On Valid Inequalities for Quadratic Programming with Continuous Variables and Binary Indicators

  • Hongbo Dong
  • Jeff Linderoth
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7801)

Abstract

In this paper we study valid inequalities for a set that involves a continuous vector variable x ∈ [0,1]n, its associated quadratic form xxT, and binary indicators on whether or not x > 0. This structure appears when deriving strong relaxations for mixed integer quadratic programs (MIQPs). Valid inequalities for this set can be obtained by lifting inequalities for a related set without binary variables (QPB), that was studied by Burer and Letchford. After closing a theoretical gap about QPB, we characterize the strength of different classes of lifted QPB inequalities. We show that one class, lifted-posdiag-QPB inequalities, capture no new information from the binary indicators. However, we demonstrate the importance of the other class, called lifted-concave-QPB inequalities, in two ways. First, all lifted-concave-QPB inequalities define the relevant convex hull for the case of convex quadratic programming with indicators. Second, we show that all perspective constraints are a special case of lifted-concave-QPB inequalities, and we further show that adding the perspective constraints to a semidefinite programming relaxation of convex quadratic programs with binary indicators results in a problem whose bound is equivalent to the recent optimal diagonal splitting approach of Zheng et al.. Finally, we show the separation problem for lifted-concave-QPB inequalities is tractable if the number of binary variables involved in the inequality is small. Our study points out a direction to generalize perspective cuts to deal with non-separable nonconvex quadratic functions with indicators in global optimization. Several interesting questions arise from our results, which we detail in our concluding section.

Keywords

Mixed integer quadratic programming Semidefinite programming Valid inequalities Perspective reformulation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anstreicher, K.M.: On convex relaxations for quadratically constrained quadratic programming. Mathematical Programming, Series B (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anstreicher, K.M., Burer, S.: Computable representations for convex hulls of low-dimensional quadratic forms. Mathematical Programming 124(1-2), 33–43 (2010)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertsimas, D., Shioda, R.: Algorithm for cardinality-constrained quadratic optimization. Computational Optimization and Applications 43(1), 1–22 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bienstock, D.: Computational study of a family of mixed-integer quadratic programming problems. Mathematical Programming, Series A 74(2), 121–140 (1996)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Billionnet, A., Elloumi, S., Lambert, A.: Extending the QCR method to general mixed-integer programs. Mathematical Programming, Series A 131, 381–401 (2012)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Billionnet, A., Elloumi, S., Plateau, M.-C.: Improving the performance of standard solvers for quadratic 0-1 programs by a tight convex reformulation: The QCR method. Discrete Applied Mathematics 157, 1185–1197 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borchers, B.: CSDP, a C library for semidefinite programming. Optimization Methods and Software 11(1), 613–623 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burer, S.: On the copositive representation of binary and continuous nonconvex quadratic programs. Mathematical Programming 120, 479–495 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burer, S.: Optimizing a polyhedral-semidefinite relaxation of completely positive programs. Math. Prog. Comp. 2(1), 1–19 (2010)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burer, S., Letchford, A.N.: On nonconvex quadratic programming with box constriants. SIAM J. Optim. 20(2), 1073–1089 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burer, S., Vandenbussche, D.: A finite branch-and-bound algorithm for nonconvex quadratic programming via semidefinite relaxations. Mathematical Programming 113, 259–282 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D’Ambrosio, C., Linderoth, J., Luedtke, J.: Valid Inequalities for the Pooling Problem with Binary Variables. In: Günlük, O., Woeginger, G.J. (eds.) IPCO 2011. LNCS, vol. 6655, pp. 117–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dong, H., Linderoth, J.: On valid inequalities for quadratic programming with continuous variables and binary indicators. Optimization Online (August 2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frangioni, A., Gentile, C.: Perspective cuts for a class of convex 0-1 mixed integer programs. Mathematical Programming 106, 225–236 (2006)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frangioni, A., Gentile, C.: Solving nonlinear single-unit commitment problems with ramping constraints. Operations Research 54(4), 767–775 (2006)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frangioni, A., Gentile, C.: SDP diagonalizations and perspective cuts for a class of nonseparable MIQP. Operations Research Letters 35(2), 181–185 (2007)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Günlük, O., Linderoth, J.: Perspective reformulations of mixed integer nonlinear programming with indicator variables. Mathematical Programming, Series B 124(1-2), 183–205 (2010)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Günlük, O., Linderoth, J.: Perspective reformulation and applications. In: Lee, J., Leyffer, S. (eds.) IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 154, pp. 61–92. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gao, J., Li, D.: Cardinality constraint linear-quadratic optimal control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 56(8), 1936–1941 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Löfberg, J.: Yalmip: A toolbox for modeling and optimization in matalb. In: Proceedings of the CACSD Conference, Taipei, Taiwan (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller, A.: Subset Selection in Regression. Monographs in Statistics and Applied Probability, vol. 40. Chapman and Hall, London (1990)MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Padberg, M.: The Boolean quadric polytope: some characteristics, facets and relatives. Math. Programming, Series B 45(1), 139–172 (1989)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Papageorgiou, D.J., Toriello, A., Nemhauser, G.L., Savelsbergh, M.W.P.: Fixed-charge transportation with product blending. Transportation Science 46(2), 281–295 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sherali, H.D., Adams, W.P.: A reformulation-linearization technique for solving discrete and continuous nonconvex problems. Nonconvex Optimization and its Applications, vol. 31. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wei, D., Oppenheim, A.V.: A branch-and-bound algorithm for quadratically-constrained sparse filter design. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing (2012) (to appear)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zheng, X., Sun, X., Li, D.: Improving the performance of MIQP solvers for quadratic programs with cardinality and minimum threshold constraints: A semidefinite program approach (November 2010) (manuscript)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hongbo Dong
    • 1
  • Jeff Linderoth
    • 1
  1. 1.Wisconsin Institutes for DiscoveryUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations