MetaBoosting: Enhancing Integer Programming Techniques by Metaheuristics

  • Jakob Puchinger
  • Günther R. Raidl
  • Sandro Pirkwieser
Part of the Annals of Information Systems book series (AOIS, volume 10)


This chapter reviews approaches where metaheuristics are used to boost the performance of exact integer linear programming (IP) techniques. Most exact optimization methods for solving hard combinatorial problems rely at some point on tree search. Applying more effective metaheuristics for obtaining better heuristic solutions and thus tighter bounds in order to prune the search tree in stronger ways is the most obvious possibility. Besides this, we consider several approaches where metaheuristics are integrated more tightly with IP techniques. Among them are collaborative approaches where various information is exchanged for providing mutual guidance, metaheuristics for cutting plane separation, and metaheuristics for column generation. Two case studies are finally considered in more detail: (i) a Lagrangian decomposition approach that is combined with an evolutionary algorithm for obtaining (almost always) proven optimal solutions to the knapsack constrained maximum spanning tree problem and (ii) a column generation approach for the periodic vehicle routing problem with time windows in which the pricing problem is solved by local search based metaheuristics.


Column Generation Lagrangian Relaxation Greedy Randomized Adaptive Search Procedure Variable Neighborhood Search Linear Programming Relaxation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This work is supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under contract number P20342-N13.


  1. 1.
    P. Augerat, J.M. Belenguer, E. Benavent, A. Corberan, and D. Naddef. Separating capacity constraints in the CVRP using tabu search. European Journal of Operational Research, 106(2):546–557, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Balas. An additive algorithm for solving linear programs with zero-one variables. Operations Research, 13(4):517–549, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Balas and C.H. Martin. Pivot and complement – a heuristic for 0–1 programming. Management Science, 26(1):86–96, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Barahona and R. Anbil. The volume algorithm: Producing primal solutions with a subgradient method. Mathematical Programming, Series A, 87(3):385–399, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Bertaccoa, M. Fischetti, and A. Lodi. A feasibility pump heuristic for general mixed-integer problems. Discrete Optimization, 4:63–76, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Bertsimas and J.N. Tsitsiklis. Introduction to Linear Optimization. Athena Scientific, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Chabrier. Vehicle routing problem with elementary shortest path based column generation. Computers & Operations Research, 33(10):2972–2990, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.-F. Cordeau, G. Laporte, and A. Mercier. A unified tabu search heuristic for vehicle routing problems with time windows. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 52:928–936, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Danna, E. Rothberg, and C. Le Pape. Exploring relaxation induced neighborhoods to improve MIP solutions. Mathematical Programming, Series A, 102:71–90, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    G.B. Dantzig, D.R. Fulkerson, and S.M. Johnson. Solution of a large scale traveling salesman problem. Operations Research, 2:393–410, 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G.B. Dantzig and P. Wolfe. Decomposition principle for linear programs. Operations Research, 8(1):101–111, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Denzinger and T. Offermann. On cooperation between evolutionary algorithms and other search paradigms. In Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, volume 3, pages 2317–2324. IEEE Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O. du Merle, D. Villeneuve, J. Desrosiers, and P. Hansen. Stabilized column generation. Discrete Mathematics, 194(1-3):229–237, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Feillet, P. Dejax, M. Gendreau, and C. Gueguen. An exact algorithm for the elementary shortest path problem with resource constraints: Application to some vehicle routing problems. Networks, 44(3):216–229, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    T.A. Feo and M.G.C. Resende. Greedy randomized adaptive search procedures. Journal of Global Optimization, 6:109–133, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. Ribeiro Filho and L.A. Nogueira Lorena. Constructive genetic algorithm and column generation: an application to graph coloring. In L.P. Chuen, editor, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the Association of Asian-Pacific Operations Research Societies within IFORS, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Fischetti, F. Glover, and A. Lodi. The feasibility pump. Mathematical Programming, 104(1):91–104, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Fischetti, C. Polo, and M. Scantamburlo. Local branching heuristic for mixed-integer programs with 2-level variables, with an application to a telecommunication network design problem. Networks, 44(2):61–72, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Fischetti and A. Lodi. Local branching. Mathematical Programming, Series B, 98:23–47, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M.L. Fisher. The Lagrangian relaxation method for solving integer programming problems. Management Science, 27(1):1–18, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Frangioni. About Lagrangian methods in integer optimization. Annals of Operations Research, 139(1):163–193, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    A.P. French, A.C. Robinson, and J.M. Wilson. Using a hybrid genetic algorithm/branch and bound approach to solve feasibility and optimization integer programming problems. Journal of Heuristics, 7:551–564, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. Ghosh. DINS, a MIP improvement heuristic. In M. Fischetti and D.P. Williamson, editors, Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization: 12th International IPCO Conference, Proceedings, volume 4513 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 310–323. Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    P.C. Gilmore and R.E. Gomory. A linear programming approach to the cutting stock problem. Operations Research, 9:849–859, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    F. Glover, M. Laguna, and R. Martí. Fundamentals of scatter search and path relinking. Control and Cybernetics, 39(3):653–684, 2000.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    F. Glover. Surrogate constraints. Operations Research, 16(4):741–749, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    P. Hansen, N. Mladenović, and D. Urosević. Variable neighborhood search and local branching. Computers & Operations Research, 33(10):3034–3045, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Haouari and J.C. Siala. A hybrid Lagrangian genetic algorithm for the prize collecting Steiner tree problem. Computers & Operations Research, 33(5):1274–1288, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    S.T. Henn. Weight-constrained minimal spanning tree problem. Master’s thesis, University of Kaiserslautern, Department of Mathematics, May 2007.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    F.S. Hillier. Efficient heuristic procedures for integer linear programming with an interior. Operations Research, 17(4):600–637, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. Irnich and G. Desaulniers. Shortest path problems with resource constraints. In G. Desaulniers, J. Desrosiers, and M.M. Solomon, editors, Column Generation,  chapter 2, pages 33–65. Springer, 2005.
  32. 32.
    J. Larsen. Parallelization of the Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Windows. PhD thesis, Technical University of Denmark, 1999.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Leitner and G.R. Raidl. Lagrangian decomposition, metaheuristics, and hybrid approaches for the design of the last mile in fiber optic networks. In M.J. Blesa, C. Blum, C. Cotta, A.J. Fernández, J.E. Gallardo, A. Roli, and M. Sampels, editors, Hybrid Metaheuristics 2008, volume 5296 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 158–174. Springer, 2008.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    H.R. Lourenco, O. Martin, and T. Stützle. Iterated local search. In F. Glover and G. Kochenberger, editors, Handbook of Metaheuristics, pages 321–353. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    M.E. Lübbecke and J. Desrosiers. Selected topics in column generation. Operations Research, 53(6):1007–1023, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. Martello, D. Pisinger, and P. Toth. Dynamic programming and strong bounds for the 0–1 knapsack problem. Management Science, 45:414–424, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    G.L. Nemhauser and L.A. Wolsey. Integer and Combinatorial Optimization. John Wiley & Sons, 1988.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    C. Oliva, P. Michelon, and C. Artigues. Constraint and linear programming: Using reduced costs for solving the zero/one multiple knapsack problem. In International Conference on Constraint Programming, Proceedings of the Workshop on Cooperative Solvers in Constraint Programming, pages 87–98, Paphos, Greece, 2001.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    S. Pirkwieser and G.R. Raidl. variable neighborhood search for the periodic vehicle routing problem with time windows. In C. Prodhon, R. Wolfler-Calvo, N. Labadi, and C. Prins, editors, Proceedings of the 9th EU/MEeting on Metaheuristics for Logistics and Vehicle Routing, Troyes, France, 2008.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    S. Pirkwieser, G.R. Raidl, and J. Puchinger. A Lagrangian decomposition/evolutionary algorithm hybrid for the knapsack constrained maximum spanning tree problem. In C. Cotta and J. van Hemert, editors, Recent Advances in Evolutionary Computation for Combinatorial Optimization, volume 153 of Studies in Computational Intelligence, pages 69–85. Springer, 2008.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    J. Puchinger and G.R. Raidl. An evolutionary algorithm for column generation in integer programming: an effective approach for 2D bin packing. In In X. Yao, E.K. Burke, J.A. Lozano, J. Smith, J.J. Merelo-Guervos, J.A. Bullinaria, J.E. Rowe, P. Tino, A. Kaban, and H.-P. Schwefel, editors, Parallel Problem Solving from Nature – PPSN VIII, volume 3242 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 642–651. Springer, 2004.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    J. Puchinger and G.R. Raidl. Combining metaheuristics and exact algorithms in combinatorial optimization: A survey and classification. In J. Mira and J.R. Álvarez, editors, Proceedings of the First International Work-Conference on the Interplay Between Natural and Artificial Computation, Part II, volume 3562 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 41–53. Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    J. Puchinger and G.R. Raidl. Models and algorithms for three-stage two-dimensional bin packing. European Journal of Operational Research, 183:1304–1327, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    J. Puchinger, G.R. Raidl, and M. Gruber. Cooperating memetic and branch-and-cut algorithms for solving the multidimensional knapsack problem. In Proceedings of the 6th Metaheuristics International Conference, pages 775–780, Vienna, Austria, 2005.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    G.R. Raidl and B.A. Julstrom. dge sets: an effective evolutionary coding of spanning trees. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 7(3):225–239, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    W. Rei, J.-F. Cordeau, M. Gendreau, and P. Soriano. Accelerating Benders decomposition by local branching. INFORMS Journal on Computing, in press.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    E. Rothberg. An evolutionary algorithm for polishing mixed integer programming solutions. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 19(4):534–541, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    M.W.P. Savelsbergh. The vehicle routing problem with time windows: Minimizing route duration. ORSA Journal on Computing, 4:146–154, 1992.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    S. Talukdar, L. Baeretzen, A. Gove, and P. de Souza. Asynchronous teams: Cooperation schemes for autonomous agents. Journal of Heuristics, 4:295–321, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    M. Vasquez and J.-K. Hao. A hybrid approach for the 0–1 multidimensional knapsack problem. In B. Nebel, editor, Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 328–333. Morgan Kaufman, 2001.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    M. Vasquez and Y. Vimont. Improved results on the 0–1 multidimensional knapsack problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 165(1):70–81, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Y. Vimont, S. Boussier, and M. Vasquez. Reduced costs propagation in an efficient implicit enumeration for the 0–1 multidimensional knapsack problem. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 15(2):165–178, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    L.A. Wolsey. Integer Programming. Wiley-Interscience, 1998.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    T. Yamada, K. Watanabe, and S. Katakoa. Algorithms to solve the knapsack constrained maximum spanning tree problem. International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 82(1):23–34, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jakob Puchinger
    • 1
  • Günther R. Raidl
    • 2
  • Sandro Pirkwieser
    • 2
  1. 1.arsenal researchViennaAustria
  2. 2.Institute of Computer Graphics and AlgorithmsVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations