Abstract
We investigate the generalized red refinement for ndimensional simplices that dates back to Freudenthal (Ann Math 43(3):580–582, 1942) in a mixedinteger nonlinear program (\({\textsc {MINLP}}\)) context. We show that the red refinement meets sufficient convergence conditions for a known \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) solution framework that is essentially based on solving piecewise linear relaxations. In addition, we prove that applying this refinement procedure results in piecewise linear relaxations that can be modeled by the wellknown incremental method established by Markowitz and Manne (Econometrica 25(1):84–110, 1957). Finally, numerical results from the field of alternating current optimal power flow demonstrate the applicability of the red refinement in such \({\textsc {MIP}}\)based \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) solution frameworks.
1 Introduction
Solving general \({\textsc {MINLP}\mathrm{s}}\) is to this day a very challenging task. The backbone of most approaches in this context is still branchandbound. In the last two decades, however, various methods have been proposed that tackle nonconvex \({\textsc {MINLP}\mathrm{s}}\) by piecewise convex relaxations without direct branching of the continuous variables, see for example [7, 8, 12, 14, 16]. Although these approaches are sometimes rather different, they all need to address the following two problems: the construction of reasonable relaxations of the nonlinear functions and the incorporation of these relaxations into a mixedinteger linear program (\({\textsc {MIP}}\)) or convex nonlinear program (\({\textsc {NLP}}\)).
One way to obtain such relaxations is to compute an optimal linearization of a nonlinear function with respect to the number of breakpoints and an a priori given accuracy as in [17, 18]. Complementary, optimal polynomial relaxations of onedimensional functions are constructed in [16]. For up to threedimensional functions, explicit approximation techniques for general nonlinear functions are proposed in [15]. The main drawback of all these methods, however, is that the number of simplices in the approximation grows exponentially with the dimension of the function. We refer to the approach from [19] that avoids this problem in that the piecewise linear approximation is not required to interpolate the original function at the vertices of the triangulation.
There are many different ways to model piecewise linear functions as an \({\textsc {MIP}}\). A detailed overview of the various models is presented by [20]. Among the most important ones is the incremental method of Markowitz and Manne, see [13], which is originally developed for onedimensional functions. A generalization to higher dimensions is described in [6, 11, 21]. Supplementary to this, an extension to relaxations is given in [7].
In this paper, we consider the \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) solution method proposed in [3, 6] and further developed in [2] that tackles an \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) by solving a series of \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxations that are based on piecewise linear functions and completely contain the graph of the function. The functions are defined on simplices, which in turn are defined by several vertices. The authors develop an iterative algorithm to find a global optimal solution of the \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) by solving these \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxations, which are adaptively refined. They present rather general convergence conditions for \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) solution algorithms that rely on the adaptive refinement of piecewise linear relaxations. They show that the classical longestedge bisection fulfills these conditions and therefore is suitable for such a solution framework. In addition, they prove that triangulations that are constructed by successively applying the longestedge bisection lead to piecewise linear relaxations that can always be modeled by the already mentioned generalization of the incremental method.
We extend this result by another refinement strategy for ndimensional simplices: the generalized red refinement introduced by Freudenthal in [5]. This procedure is to some extent an ndimensional generalization of the wellknown redgreen refinement, which is used for twodimensional simplices. We show that the red refinement meets the convergence conditions from [3]. Moreover, we prove that the generalized incremental method is suitable to model piecewise linear relaxations that are obtained by iteratively applying the red refinement. Finally, numerical results from the field of alternating current optimal power flow demonstrate the applicability of the red refinement in an \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) solution framework as presented in [3]. More precisely, we show that this refinement strategy yields tighter dual bounds for the \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) problems.
This article is structured as follows. We introduce all necessary definitions and theorems of previous works in Sect. 2. Section 3 shows that the red refinement fulfills the convergence conditions from [3]. In Sect. 3, we prove that adaptively red refined piecewise linear relaxations can be modeled by the generalized incremental method. Section 4 presents some numerical results that illustrate the practicability of the red refinement procedure. We conclude this work in Sect. 5.
2 Preliminaries
The aim of this article is to prove that the generalized red refinement procedure is suitable for an \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) solution framework such as in [3].
We consider an \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) problem as an optimization problem of the following type:
where k, q, \(p \in \mathbb {N}\). First, \(A x \le b\) represents the linear constraints, while the nonlinear constraints are described by continuous nonlinear realvalued functions \(f_i :\mathbb {R}^{q+p} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) for \(i = 1, \ldots , k\). The variables x are bounded from below and above by \(l, u \in \mathbb {R}^{q+p}\). Moreover, we denote by \(\mathcal {F}\) the set of all nonlinear functions \(f_i(x)\). Let \(D_f \subset \mathbb {R}^{q+p}\) be the domain of a nonlinear function \(f \in \mathcal {F}\). Since each variable in (P) has lower and upper bounds, the domain \(D_f\) is a compact set. We consider it to be a ddimensional box with its edges parallel to the coordinate axes, while \(d \le q+p\). Equality constraints, i.e., constraints of type \(f_i(x) = 0\), are implicitly contained in (P) by simply adding the constraints \(f_i(x) \le 0\) and \( f_i(x) \le 0\). Please note that we are not restricted to a linear objective function \(c^\top x\), because we can include any nonlinear objective function \(f :{\mathbb {R}}^{q+p} \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) by substituting f(x) with a variable \(y \in {\mathbb {R}}\) and adding \(f(x) \le y\) as a constraint to the \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) problem. Due to \({{\,\mathrm{max\,}\,}}c^\top x =  {{\,\mathrm{min\,}\,}}c^\top x\), any maximization problem can be transformed to a minimization problem. Thus, (P) represents a general formal description of \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) problems.
