Advertisement

Journal of Combinatorial Optimization

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 672–695 | Cite as

Solving constrained optimization problems by solution-based decomposition search

  • Amine Lamine
  • Mahdi KhemakhemEmail author
  • Brahim Hnich
  • Habib Chabchoub
Article
  • 383 Downloads

Abstract

Solving constrained optimization problems (COPs) is a challenging task. In this paper we present a new strategy for solving COPs called solve and decompose (or \( S \& D\) for short). The proposed strategy is a systematic iterative depth-first strategy that is based on problem decomposition. \( S \& D\) uses a feasible solution of the COP, found by any exact method, to further decompose the original problem into a bounded number of subproblems which are considerably smaller in size. It also uses the value of the feasible solution as a bound that we add to the created subproblems in order to strengthen the cost-based filtering. Furthermore, the feasible solution is exploited in order to create subproblems that have more promise in finding better solutions which are explored in a depth-first manner. The whole process is repeated until we reach a specified depth where we do not decompose the subproblems anymore but we solve them to optimality using any exact method like Branch and Bound. Our initial results on two benchmark problems show that \( S \& D\) may reach improvements of up to three orders of magnitude in terms of runtime when compared to Branch and Bound.

Keywords

Exact algorithm Decomposition search Constrained optimization problem 

References

  1. Frisch AM, Miguel I, Walsh T (2001) Modelling a steel mill slab design problem. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI-01 workshop on modelling and solving problems with constraints, pp 39–45Google Scholar
  2. Han B, Leblet J, Simon G (2010) Hard multidimensional multiple choice knapsack problems, an empirical study. Comput Oper Res 37(1):172–181MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Harvey WD, Ginsberg ML (1995) Limited discrepancy search. In: Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, vol 1. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, pp 607–613Google Scholar
  4. Jain V, Grossmann IE (2001) Algorithms for hybrid MILP/CP models for a class of optimization problems. INFORMS J Comput 13(4):258–276MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Kitching M, Bacchus F (2009) Exploiting decomposition on constraint problems with high tree-width. In: Proceedings of the 21st international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI 2009, Pasadena, CA, July 11–17, 2009, pp 525–531Google Scholar
  6. Lawler EL, Wood DE (1966) Branch-and-bound methods: a survey. Oper Res 14(4):699–719MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Milano M, von Hoeve WJ (2002) Reduced cost-based ranking for generating promising subproblems. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming, CP ’02. Springer, London, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  8. Moser M, Jokanovic DP, Shiratori N (1997) An algorithm for the multidimensional multiple-choice knapsack problem. IEICE Trans Fundam Electron Commun Comput Sci 80(3):582–589Google Scholar
  9. Régin J, Rezgui M, Malapert A (2014) Improvement of the embarrassingly parallel search for data centers. In: Principles and practice of constraint programming—20th international conference, CP 2014, Lyon, France, September 8–12, 2014, proceedings, pp 622–635Google Scholar
  10. Rossi F, von Beek P, Walsh T (2006) Handbook of constraint programming (foundations of artificial intelligence). Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Tsang E (1993) Foundations of constraint satisfaction. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. von Hoeve WJ, Milano M (2004) Decomposition based search—a theoretical and experimental evaluation. CoRR cs.AI/0407040Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amine Lamine
    • 1
  • Mahdi Khemakhem
    • 2
    Email author
  • Brahim Hnich
    • 3
  • Habib Chabchoub
    • 2
  1. 1.IReSCoMathUniversity of GabèsGabèsTunisia
  2. 2.University of SfaxSfaxTunisia
  3. 3.Computer Science Department, College of Computers and Information TechnologyTaif UniversityTaifKingdom of Saudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations