Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interactions between nonlinear programming and modeling systems

  • Published:
Mathematical Programming Submit manuscript

Abstract

Modeling systems are very important for bringing mathematical programming software to nonexpert users, but few nonlinear programming algorithms are today linked to a modeling system. The paper discussed the advantages of linking modeling systems with nonlinear programming. Traditional algorithms can be linked using black-box function and derivatives evaluation routines for local optimization. Methods for generating this information are discussed. More sophisticated algorithms can get access to almost any type of information: interval evaluations and constraint restructuring for detailed preprocessing, second order information for sequential quadratic programming and interior point methods, and monotonicity and convex relaxations for global optimization. Some of the sophisticated information is available today; the rest can be generated on demand.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. E.D. Andersen and K.D. Andersen, Presolving in linear programming,Mathematical Programming 71 (1995) 221–245.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. E.D. Andersen and Y. Ye, A computational study of the homogeneous algorithm for large-scale convex optimization, Tech. Rept. no. 3/1996, Dept. of Management, Odense University, Denmark, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M. Berz, C. Bischof, C. Corliss and A. Griewank,Computational Differentiation, Techniques, Applications and Tools (SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1996).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. L. de Bever, ed.,TSP at University of Wisconsin (Manual from the Computing Center, University of Wisconsin, 1977).

  5. C.H. Bischof, A. Carle, P.M. Khademi, A. Mauer and P. Hovland, The ADAFOR 2.0 user’s guide, Tech. Memorandum ANL/MCS-TM-192, Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 1994.

  6. J. Bisschop and A. Meeraus, On the development of a general algebraic modeling system in a strategic planning environment,Mathematical Programming Study 20 (1982) 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. Bisschop and R. Entriken,AIMMS — The Modeling System (Paragon Decision Technology, Haarlem, The Netherlands, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  8. A.L. Brearley, G. Mitra and H.P. Williams, Analysis of Mathematical programming problems prior to applying the Simplex method,Mathematical Programming 8 (1975) 54–83.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. A. Brooke, D. Kendrick and A. Meeraus,GAMS — A User’s Guide (The Scientific Press, Redwood City, CA 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  10. A. Brooke, A. Drud and A. Meeraus, High level modeling systems and nonlinear programming, in:, P.T. Boggs, R.H. Byrd and R.B. Schnabel, eds.,Numerical Optimization 1984 (SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  11. J.W. Chinneck and E.W. Dravnieks, Locating minimal infeasible constraint sets in linear programs,ORSA Journal on Computing 3 (1991) 157–168.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. A.R. Conn, N.I.M. Gould and P.L. Toint,LANCELOT, a Fortran package for large-scale nonlinear optimization (Release A), Computational Mathematics, Vol. 17 (Springer, Berlin, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  13. S.P. Dirkse and M.C. Ferris, The PATH solver: A non-monotone stabilization scheme for mixed complementarity problems,Optimization Methods and Software 5 (1995) 123–156.

    Google Scholar 

  14. A. Drud, Interfacing modeling systems and solution algorithms,Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 5 (1983) 131–149.

    Google Scholar 

  15. A.S. Drud, CONOPT — A large scale GRG code,ORSA Journal on Computing 6 (1994) 207–216.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. A.S. Drud,CONOPT — A System for Large Scale Nonlinear Optimization, REFERENCE MANUAL for CONOPT Subroutine Library (ARKI Consulting and Development A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  17. M.A. Duran and I.E. Grossmann, An outer-approximation algorithm for a class of mixed-integer nonlinear programs,Mathematical Programming 36 (1986) 307–339.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. R. Fourer, D.M. Gay and B.W. Kernighan,AMPL — A Modeling Language for Mathematical Programming (The Scientific Press, Redwood City, CA, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  19. R. Fourer, Modeling languages versus matrix generators for linear programming,ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 9 (1983) 143–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. GAMS — The Solver Manuals (GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, DC, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  21. D.M. Gay, More AD of Nonlinear AMPL Models: Computing Hessian Information and Exploiting Partial Separability, in: M. Berz, C. Bischof, C. Corliss and A. Griewank,Computational Differentiation, Techniquès, Applications and Tools (SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  22. P.E. Gill, W. Murray, M.A. Saunders and M.H. Wright, User’s guide for NPSOL (Version 4.0): A Fortran package for nonlinear programming, Tech. Rept. SOL 86-2, Dept. of Operations Research, Stanford University, 1986.

  23. A. Griewank and G.F. Corliss, eds.,Automatic Differentiation of Algorithms: Theory, Implementation, and Application (SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  24. A. Griewank, D. Juedes and J. Utke, Algorithm 755: ADOL-C: A package for the automatic differentiation of algorithms written in C/C++,ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 22 (1996) 131–167.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. L.S. Lasdon, A.D. Waren, A. Jain and M. Ratner, Design and testing of a generalized gradient code for nonlinear programming,ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 4 (1978) 34–50.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. LINGO — The Modeling Language and Optimizer (LINDO Systems Inc., Chicago, IL, 1995).

  27. I.J. Lustig, R.E. Marsten and D.F. Shanno, Interior point methods for linear programming: Computational state of the art,ORSA Journal on Computing 6 (1994) 1–14.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. G.P. McCormick, Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: Part I — Convex underestimating problems,Mathematical Programming 10 (1976) 147–175.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. R. Moore,Interval Analysis (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1966).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. B.A. Murtagh and M.A. Saunders, A projected Lagrangian algorithm and its implementation for sparse nonlinear constraints,Mathematical Programming Study 16 (1982) 84–117.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. P.C. Piela, T.G. Epperly, K.M. Westerberg and A.W. Westerberg, ASCEND: An object-oriented computer environment for modeling and analysis: The modeling language,Computers and Chemical Engineering 15 (1991) 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. H.S. Ryoo and N.V. Sahinidis, A branch-and-reduce approach to global optimization,Journal of Global Optimization 8 (1996) 107–139.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. N.V. Sahinidis, BARON: A general purpose global optimization software package,Journal of Global Optimization 8 (1996) 201–205.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. J. Viswanathan and I.E. Grossman, A combined penalty function and outer approximation method for MINLP optimization,Computers and Chemical Engineering 14 (1990) 769–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ARKI Consulting and Development A/S, Bagsvaerdvej 246A, DK-2880, Bagsvaerd, Denmark

    Arne Stolbjerg Drud

Authors
  1. Arne Stolbjerg Drud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Drud, A.S. Interactions between nonlinear programming and modeling systems. Mathematical Programming 79, 99–123 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02614313

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02614313

Keywords

Search

Navigation