The main idea of the \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) solution approach from [3] is to use piecewise linear functions to construct \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxations of the underlying \({\textsc {MINLP}}\). An iterative algorithm is developed to find a global optimal solution by solving these relaxations, which are adaptively refined. With the domain \(D_f\) of \(f \in \mathcal {F}\), the refinement is performed on a simplicial triangulation \(\mathcal {T}\) of \(D_f\). A more formal description of this method is given in Algorithm 2.1.
In [3], the classical longestedge bisection is used for the refinement procedure in Line 19 of Algorithm 2.1. In this paper, we consider the generalized red refinement instead. Please note that the theoretical results are part of the author’s Ph.D. thesis [2].
In order to be equipped with all the necessary ingredients for the following proofs, we first introduce the most relevant definitions and theorems from [3]. First, with a \(\delta \)precise refinement procedure, Algorithm 2.1 is both correct and convergent:
Definition 2.1
The refinement procedure in Algorithm 2.1 is called \(\delta \)precise, if for an arbitrary sequence \((S^i) \in \mathcal {T}_i\) of simplices \(S^i\) that are refined by the refinement procedure with initial triangulation \(\mathcal {T}_0\) of \(D_f\) and given \(\delta > 0\), there exists an index \(N \in \mathbb {N}\), such that
holds, where \({{\,\mathrm{diam}\,}}(S^N) :=\sup _{x', x'' \in S^N} \{\Vert x'  x''\Vert \}\).
Proposition 2.2
(Theorem 3.6, [3]) If the refinement procedure in Algorithm 2.1 is \(\delta \)precise for every \(\delta > 0\), then Algorithm 2.1 is correct and terminates after a finite number of steps.
It is therefore sufficient to prove that the generalized red refinement is \(\delta \)precise in order to show that its combination with Algorithm 2.1 yields a correct and convergent algorithm.
Moreover, we must prove that piecewise linear relaxations that are obtained by iteratively applying the red refinement can be described by an \({\textsc {MIP}}\) model. In Algorithm 2.1, the piecewise linear relaxations are modeled by the generalized incremental method, see [6]. There are two main ideas of the generalized incremental model. At first, any point \(x^S\) inside a simplex S with its vertex set \(\mathcal {V}(S) = \{\bar{x}_0^S, \ldots , \bar{x}_d^S \}\) can be expressed either as a convex combination of its vertices or equivalently as
with \(\sum _{j=1}^d \delta _j^S \le 1\) and \(\delta _j^S \ge 0\) for \(j = 1, \ldots , d\).
The other main idea is that all simplices of a triangulation are ordered in such a way that the last vertex of any simplex is equal to the first vertex of the next one. In this way, we can construct a Hamiltonian path and model the piecewise linear approximation along this path. It is known that modeling piecewise linear functions by the generalized incremental method is possible if an ordering of the simplices with the following properties is available:

(O1)
The simplices in \(\mathcal {T}= \{S_1, \ldots , S_n\}\) are ordered such that \(\mathcal {V}(S_i) \cap \mathcal {V}(S_{i+1}) \not = \emptyset \) for \(i = 1, \ldots , n1\), and

(O2)
for each simplex \(S_i\) its vertices \(\bar{x}_0^{S_i}, \ldots , \bar{x}_d^{S_i}\) can be labeled such that \(\bar{x}_d^{S_i} = \bar{x}_0^{S_{i+1}}\) for \(i = 1, \ldots , n1\).
Hence, we only have to show that a red refined triangulation has properties (O1) and (O2) to utilize the generalized incremental method.
3 Convergence result
In this article, we consider Algorithm 3.1 that is proposed in [1, 5] as the refinement procedure in Algorithm 2.1. It is a generalization of the red refinement strategy, which originally was only developed for triangles. It is known that the generalized red refinement procedure always delivers a triangulation of a simplex (that has to be refined) by \(2^d\) subsimplices. Moreover, the triangulation is consistent, i.e., the intersection of any two subsimplices is either empty or a common lowerdimensional simplex with respect to the vertex sets. Consequently, a consistent triangulation does not allow for hanging nodes, i.e., nodes that are contained in the vertex set of a simplex S, but not in all vertex sets of the simplices that are adjacent to S. We again point out that the theoretical results in this and the subsequent section are part of the author’s Ph.D. thesis [2]. We first illustrate the refinement by Algorithm 3.1 using an example in dimension two.
Example 3.2
We consider a simplex \(S_l\) of some triangulation of a twodimensional nonlinear function with vertex set \(\mathcal {V}(S_l) = \{\bar{x}_0, \bar{x}_1, \bar{x}_2\}\) that has to be refined. Let the scalar \(\delta \) be sufficiently large such that a refinement is performed by Algorithm 3.1. Note that for \(k \le 1\) the condition \(\tau ^{1}(1)< \cdots < \tau ^{1}(k)\) is considered to be fulfilled. The same applies for the condition \(\tau ^{1}(k+1)< \cdots < \tau ^{1}(d)\) in case of \(k \ge d1\).
First, the symmetry group \({{\,\mathrm{Sym}\,}}_2\) has two permutations: the identity \(\tau _1 = {{\,\mathrm{id}\,}}\) and the permutation \(\tau _2 :\{1, 2\} \rightarrow \{2, 1\}\). The identity fulfills the condition in Line 9 for all \(0 \le k \le 2\).
Since \(\tau _2\) does not satisfy Line 9 for \(k=0\), we obtain the first corner subsimplex \(S_l^0\) for \(\tau _1\). The vertices of \(S_l^0\) are
see Fig. 1 for an illustration.
For \(k=1\) both permutations \(\tau _1\) and \(\tau _2\) comply with Line 9. Equivalent to \(k=0\), with \(\tau _1\) we obtain the simplex \(S_l^1\) as in (3), while now \(v_0 = \bar{x}_0 + \frac{1}{2} (\bar{x}_1  \bar{x}_0)\). We thus obtain the corner subsimplex \(S_l^1\) simply by translating the corner subsimplex \(S_l^0\) by the vector \(\frac{1}{2} (\bar{x}_1  \bar{x}_0)\). For \(\tau _2\), we compute the vertices of the simplex \(S_l^2\) as
Finally, for \(k=1\) again only the identity \(\tau _1\) fulfills the condition in Line 9. We obtain the simplex \(S_l^3\) as in (3) with \(v_0 = \bar{x}_0 + \frac{1}{2} (\bar{x}_2  \bar{x}_0)\). The corner subsimplex \(S_l^3\) again corresponds to a translation of \(S_l^0\) by the vector \(\frac{1}{2} (\bar{x}_2  \bar{x}_0)\).
We now prove the \(\delta \)preciseness of the refinement procedure and show how to model a refined triangulation by the generalized incremental method afterward. Let \(\widetilde{\mathcal {T}}_k\) be the refined triangulation of an initial triangulation \(\mathcal {T}_0\) of \(D_f\) obtained by applying Algorithm 3.1 such that in every iteration \(i \le k\) all simplices of \(\widetilde{\mathcal {T}}_{i1}\) are refined.
Lemma 3.3
Let \(S \in {\mathbb {R}}^d\) be a simplex of \(\mathcal {T}_{0}\) and e the longest edge of S. Then, the longest edge of any simplex of \(\widetilde{\mathcal {T}}_{l}\) contained in (the set) S is bounded by \(\frac{1}{2^l} \Vert e \Vert \) with \(l \in {\mathbb {N}}\).
Proof
The lemma follows directly from Line 11 of Algorithm 3.1, since
are the lengths of the edges of the subsimplices that are constructed during the first refinement step. Applying this recursively finishes the proof. \(\square \)
Lemma 3.4
Let \(\delta > 0\), then there is an \(\tilde{N} \in \mathbb {N}\), such that \(\widetilde{\mathcal {T}}_{\tilde{N}}\) is a refinement of every triangulation obtained by applying Algorithm 3.1 to \(\mathcal {T}_0\) with \(\delta \) as input parameter.
Proof
Let \(e_0\) be the longest edge of all simplices of \(\mathcal {T}_0\). With Lemma 3.3 and \(\tilde{N} :=\max \big \{0, \big \lceil \ln \big (\frac{\Vert e_0 \Vert }{\delta } \big ) / \ln (2) \big \rceil \big \}\), the proof works equivalently to the one of Theorem 3.4 from [3]: After at most \(\tilde{N}\) refinement steps the longest edge of any simplex of \(\widetilde{\mathcal {T}}_{\tilde{N}}\) is bounded by \(\delta \). Since Algorithm 3.1 only refines simplices with a longest edge larger than \(\delta \) and no simplex in \(\widetilde{\mathcal {T}}_{\tilde{N}}\) has an edge longer than \(\delta \), it follows by the pigeonhole principle that \(\widetilde{\mathcal {T}}_{\tilde{N}}\) is the finest refinement of \(\mathcal {T}_{0}\) that is achievable. \(\square \)
Theorem 3.5
Algorithm 3.1 as refinement procedure in Algorithm 2.1 is \(\delta \)precise for every \(\delta > 0\). With \(\tilde{N}\) as in Lemma 3.4, the number of refinement steps N as in Definition 2.1 is bounded from above by
where m is the number of simplices contained in \(\mathcal {T}_0\).
Proof
We count every single simplex that has to be refined to achieve \(\widetilde{\mathcal {T}}_{\tilde{N}}\) from Lemma 3.4 and obtain
refinements in total. The rest of the proof follows by the pigeonhole principle as in the proof of Theorem 3.5 from [3]: Every sequence \((S^i) \in \mathcal {T}_i\) of simplices has an element \(S^k\) with index \(k \le m(2^{\tilde{N} d}1)+1\), such that \(S^k \in \widetilde{\mathcal {T}}_{\tilde{N}}\), since \(\widetilde{\mathcal {T}}_{\tilde{N}}\) is a refinement of every triangulation obtained by Algorithm 3.1 with parameter \(\delta \). Therefore, simplex \(S^k\) has the \(\delta \)preciseness property (1), as no simplex in \(\widetilde{\mathcal {T}}_{\tilde{N}}\) has an edge longer than \(\delta \). \(\square \)
The next corollary follows directly from Proposition 2.2 and Theorem 3.5.
Corollary 3.6
Algorithm 2.1 together with Algorithm 3.1 as refinement procedure is correct and terminates after a finite number of steps.
4 Incremental method for red refined piecewise linear relaxations
We now show that a piecewise linear approximation that results from applying Algorithm 3.1 can also be modeled with the generalized incremental method. We first prove two lemmata that are used afterward to prove the main result of this section.
Lemma 4.1
Let \(\mathcal {S} = \{S^0, \ldots , S^{2^d1}\}\) be a refinement of a simplex S by Algorithm 3.1 with \(\mathcal {V}(S) = \{\bar{x}_0, \ldots , \bar{x}_d \}\). Then, each simplex of the subset of the corner subsimplices \(\mathcal {S}' = \{S^{i_0}, \ldots , S^{i_{d}}\}\) of \(\mathcal {S}\) contains a vertex of the simplex S, i.e., \(\bar{x}_j \in \mathcal {V}(S^{i_j})\) for all \(j = 0, \ldots , d\). Moreover, for each pair of simplices \(S^{i_j}, S^{i_k} \in \mathcal {S}'\) the midpoint \(m_{jk}\) of the edge with endpoints \(\bar{x}_j\) and \(\bar{x}_k\) is contained in both vertex sets of the simplices.
Proof
First, the identity \({{\,\mathrm{id}\,}}\in {{\,\mathrm{Sym}\,}}_d\) always fulfills the conditions from Line 9 of Algorithm 3.1. Let \(S^{i_j}\) be the simplex that is constructed using the starting vertex \(v_0 = \frac{1}{2} (\bar{x}_0 + \bar{x}_j)\) and \(\tau = {{\,\mathrm{id}\,}}\), where \(j = 0, \ldots , d\). Due to the telescoping sum in Line 11, it follows that
is contained in the vertex set of \(S^{i_j}\).
Furthermore, due to the telescoping sum in (5), we can rewrite Line 11 as
for \(\tau = {{\,\mathrm{id}\,}}\). Since \(m_{jk} = \frac{1}{2} (\bar{x}_{j} + \bar{x}_{k})\), we conclude that the vertices \(v_k\) and \(v_j\) that occur during the construction of \(S^{i_j}\) and \(S^{i_k}\), respectively, are equal to \(m_{jk}\). \(\square \)
Lemma 4.2
Let \(\mathcal {S}'' = \{S^0, \ldots , S^{2^d1(d+1)}\}\) be a refinement of a simplex S by Algorithm 3.1 without the \(d+1\) corner subsimplices of \(\mathcal {S}'\) as in Lemma 4.1. Then, the union of all simplices of \(\mathcal {S}''\) is a (convex) polytope and the triangulation of \(\mathcal {S}''\) has an ordering with the properties (O1) and (O2).
Proof
Alternatively to the vertex description, we can describe the simplex S by its halfspace representation
We now describe the set \(\mathcal {S}''\) by adding the inequalities that separate all corner subsimplices from the set S as in (6). For a vertex of S exactly d inequalities in (6) are tight. Due to Lemma 4.1, the vertex set of the corner subsimplex \(S^{i_j} \in \mathcal {S}'\) consists of the vertex \(\bar{x}_j\) and all midpoints \(m_{jk}\) with \(k = 0, \ldots , d\). Let \(a_j^\top x \le b_j\) be the inequality that is not tight for \(\bar{x}_j\). Naturally, it is tight for all other vertices of S and it follows that
Moreover, since the red refinement also delivers a triangulation of S, where all interiors of the subsimplices are disjunct, we can describe \(S^{i_j}\) by substituting \(a_j^\top x \le b_j\) with \(a_j^\top x \le \frac{1}{2} (b_j + a_j^\top \bar{x}_j)\) in (6). Therefore, by separating all corner subsimplices, we obtain the halfspace description
It follows that the union of all simplices of \(\mathcal {S}''\) is a convex polytope.
The consistency of the triangulation of S translates to the triangulation of \(\mathcal {S}''\), because only the corner subsimplices are omitted. It is shown by [6] that a triangulation with the property that for each nonempty subset \(\tilde{\mathcal {S}} \subsetneq \mathcal {T}\) of a triangulation \(\mathcal {T}\) there exist simplices \(S_1 \in \tilde{\mathcal {S}}\) and \(S_2 \in \mathcal {T}{\setminus } \tilde{\mathcal {S}}\) such that \(S_1, S_2\) have d common vertices, always yields a triangulation with the properties (O1) and (O2). Therefore, we only have to prove that the triangulation of \(\mathcal {S}''\) has this property. To this end, we consider a nonempty subset \(\tilde{\mathcal {S}}\) of \(\mathcal {S}''\). Each facet of a ddimensional simplex consists of d vertices of the simplex. Let \(\tilde{\mathcal {S}}_\text {F}\) be the set of all facets of the simplices of \(\tilde{\mathcal {S}}\), where the simplices are described by the convex hull of its vertices. Then, each facet in \(\tilde{\mathcal {S}}_\text {F}\) is either a facet of \(\mathcal {S}''\) (in the sense of convex hulls) or a common facet of two simplices of \(\tilde{\mathcal {S}}\). This is due to the consistency of the triangulation. Since \(\tilde{\mathcal {S}} \subsetneq \mathcal {S}''\), however, there must be a facet in \(\tilde{\mathcal {S}}_\text {F}\) that is a common facet of two simplices \(S_1, S_2\) such that \(S_1 \in \tilde{\mathcal {S}}\) and \(S_2 \in \mathcal {S}'' {\setminus } \tilde{\mathcal {S}}\). \(\square \)
Endowed with Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2, we are now ready to prove the main result of this section.
Theorem 4.3
Let \(\mathcal {T}\) be a triangulation with the properties (O1) and (O2). Then, any triangulation \(\mathcal {T}'\) obtained by applying Algorithm 3.1 to \(\mathcal {T}\) maintains the properties (O1) and (O2).
Proof
For the following proof, we first show that there is an ordering of the sets \(\mathcal {S}'\) and \(\mathcal {S}''\) from Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2 with the properties (O1) and (O2). The second part of the proof merges these two orderings to obtain an overall ordering with the properties (O1) and (O2).
Let \(\mathcal {T}= \{S_1, \ldots , S_n\}\) and \(S_l\) be the simplex that has to be refined, while \(\bar{x}_0^{S_l}, \ldots , \bar{x}_d^{S_l}\) are its labeled vertices. We first consider \(d \ge 4\) and \(d = 2, 3\) afterward. The \(2^d\) simplices \(S_l^0, \ldots , S_l^{2^d1}\), into which \(S_l\) is divided by the red refinement, have due to Lemma 4.1 the property that the corner subsimplices contain the vertices of \(S_l\). Without loss of generality, let \(\bar{x}_j^{S_l} \in \mathcal {V}(S_l^j)\).
We first show that the set \(\mathcal {S}'\) of the corner subsimplices has an ordering with the required properties. The corner subsimplices \(S_l^j \in \mathcal {S}'\) yield a complete graph \(G=(V,E)\) with the simplices as the node set V and the midpoints \(m_{jk}\) as the edge set E connecting the simplices \(S_l^j\) and \(S_l^k\). Due to \(m_{jk} = m_{kj}\), we assume in the following for the notation \(m_{jk}\) that \(j < k\) holds. For each Hamiltonian path in G, we can use the path itself as an ordering of the simplices that correspond to the nodes of G. An edge connecting two consecutive nodes of the path corresponds to a common midpoint of two consecutive simplices. Therefore, the ordering naturally has property (O1), which indicates that two consecutive simplices have at least one common vertex. The ordering has the property O2 as well, which states that the last vertex of any simplex is equal to the first vertex of the next one: With two consecutive simplices \(S_l^j\) and \(S_l^k\) that correspond to two consecutive nodes of the Hamiltonian path, we only have to set \(\bar{x}_d^{S_l^j} = m_{jk}\) and \(\bar{x}_0^{S_l^k} = m_{jk}\).
Moreover, it follows from Lemma 4.2 that there is an ordering
of the simplex set \(\mathcal {S}''\) with the properties (O1) and (O2). Since the vertices of the simplices of \(\mathcal {S}''\) are the midpoints \(m_{jk}\), there must be two midpoints \(m_{jk}\) and \(m_{st}\) with
We now link the orderings of \(\mathcal {S}'\) and \(\mathcal {S}''\) to obtain an overall ordering with the properties (O1) and O2. Let R be a Hamiltonian path in the subgraph of G that consists of the vertices \(V {\setminus } \{0, j, k, s, t, d\}\). Such a path is always attainable, because any subgraph of a complete graph is also complete. With \(j \not = k\) one of the following three cases applies to the node j: \(j = s\), \(j = t\), or \(j \not =s \wedge j \not = t\). With \(s \not = t\), we have the following three cases for the node s: \(s = j\), \(s = k\), or \(s \not =j \wedge s \not = k\). Consequently, due to \(j \not = k\) and \(s \not = t\) only the following five cases are possible for the nodes j, k, s, and t:
The case \(k = s\) is equivalent to the case \(j = t\), since the inverse of the ordering (8) also has the properties (O1) and (O2).
Keeping the cases in (9) in mind, we define the path
Please note that if \(t = d\) in (10a), we can again invert the ordering (8) such that \(t \not = d\) and \(k = d\). The same can be applied in case of \(k = d\) in (10c) and (10d). Moreover, any permutation of the labeling \(\bar{x}_i\) of the simplex \(S_l^{i_0}\), where \(i = 0, \ldots , d1\) and of the simplex \(S_l^{i_{2^d1(d+1)}}\), where \(i = 1, \ldots , d\), is permissible. Thus, we can assume that \(m_{st} \not = m_{0d}\) and that \(m_{jk} \not = m_{0u}\) if \(m_{st} = m_{ud}\). This guarantees us that the path H is always a Hamiltonian path.
