Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Numerical Studies: Comparisons

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Continuous Nonlinear Optimization for Engineering Applications in GAMS Technology

Part of the book series: Springer Optimization and Its Applications ((SOIA,volume 121))

  • 1602 Accesses

Abstract

As already seen, for solving nonlinear optimization applications we have a multitude of algorithms and codes integrated in GAMS which involve the theoretical concepts of the augmented Lagrangian, of sequential linear-quadratic or quadratic programming, of generalized reduced gradient, of interior point methods with line-search or interior point methods with trust region or filter, etc. All these algorithms work in conjunction with advanced linear algebra concepts, especially for solving positive definite or indefinite large-scale linear algebraic systems. Always, the performances of optimization algorithms crucially depend on the capabilities of linear algebra algorithms, on linear search, on filter, etc. On the other hand, for solving nonlinear optimization applications from different domains of activity, the present technology involves the usage of algebraic-oriented languages. At present, plenty modeling and optimization technologies are known (Andrei 2013b). The most used, both in academic tests and in real practical applications, are GAMS (Brooke et al. 1998), (Rosenthal 2011), AMPL (Fourer et al. 2002), MPL (Kristjansson 1993), LINDO (Schrage 1997), TOMLAB (Holmström 1997), etc.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abadie, J., & Carpentier, J. (1969). Generalization of the Wolfe reduced gradient method to the case of nonlinear constraints. In R. Fletcher (Ed.), Optimization (pp. 37–47). London, UK: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrei, N. (1995). Computational experience with conjugate gradient algorithms for large-scale unconstrained optimization. (Technical Report, Research Institute for Informatics-ICI, Bucharest, July 21, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrei, N. (1996a). Computational experience with a modified penalty-barrier method for large-scale nonlinear constrained optimization. (Working Paper No. AMOL-96-1, Research Institute for Informatics-ICI, Bucharest, February 6, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrei, N. (1996b). Computational experience with a modified penalty-barrier method for large-scale nonlinear, equality and inequality constrained optimization. (Technical Paper No. AMOL-96-2, Research Institute for Informatics-ICI, Bucharest, February 12, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrei, N. (1996c). Computational experience with “SPENBAR” a sparse variant of a modified penalty-barrier method for large-scale nonlinear, equality and inequality, constrained optimization. (Working Paper No. AMOL-96-3, Research Institute for Informatics-ICI, Bucharest, March 10, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrei, N. (1996d). Computational experience with “SPENBAR” a sparse variant of a modified penalty-barrier method for large-scale nonlinear, equality and inequality, constrained optimization. (Technical Paper No. AMOL-96-4, Research Institute for Informatics-ICI, Bucharest, March 11, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrei, N. (1996e). Numerical examples with “SPENBAR”for large-scale nonlinear, equality and inequality, constrained optimization with zero columns in Jacobian matrices. (Technical Paper No. AMOL-96-5, Research Institute for Informatics-ICI, Bucharest, March 29, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrei, N. (1998a). Penalty-barrier algorithms for nonlinear optimization. Preliminary computational results. Studies in Informatics and Control, 7(1), 15–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrei, N. (2013c). Another conjugate gradient algorithm with guaranteed descent and conjugacy conditions for large-scale unconstrained optimization. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 159, 159–182.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, R. H., & Golub, G. H. (1969). The simplex method of linear programming using LU decomposition. Communications of the ACM, 12, 266–268.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., Meeraus, A., Raman, R., & Rosenthal, R. E. (1998). GAMS: A user’s guide. GAMS Development Corporation, December 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunch J. W., & Kaufman, L. (1977). Indefinite quadratic programming. (Computing Science Technical Report 61, Bell Labs., Murray Hill, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunch, J. R., & Parlett, B. N. (1971). Direct methods for solving symmetric indefinite systems of linear equations. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 8, 639–655.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Byrd, R. H., Lu, P., Nocedal, J., & Zhu, C. (1994a). A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization. (Technical Report NAM-08, [Revised May 1994], Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Northwestern University,Evanston, Ilinois 60208).

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrd, R. H., Nocedal, J., & Waltz, R. A. (2006). KNITRO: An integrated package for nonlinear optimization. In G. Di Pillo & M. Roma (Eds.), Large-scale nonlinear optimization (pp. 35–59). Boston, MA, USA: Springer Science+Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, S. H. (1998). Symmetric indefinite matrices: Linear system solvers and modified inertia problems. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Mancester. Faculty of Science and Engineering. January 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, S. H., & Higham, N. J. (1998). A modified Cholesky algorithm based on a symmetric indefinite factorization. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 19, 1097–1110.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, E. D., & Moré, J. J. (2002). Benchmarking optimization software with performance profiles. Mathematical Programming, 91, 201–213.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Drud, S. A. (1994). CONOPT – A large-scale GRG code. ORSA Journal on Computing, 6, 207–216.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Drud, S. A. (1995). CONOPT – A system for large-scale nonlinear optimization. (Tutorial for CONOPT subroutine library, 16p. ARKI Consulting and Development A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark).

    Google Scholar 

  • Drud, S. A. (1996). CONOPT: A system for large-scale nonlinear optimization. (Reference Manual for CONOPT subroutine library, 69p. ARKI Consulting and Development A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark).

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff, I. S. (1977). MA28-A set of Fortran subroutines for sparse unsymmetric linear equation. (Report AERE R8730, Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, England).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fourer, R., Gay, M., & Kernighan, B. W. (2002). AMPL: A modeling language for mathematical programming (2nd ed.). Belmont, NY, USA: Duxbury Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, P. E., & Leonard, M. W. (2003). Limited-memory reduced-Hessian methods for unconstrained optimization. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 14, 380–401.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, P. E., Murray, W., & Saunders, M. A. (2002). SNOPT: A SQP algorithm for large-scale constrained optimization. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 12, 979–1006.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, P. E., Murray, W., & Saunders, M. A. (2005). SNOPT: An SQP algorithm for large-scale constrained optimization. SIAM Review, 47, 99–131.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Golub, G. H., & Van Loan, C. F. (1996). Matrix computation (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, N. I. M., Hribar, M. E., & Nocedal, J. (2001). On the solution of equality constrained quadratic problems arising in optimization. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 23, 1375–1394.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Helgason, R. V., & Kennington, J. L. (1980). Spike swapping in basis reinversion. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 27(4), 697–701.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Helgason, R. V., & Kennington, J. L. (1982). A note on splitting the bump in an elimination factorization. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 29(1), 169–178.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hellerman, E., & Rarick, D. (1971). Reinversion with the preassigned pivot procedure. Mathematical Programming, 1, 195–216.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hellerman, E., & Rarick, D. (1972). The partitioned preassigned pivot procedure (P4). In D. J. Rose & R. A. Willoughby (Eds.), Sparse Matrices and their Applications (pp. 67–76). New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Higham, N. (1988). Fortran codes for estimating the one-norm of a real or complex matrix, with applications to condition estimation. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 14, 381–396.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Holmström, K. (1997). Tomlab – A general purpose, Open MATLAB environment for research and teaching in optimization, (Technical Report IMa-TOM-1997-3, Department of Mathematics and Physics, Mälardalen University, Sweden. [Presented at the 16th International Symposium on Mathematical Programming, August 24–29, 1997, Lausanne, Switzerland]).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristjansson, B. (1993). MPL user manual. Iceland, Europe: Maximal Software Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, D. C., & Nocedal, J. (1989). On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization. Mathematical Programming, 45, 503–528.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Megiddo, N. (1989). Chapter 8. Pathways to the optimal set in linear programming. In N. Megiddo (Ed.), Progress in mathematical programming: Interior-point and related methods (pp. 131–158). New York, NY, USA: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C. D. (2000). Matrix analysis and applied linear algebra. Philadelphia, PA, USA: SIAM.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morales, J. L. (2002). A numerical study of limited memory BFGS methods. Applied of Mathematical Letters, 15, 481–487.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Murtagh, B. A., & Saunders, M. A. (1980). MINOS/AUGMENTED user’s manual. (Technical Report SOL 80–14, Systems Optimization Laboratory, Department of Operations Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California, CA 94305).

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, M. J., & Saunders, M. A. (2002). Sparse rank-revealing LU factorization via threshold complete pivoting and threshold rook pivoting. (Presented at Householder Symposium XV on Numerical Linear Algebra, Peebles, Scotland).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paige, C. C., & Saunders, M. A. (1975). Solution of sparse indefinite systems of linear equations. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 12, 617–629.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, J. K. (1971). On the method of conjugate gradients for the solution of large sparse systems of linear equations. In J. K. Reid (Ed.), Large sparse sets of linear equations (pp. 231–254). New York, NY, USA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, J. K. (1976). Fortran subroutines for handling sparse linear programming bases. (Report AERE R-8269, Harwell, Oxon, UK: Computer Science and Systems Division, A.E.R.E. January 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, J. K. (1982). A sparsity-exploiting variant of the Bartels-Golub decomposition for linear programming bases. Mathematical Programming, 24, 55–69.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R.E. (2011). GAMS – A user’s guide. (GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, DC. July 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Saad, Y. (1996). Iterative methods for sparse linear systems. Boston, MA, USA: PWS Publishing Company.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, M. (2015a). LUSOL – a basis factorization package. (Notes 6. Stanford University, Management Science & Engineering. Spring 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, M. (2015b) Augmented Lagrangian methods. (Notes 9. Stanford University, Management Science & Engineering. Spring 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schittkowski, K. (2002). NLPQLP: A Fortran implementation of a sequential quadratic programming algorithm. User’s guide. (Report, Department of Mathematics, University of Bayreuth).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schittkowski, K. (2009). NLPQO: A Fortran implementation of a sequential quadratic programming algorithm with distributed and non-monotone line search. User’s guide, version 3.0. (Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Bayreuth).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrage, L. (1997). Optimization modeling with LINDO. Belmont, CA, USA: Duxbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spellucci, P. (1995). DONLP2: Program and user’s guide. (Available from netlib/opt.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Suhl, U. H., & Suhl, L. M. (1990). Computing sparse LU factorizations for large-scale linear programming bases. ORSA Journal on Computing, 2, 325–335.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Suhl, L. M., & Suhl, U. H. (1991). A fast LU-update for linear programming. (Arbeitspapier des Instituts fur Wirtschaftsinformatik, Freie Universitaet – Berlin, August 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wächter, A., & Biegler, L. T., (2001). Line search filter methods for nonlinear programming: Motivation and global convergence. (Technical Report RC 23036, Yorktown Heights, NY: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, 2002; revised 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wächter, A., & Biegler, L. T. (2006). On the implementation of an interior-point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming. Mathematical Programming, 106, 25–57.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Institute for Informatics, Center for Advanced Modeling & Optimization, Bucharest, Romania

    Neculai Andrei

  2. Academy of Romanian Scientists, Bucharest, Romania

    Neculai Andrei

Authors
  1. Neculai Andrei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Andrei, N. (2017). Numerical Studies: Comparisons. In: Continuous Nonlinear Optimization for Engineering Applications in GAMS Technology. Springer Optimization and Its Applications, vol 121. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58356-3_21

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation