Advertisement

Comparative Performance Evaluation, Experimental Design, and Generation of Test Problems in Non-Linear Optimization

  • F. A. Lootsma
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 15)

Abstract

The key issues in performance evaluation and computational testing were raised during the NATO Advanced Research Institute on Nonlinear Programming, Cambridge, UK, July 1981 (see Powell (1982)). Briefly summarized, they are as follows:

Keywords

Test Problem Fuzzy Number Performance Criterion Nonlinear Program Geometric Programming 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [l]
    Colville, A.R., A Comparative Study on Nonlinear Programming Codes. Report 3 20-2949, IBM Scientific Center, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Crowder, H.P., Dembo, R.S., and Mulvey, J.M., Reporting Computational Experiments in Mathematical Programming. Math. Progr. 15, 291-315, 1978.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Crowder, H.P., and Saunders, P.B., Results of a Survey on MP Software Indicators. Committee on Algorithms Newsletter (Math. Progr. Society), January 1980, 2–7.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Dembo, R.S., Current State of the Art of Algorithms and Computer Software for Geometric Programming. J. Opt. Th. Appl. 26 149-183, 1978.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Dembo, R.S., and Mulvey, J.M., On the Analysis and Comparison of Mathematical Programming Algorithms and Software. In W.W. White (ed.), Computers and Mathematical Programming. NBS Special Publication 502, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 106-116, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Dubois, D., and Prade, H., Operations on Fuzzy Numbers. Int. J. Systems Sci. 9, 613-626, 1978.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Dubois, D., and Prade, H., Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Theory and Applications. Academic Press, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Eason, E.D., and Fenton, F.G., A Comparison of Numerical) ptimization Methods for Engineering Design. Trans. ASME, Ser. B. Vol. 96, 196–200, 1974.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Fattier, J.E., Sin, Y.T., Root, R.R., Ragsdell, K.M., and Reklaitis, G.V., On the Computational Utility of Posynomial Geometric Programming Solution Methods. Math. Progr. 22, 163-201, 1982.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Hock, W., and Schittkowski, K. Test Examples for Nonlinear Programming Codes. Lecture Notes Ec. Math. Systems 187, Springer, Berlin, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Laarhoven, P.J.M. van, and Pedrycz, W., A Fuzzy Extension of Saaty’s Priority Theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 11, 229-242, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Lootsma, F.A., Performance Evaluation of Nonlinear Optimization Methods via Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and via Linear Model Analysis. In M.J.D. Powell (ed.), Nonlinear Optimization 1981. Academic Press, London, 419-453, 1982.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Lootsma, F.A., Performance Evaluation of Nonlinear Optimization Methods via Pairwise Comparison and Fuzzy Numbers. Paper presented at the NATO ASI on Comp. Math. Progr., Bad Windsheim, FR Germany, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Mulvey, J. (ed.), Evaluating Mathematical Programming Techniques. Lecture Notes Ec. Math. Systems 199, Springer, Berlin, 1982.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Powell, M.J.D., Nonlinear Optimization 1981. Academic Press, London, 1982Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Rijckaert, M.J., and Martens, X.M., Comparison of Generalized Geometric Programming Algorithms. J. Opt. Th. Appl. 26, 205-242, 1978.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Rijckaert, M.J., and Walraven, E.J.C., Reflections on Geometric Programming. Paper presented at the NATO ASI on Comp. Math. Progr., Bad Windsheim, F.R. Germany, 1984. Cath. Univ. Louvain, Dept. of Chem. Eng., Louvain, Belgium.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Rosen, J.B., and Suzuki, S., Construction of Nonlinear Programming Test Problems, Comm. ACM 8, 113, 1965.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Saaty, Th.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Sandgren, E., and Ragsdell, K.M., On Some Experiments which delimit the Utility of Nonlinear Programming Methods for Engineering Design. Math. Progr. Study 16, 118-136, 1982.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Sarma, P.V., Martens, X.M., Reklaitis, G.V., and Rijckaert, M.J., A Comparison of Computational Strategies for Geometric Programs. J. Opt. Th. Appl. 26, 185-203, 1978.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Schittkowski, K., Nonlinear Optimization Codes. Lecture Notes Ec. Math. Systems 183, Springer, Berlin, 1980.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Staha, R.L., and Himmelblau, D.M., Evaluation of Constrained Nonlinear Programming Techniques. Report, Dept. of Chem. Eng., University of Texas at Austin, Texas 78712, 1973.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    White, W.W. (ed.), Computers and Mathematical Programming. NBS Special Publication 502, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1978.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. A. Lootsma
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and InformaticsDelft University of TechnologyDelftNetherlands

Personalised recommendations