The path H corresponds to an ordering, where the vertices in H are the corner subsimplices \(S_l^j \in \mathcal {S}'\). As showed above, this ordering has the properties (O1) and (O2). We now insert the ordering (8) of the simplex set \(\mathcal {S}''\) into the one of H after the simplex that corresponds to the vertex j. The union of \(\mathcal {S}'\) and \(\mathcal {S}''\) corresponds to the set of all \(2^d\) subsimplices into which \(S_l\) is divided by the red refinement. Therefore, the resulting ordering covers all \(2^d\) subsimplices. The merging of the two orderings of \(\mathcal {S}'\) and \(\mathcal {S}''\) via the midpoints \(m_{jk}\) and \(m_{st}\) finally leads to an overall ordering \((S_l^{r_0}, \ldots , S_l^{r_{2^d1}})\) that has the properties (O1) and (O2).
In case of \(d = 2\), we use the ordering \((S_l^0, S_l^1, S_l^2, S_l^3)\), where \(S_l^0\), \(S_l^1\), and \(S_l^3\) are the three corner subsimplices and \(S_l^2\) the remaining center subsimplex, see again Fig. 1 for an illustration.
For \(d = 3\), we assume without loss of generality that the vertex \(\bar{x}_3\) of the simplex that has to be refined is contained in \(S_l^7\). We use the ordering \((S_l^0, S_l^1, S_l^2, S_l^{3}, S_l^{4}, S_l^{5}, S_l^{6}, S_l^7)\), where \(S_l^0\), \(S_l^1\), \(S_l^2\), and \(S_l^7\) are the four corner subsimplices contained in \(\mathcal {S}'\) and \(S_l^{3}\)–\(S_l^{6}\) the four center subsimplices of \(\mathcal {S}''\). Finally, the orderings of \(\mathcal {S}'\) and \(\mathcal {S}''\) are linked via \(m_{jk} = m_{02}\) and \(m_{st} = m_{27}\).
With these orderings for the refined simplex \(S_l\) and all dimensions \(d \ge 2\), we complete the proof as follows. We order the simplices of \(\mathcal {T}'\) as
Since the corner subsimplices of \(S_l\) yield a complete graph, we can order them such that
holds. Therefore, the simplices \(S_{l1}\), \(S_l^{r_0}\) and \(S_l^{r_{2^d1}}\), \(S_{l+1}\) are linked as required in O2. Altogether, due to the inheritance from \(\mathcal {T}\), we conclude that the ordering (11) of the simplices of \(\mathcal {T}'\) has the properties (O1) and (O2). \(\square \)
5 Numerical results
In this section, we numerically analyze to what extent the red refinement procedure can be used beneficially in an \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) solution approach that is based on Algorithm 2.1. The key element of Algorithm 2.1 is to solve \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxations that provide dual bounds for the \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) problem due to the relaxation property. With increasingly finer \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxations, the resulting dual bounds also become tighter. Concurrently, the approximation error decreases, which yields an \({\textsc {MIP}}\) solutions that is feasible for the \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) problem from a practical point of view, e.g., if the error is smaller than \(10^{6}\).
Naturally, any objective value of a global optimal solution of an \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxation provides a dual bound for the \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) problem. At the same time, the dual bound of any \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxation is also a dual bound for the \({\textsc {MINLP}}\). Typically, in a solution framework that is based on Algorithm 2.1 this is exploited by solving a very fine \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxation. It is not necessary to solve this \({\textsc {MIP}}\) to global optimality, since each dual bound of the \({\textsc {MIP}}\) that is obtained during the solution process already provides a dual bound for the \({\textsc {MINLP}}\). Therefore, we can employ a very fine initial \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxation in Algorithm 2.1 also to find tight dual bounds.
One way to construct an initial relaxation is to specify a fixed number of simplices for each domain \(D_f\) with \(f \in \mathcal {F}\) and apply the refinement strategy successively to each simplex until the desired number of simplices is attained. This corresponds to an triangulation scheme such as \(\widetilde{\mathcal {T}}_k\) in Lemma 3.3.
In the following, we pursue such a triangulation strategy and compare the red refinement with the longestedge bisection (\({\textsc {LEB}}\)) from [3]. To this end, we consider all 20 alternating current (\({\textsc {AC}}\)) optimal power flow (\({\textsc {OPF}}\)) instances from the NESTA benchmark set (v0.7.0) with up to 300 buses, see [4]. These instances are subdivided into three operating conditions: standard, active power increase (\({\textsc {api}}\)), and small angle difference (\({\textsc {sad}}\)). We use the Extended Conic Quadratic Formulation of [9] to model an \({\textsc {AC}}\) \({\textsc {OPF}}\) instance. Thus, we obtain a total amount of 59 \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) problems, since for the case “nesta_case_6_ww” no active power increase instance is given.
We skip the details of the \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) models in order not to go beyond the scope of this article. The nonlinearities of the \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) problems consist of quadratic monomials, bivariate products, and onedimensional trigonometric functions. The triangulations that are constructed by the red refinement and the longestedge bisection differ for the domains of the bivariate products only, as they are identical for onedimensional domains.
All computations are carried out using a Python implementation of Algorithm 2.1 on a cluster using 4 cores of a machine with two Xeon E31240 v6 “Kaby Lake” chips (4 cores, HT disabled) running at 3.7 GHZ with 32 GB of RAM. The run time limit is set to 4 h for each instance with a global relative optimality gap of 0.01%. We utilize Gurobi 9.1.1 as \({\textsc {MIP}}\) solver, see [10].
5.1 Relaxations with 8 simplices
At first, we use 8 simplices, i.e., segments in case of onedimensional and triangles in case of twodimensional functions, to construct an initial \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxation. Table 1 depicts the results for all 59 NESTA instances. Here, \(d_{{{\textsc {LEB}}}}\) and \(d_{{{\textsc {RR}}}}\) are the best dual bounds of the \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxations constructed by the \({\textsc {LEB}}\) and the red refinement (\({\textsc {RR}}\)). Correspondingly, \(T_{{{\textsc {LEB}}}}\) and \(T_{{{\textsc {RR}}}}\) are the run times until the \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxations are solved to global optimality, while \({\textsc {TL}}\) indicates that the time limit of 4 h has been exceeded.
A common measure for comparing two different \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) solution approaches is the shifted geometric mean. The shifted geometric mean of n numbers \(t_1, \ldots , t_n\) with shift s is defined as \(\Big (\prod \nolimits _{i=1}^{n}(t_i + s)\Big )^{1/n}  s\). It has the advantage that it is neither affected by very large outliers (in contrast to the arithmetic mean) nor by very small outliers (in contrast to the geometric mean). We use a typical shift \(s = 10\) for both the run times and the dual bounds. Please note that if an instance runs into the time limit, we use a run time of 4 h for the calculation of the shifted geometric mean.
The geometric mean in Table 1 is 36.73 for \(d_{{{\textsc {LEB}}}}\) and 36.88 for \(d_{{{\textsc {RR}}}}\). Regarding the run times, we have \({256.12}\,\text {s}\) for \(T_{{{\textsc {LEB}}}}\) and \({251.95}\,\text {s}\) for \(T_{{{\textsc {RR}}}}\). Therefore, both refinement strategies are of equal quality, while the red refinement is slightly favorable, since it has tighter dual bounds, faster run times and is able to solve an additional instance to global optimality, namely the \({\textsc {sad}}\) instance “nesta_case_29_edin”.
5.2 Relaxations with 32 simplices
Table 2 shows the results for all 59 NESTA instances if we use 32 simplices to construct the initial \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxation. As the size of the relaxations increases, less instances are solved to global optimality. The geometric mean in Table 2 is 39.49 for \(d_{{{\textsc {LEB}}}}\) and 39.50 for \(d_{{{\textsc {RR}}}}\). Regarding the run times, we have \({1587.48}\,\text {s}\) for \(T_{{{\textsc {LEB}}}}\) and \({1529.38}\,\text {s}\) for \(T_{{{\textsc {RR}}}}\). Therefore, both refinement strategies are of equal quality, while the red refinement is again slightly favorable, since it has faster run times.
5.3 Relaxations with 128 simplices for bivariate products
As pointed out before, a very fine initial \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxation can also be utilized to obtain tight dual bounds. With a high number of simplices for the triangulations the \({\textsc {MIP}}\) size drastically increases. For onedimensional domains the \({\textsc {LEB}}\) and \({\textsc {RR}}\) are identical. Since we are primarily interested in the difference between \({\textsc {LEB}}\) and \({\textsc {RR}}\), we now use 128 simplices to construct the initial \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxation, but only for all twodimensional domains that correspond to the bivariate products of the problem. In case of onedimensional functions, we only use 2 segments.
Table 3 contains the results for all 59 NESTA instances. The geometric mean in Table 3 is 23.36 for \(d_{{{\textsc {LEB}}}}\) and 23.40 for \(d_{{{\textsc {RR}}}}\). Regarding the run times, we have \({451.67}\,\text {s}\) for \(T_{{{\textsc {LEB}}}}\) and \({330.84}\,\text {s}\) for \(T_{{{\textsc {RR}}}}\). Hence, in the case of very fine initial relaxations the \({\textsc {RR}}\) can be very advantageous. Although the dual bounds are of the same quality, the run time is significantly better. This suggests that with the \({\textsc {RR}}\), we are able to find tight dual bounds at shorter run times.
The numerical results in this section demonstrate that red refinement can be applied advantageously for initial relaxations in Algorithm 2.1. In particular, when the red refinement is used to construct very fine \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxations to obtain tight dual bounds it is more favorable than the longestedge bisection for \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) problems that arise in the field of \({\textsc {AC}}\) \({\textsc {OPF}}\).
6 Conclusion
In this paper, we showed that the generalized red refinement for ndimensional simplices can be utilized for solving \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) problems by piecewise linear relaxations. We proved that the red refinement meets sufficient convergence conditions for such an \({\textsc {MINLP}}\) solution framework as proposed in [3]. Furthermore, we showed that applying this refinement procedure results in piecewise linear relaxations that can be modeled by the wellknown incremental method established by Markowitz and Manne [13].
Numerical results from the field of alternating current optimal power flow illustrated that the application of the red refinement procedure as an alternative to the longestedge bisection can be advantageous in practice. Especially, if the \({\textsc {MIP}}\) relaxation is primarily used to obtain tight dual bounds, the red refinement seems to be favorable.
The most important subject of future research is to what extent the combination of the two refinement strategies provides further potential for improvement. One possibility is to implement a hybrid approach that starts with an initial relaxation constructed by the red refinement and subsequently refines it by applying the longestedge bisection.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Bey, J.: Simplicial grid refinement: on Freudenthal’s algorithm and the optimal number of congruence classes. Numer. Math. 85(1), 1–29 (2000)
Burlacu, R.: Adaptive mixedinteger refinements for solving nonlinear problems with discrete decisions. Ph.D. Thesis, FriedrichAlexanderUniversität ErlangenNürnberg (FAU) (2020)
Burlacu, R., Geißler, B., Schewe, L.: Solving mixedinteger nonlinear programmes using adaptively refined mixedinteger linear programmes. Optim. Methods Softw. 35, 37–64 (2019)
Coffrin, C., Gordon, D., Scott, P.: Nesta, the NICTA energy system test case archive. CoRR, arXiv:1411.0359 (2014)
Freudenthal, H.: Simplizialzerlegungen von beschränkter flachheit. Ann. Math. 43(3), 580–582 (1942)
Geißler, B.: Towards globally optimal solutions of MINLPs by discretization techniques with applications in gas network optimization. Ph.D. Thesis, FAU ErlangenNürnberg (2011)
Geißler, B., Martin, A., Morsi, A., Schewe, L.: Using piecewise linear functions for solving MINLPs. In: Lee, J., Leyffer, S (eds.) Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming. Springer, New York, pp. 287–314 (2012)
Gugat, M., Leugering, G., Martin, A., Schmidt, M., Sirvent, M., Wintergerst, D.: Towards simulation based mixedinteger optimization with differential equations. Networks 72, 60–83 (2018)
Jabr, R.A.: Radial distribution load flow using conic programming. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 21(3), 1458–1459 (2006)
LLC Gurobi Optimization: Gurobi optimizer reference manual (2020)
Lee, J., Wilson, D.: Polyhedral methods for piecewiselinear functions. I. The lambda method. Discrete Appl. Math 108(3), 269–285 (2001)
Lundell, A., Skjäl, A., Westerlund, T.: A reformulation framework for global optimization. J. Glob. Optim. 57(1), 115–141 (2013)
Markowitz, H.M., Manne, A.S.: On the solution of discrete programming problems. Econometrica 25(1), 84–110 (1957)
Martin, A., Möller, M., Moritz, S.: Mixed integer models for the stationary case of gas network optimization. Math. Program. 105(2), 563–582 (2006)
Misener, R., Floudas, C.A.: Piecewiselinear approximations of multidimensional functions. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 145(1), 120–147 (2010)
Morsi, A.: Solving MINLPs on looselycoupled networks with applications in water and gas network optimization. Ph.D. Thesis, FriedrichAlexanderUniversität ErlangenNürnberg (FAU) (2013)
Rebennack, S., Kallrath, J.: Continuous piecewise linear deltaapproximations for bivariate and multivariate functions. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 167(1), 102–117 (2015)
Rebennack, S., Kallrath, J.: Continuous piecewise linear deltaapproximations for univariate functions: computing minimal breakpoint systems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 167(2), 617–643 (2015)
Ricardo, R., Claudia, D., Andrea, L., Silvano, M.: Optimistic MILP modeling of nonlinear optimization problems. European J. Oper. Res 239(1), 32–45 (2014)
Vielma, J.P., Ahmed, S., Nemhauser, G.L.: Mixedinteger models for nonseparable piecewiselinear optimization: unifying framework and extensions. Oper. Res. 58(2), 303–315 (2010)
Wilson, D.: Polyhedral methods for piecewiselinear functions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Kentucky (1998)
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for their support within Project B07 of the Sonderforschungsbereich/Transregio 154 “Mathematical Modelling, Simulation and Optimization using the Example of Gas Networks”. This research has been performed as part of the Energie Campus Nürnberg and is supported by funding of the Bavarian State Government. Finally, the author is very grateful to KevinMartin Aigner for fruitful discussion regarding the numerical results and to Lena Hupp for the thorough reading of the paper.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The author thanks the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for their support within Project B07 of the Sonderforschungsbereich/Transregio 154 “Mathematical Modelling, Simulation and Optimization using the Example of Gas Networks”. This research has been performed as part of the Energie Campus Nürnberg and is supported by funding of the Bavarian State Government.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Burlacu, R. On refinement strategies for solving \({\textsc {MINLP}\mathrm{s}}\) by piecewise linear relaxations: a generalized red refinement. Optim Lett 16, 635–652 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590021017401
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590021017401
Keywords
 Mixedinteger nonlinear programming
 Red refinement
 Piecewise linear relaxation
 Incremental method