 283–296 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    R statistical software,
  36. 36.
    Sheskin D.J.: Parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Vol. 2547, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, London (2000)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stuart G.W.: Matrix algorithms, vol. I: Basic decompositions. SIAM, Philadelphia (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer and Mathematical Programming Society 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tepper School of BusinessCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations