Skip to main content
Log in

The empirical performance of a polynomial algorithm for constrained nonlinear optimization

  • Section IV Nonlinear Programming
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In [6], a polynomial algorithm based on successive piecewise linear approximation was described. The algorithm is polynomial for constrained nonlinear (convex or concave) optimization, when the constraint matrix has a polynomial size subdeterminant. We propose here a practical adaptation of that algorithm with the idea of successive piecewise linear approximation of the objective on refined grids, and the testing of the gap between lower and upper bounds. The implementation uses the primal affine interior point method at each approximation step. We develop special features to speed up each step and to evaluate the gap. Empirical study of problems of size up to 198 variables and 99 constraints indicates that the procedure is very efficient and all problems tested were terminated after 171 interior point iterations. The procedure used in the implementation is proved to converge when the objective is strongly convex.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. E.R. Barnes, A variation on Karmarkar's algorithm for solving linear programming problems, Manuscript, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  2. M.S. Bazaraa and C.M. Shetty,Nonlinear Programming: Theory and Algorithms (Wiley, 1979).

  3. I.I. Dikin, Iterative solution of problems of linear and quadratic programming, Sov. Math. Dokl. 8(1967)674–675.

    Google Scholar 

  4. G.B. Dantzig,Linear Programming and Extensions (Princeton University Press, 1963).

  5. R. Fourer, Simplex algorithm for piecewise-linear programming I: Derivation and proof, Math. Progr. 33(1985)204–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. D.S. Hochbaum and J.G. Shanthikumar, Convex separable optimization is not much harder than linear optimization, J. ACM 37(1990)843–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. R.R. Meyer, Computational aspects of two-segment separable programming, Math. Progr. 26(1983)21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  8. A. Premoli, Piecewise linear programming: The compact (CPLP) algorithm, Math. Progr. 36(1986)210–227.

    Google Scholar 

  9. R.T. Rockafellar,Network Flows and Monotropic Optimization (Wiley, 1984).

  10. R.J. Vanderbei, M.S. Meketon and B.A. Freedman, A modification of Karmarkar's linear programming algorithm, Algorithmica 1(1986)395–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. P. Wolfe, Methods of nonlinear programming, in:Recent Advances in Mathematical Programming, ed. R.L. Graves and P. Wolfe (1963).

  12. P. Wolfe, Convergence theory in nonlinear programming, in:Integer and Nonlinear Programming, ed. J. Abadie (North-Holland, 1970).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Supported in part by the Office of Naval Research under Grant No. N00014-88-K-0377 and Grant No. ONR N00014-91-J-1241.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hochbaum, D.S., Seshadri, S. The empirical performance of a polynomial algorithm for constrained nonlinear optimization. Ann Oper Res 43, 229–248 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02025453

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02025453

Keywords

Navigation