Computational Management Science

, Volume 15, Issue 3–4, pp 455–477 | Cite as

New solution approaches for the maximum-reliability stochastic network interdiction problem

  • Eli TowleEmail author
  • James Luedtke
Original Paper


We investigate methods to solve the maximum-reliability stochastic network interdiction problem (SNIP). In this problem, a defender interdicts arcs on a directed graph to minimize an attacker’s probability of undetected traversal through the network. The attacker’s origin and destination are unknown to the defender and assumed to be random. SNIP can be formulated as a stochastic mixed-integer program via a deterministic equivalent formulation (DEF). As the size of this DEF makes it impractical for solving large instances, current approaches to solving SNIP rely on modifications of Benders decomposition. We present two new approaches to solve SNIP. First, we introduce a new DEF that is significantly more compact than the standard DEF. Second, we propose a new path-based formulation of SNIP. The number of constraints required to define this formulation grows exponentially with the size of the network, but the model can be solved via delayed constraint generation. We present valid inequalities for this path-based formulation which are dependent on the structure of the interdicted arc probabilities. We propose a branch-and-cut (BC) algorithm to solve this new SNIP formulation. Computational results demonstrate that directly solving the more compact SNIP formulation and this BC algorithm both provide an improvement over a state-of-the-art implementation of Benders decomposition for this problem.


Network interdiction Stochastic programming Integer programming Valid inequalities 



This work was supported by National Science Foundation Grants CMMI-1130266 and SES-1422768.


  1. Ahmed S, Atamtürk A (2011) Maximizing a class of submodular utility functions. Math Program 128(1–2):149–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahuja RK, Magnanti TL, Orlin JB (1993) Network flows: theory, algorithms, and applications. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Khayyal FA, Falk JE (1983) Jointly constrained biconvex programming. Math Oper Res 8(2):273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodur M, Dash S, Günlük O, Luedtke J (2016) Strengthened benders cuts for stochastic integer programs with continuous recourse. INFORMS J Comput 29(1):77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown G, Carlyle M, Salmerón J, Wood K (2006) Defending critical infrastructure. Interfaces 36(6):530–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown GG, Carlyle WM, Harney RC, Skroch EM, Wood RK (2009) Interdicting a nuclear-weapons project. Oper Res 57(4):866–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cormican KJ, Morton DP, Wood RK (1998) Stochastic network interdiction. Oper Res 46(2):184–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dimitrov NB, Michalopoulos DP, Morton DP, Nehme MV, Pan F, Popova E, Schneider EA, Thoreson GG (2011) Network deployment of radiation detectors with physics-based detection probability calculations. Ann Oper Res 187(1):207–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fortet R (1960) Applications de l’algèbre de Boole en recherche opérationelle. Rev Fr d’Inform et de Rech Opér 4(14):17–25Google Scholar
  10. Fulkerson DR, Harding GC (1977) Maximizing the minimum source-sink path subject to a budget constraint. Math Program 13(1):116–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Golden B (1978) A problem in network interdiction. Nav Res Logist Q 25(4):711–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hemmecke R, Schultz R, Woodruff DL (2003) Interdicting stochastic networks with binary interdiction effort. In: Woodruff DL (ed) Network interdiction and stochastic integer programming. Springer, Berlin, pp 69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Janjarassuk U, Linderoth J (2008) Reformulation and sampling to solve a stochastic network interdiction problem. Networks 52(3):120–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lubin M, Dunning I (2015) Computing in operations research using Julia. INFORMS J Comput 27(2):238–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McCormick GP (1976) Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: part I—convex underestimating problems. Math Program 10(1):147–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morton DP (2011) Stochastic network interdiction. In: Cochran JJ (ed) Wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  17. Morton DP, Pan F, Saeger KJ (2007) Models for nuclear smuggling interdiction. IIE Trans 39(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nemhauser GL, Wolsey LA (1988) Integer and combinatorial optimization. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Nemhauser GL, Wolsey LA, Fisher ML (1978) An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions—I. Math Program 14(1):265–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pan F, Morton DP (2008) Minimizing a stochastic maximum-reliability path. Networks 52(3):111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pan F, Charlton WS, Morton DP (2003) A stochastic program for interdicting smuggled nuclear material. In: Woodruff DL (ed) Network interdiction and stochastic integer programming. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  22. Schrivjer A (2003) Combinatorial optimization: polyhedra and efficiency. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. Wollmer R (1964) Removing arcs from a network. Oper Res 12(6):934–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wood RK (1993) Deterministic network interdiction. Math Comput Model 17(2):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yu J, Ahmed S (2017) Maximizing a class of submodular utility functions with constraints. Math Program 162(1–2):145–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin–MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations