Central European Journal of Operations Research

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 601–614 | Cite as

Interval linear programming under transformations: optimal solutions and optimal value range

  • Elif GarajováEmail author
  • Milan Hladík
  • Miroslav Rada
Original Paper


Interval linear programming provides a tool for solving real-world optimization problems under interval-valued uncertainty. Instead of approximating or estimating crisp input data, the coefficients of an interval program may perturb independently within the given lower and upper bounds. However, contrarily to classical linear programming, an interval program cannot always be converted into a desired form without affecting its properties, due to the so-called dependency problem. In this paper, we discuss the common transformations used in linear programming, such as imposing non-negativity on free variables or splitting equations into inequalities, and their effects on interval programs. Specifically, we examine changes in the set of all optimal solutions, optimal values and the optimal value range. Since some of the considered properties do not holds in the general case, we also study a special class of interval programs, in which uncertainty only affects the objective function and the right-hand-side vector. For this class, we obtain stronger results.


Interval linear programming Optimal set Optimal value range Transformations 


  1. Allahdadi M, Nehi HM (2012) The optimal solution set of the interval linear programming problems. Optim Lett 7(8):1893–1911. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cerulli R, D’Ambrosio C, Gentili M (2017) Best and worst values of the optimal cost of the interval transportation problem. In: Sforza A, Sterle C (eds) Optimization and decision science: methodologies and applications: ODS, Sorrento, Italy, September 4–7, 2017, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 367–374.
  3. Chanas S, Dubois D, Zielinski P (2002) On the sure criticality of tasks in activity networks with imprecise durations. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 32(4):393–407. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng G, Huang G, Dong C (2015) Convex contractive interval linear programming for resources and environmental systems management. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 1–20.
  5. Fortin J, Zieliński P, Dubois D, Fargier H (2010) Criticality analysis of activity networks under interval uncertainty. J Scheduling 13(6):609–627. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grošelj P, Stirn LZ (2017) Consensus model for group decision problems with interval weights. In: Zadnik Stirn L et al (ed) Proceedings of the 14th international symposium on operational research SOR’17, Bled, Slovenia, September 27–29, 2017, Slovenian Society Informatika, Ljubljana, Slovenia, pp 535–540Google Scholar
  7. Hladík M (2008) Tolerances in portfolio selection via interval linear programming. In: Rehorova P, Marsikova K, Hubinka Z (eds) Proceedings 26th int. conf. mathematical methods in economics MME08, Liberec, Czech Republic, Technical University Liberec, pp 185–191Google Scholar
  8. Hladík M (2009) Optimal value range in interval linear programming. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 8(3):283–294. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hladík M (2012) Interval linear programming: a survey. In: Mann ZA (ed) Linear programming—new frontiers in theory and applications. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 85–120 chap 2Google Scholar
  10. Hladík M (2017) Transformations of interval linear systems of equations and inequalities. Linear Multilinear Algebra 65(2):211–223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kumar P, Panda G, Gupta U (2016) An interval linear programming approach for portfolio selection model. Int J Oper Res 27(1–2):149–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lai KK, Wang SY, Xu JP, Zhu SS, Fang Y (2002) A class of linear interval programming problems and its application to portfolio selection. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 10(6):698–704. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li W (2015) A note on dependency between interval linear systems. Optim Lett 9(4):795–797. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mráz F (1998) Calculating the exact bounds of optimal values in LP with interval coefficients. Ann Oper Res 81:51–62. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Novotná J, Hladík M, Masařík T (2017) Duality gap in interval linear programming. In: Zadnik Stirn L et al (ed) Proceedings of the 14th international symposium on operational research SOR’17, Bled, Slovenia, September 27–29, 2017, Slovenian Society Informatika, Ljubljana, Slovenia, pp 501–506Google Scholar
  16. Oettli W, Prager W (1964) Compatibility of approximate solution of linear equations with given error bounds for coefficients and right-hand sides. Numer Math 6(1):405–409. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oliveira C, Antunes CH (2009) A multiobjective model for integrated sustainable planning under uncertainty. In: Grasserbauer M, Sakalauskas L, Zavadskas EK (eds) Proceedings of the EURO mini-conference—5th international Vilnius conference knowledge-based technologies and OR methodologies for strategic decisions of sustainable development (KORSD-2009), pp 137–142Google Scholar
  18. Rohn J (2006a) Interval linear programming. In: Linear optimization problems with inexact data. Springer US, pp 79–100.
  19. Rohn J (2006b) Solvability of systems of interval linear equations and inequalities. In: Linear optimization problems with inexact data, Springer US, pp 35–77.
  20. Safi M, Razmjoo A (2013) Solving fixed charge transportation problem with interval parameters. Appl Math Model 37(18–19):8341–8347. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wendell RE, Chen W (2010) Tolerance sensitivity analysis: thirty years later. Croatian Oper Res Rev 1(1):12–21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematics and PhysicsCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Financial Accounting and AuditingUniversity of Economics, PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations