Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1907.10930

GAMA: A Novel Algorithm for Non-Convex Integer Programs

Hedayat Alghassi, Raouf Dridi, SRIDHAR R. TAYUR

Published Jul 25, 2019• 6 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Inspired by the decomposition in the hybrid quantum-classical optimization algorithm we introduced in arXiv:1902.04215, we propose here a new (fully classical) approach to solving certain non-convex integer programs using Graver bases. This method is well suited when (a) the constraint matrix $A$ has a special structure so that its Graver basis can be computed systematically, (b) several feasible solutions can also be constructed easily and (c) the objective function can be viewed as many convex functions quilted together. Classes of problems that satisfy these conditions include Cardinality Boolean Quadratic Problems (CBQP), Quadratic Semi-Assignment Problems (QSAP) and Quadratic Assignment Problems (QAP). Our Graver Augmented Multi-seed Algorithm (GAMA) utilizes augmentation along Graver basis elements (the improvement direction is obtained by comparing objective function values) from these multiple initial feasible solutions. We compare our approach with a best-in-class commercially available solver (Gurobi). Sensitivity analysis indicates that the rate at which GAMA slows down as the problem size increases is much lower than that of Gurobi. We find that for several instances of practical relevance, GAMA not only vastly outperforms in terms of time to find the optimal solution (by two or three orders of magnitude), but also finds optimal solutions within minutes when the commercial solver is not able to do so in 4 or 10 hours (depending on the problem class) in several cases.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1907.10930

Related papers

Graver Bases via Quantum Annealing with Application to Non-Linear Integer Programs

Hedayat Alghassi, Raouf Dridi, SRIDHAR R. TAYUR

We propose a novel hybrid quantum-classical approach to calculate Graver bases, which have the potential to solve a variety of hard linear and non-linear integer programs, as they form a test set (optimality certificate) with very appealing properties. The calculation of Graver bases is exponentially hard (in general) on classical computers, so they not used for solving practical problems on commercial solvers. With a quantum annealer, however, it may be a viable approach to use them. We test two hybrid quantum-classical algorithms (on D-Wave)--one for computing Graver basis and a second for optimizing non-linear integer programs that utilize Graver bases--to understand the strengths and limitations of the practical quantum annealers available today. Our experiments suggest that with a modest increase in coupler precision--along with near-term improvements in the number of qubits and connectivity (density of hardware graph) that are expected--the ability to outperform classical best-in-class algorithms is within reach, with respect to non-linear integer optimization.

arXiv:1902.04215•Feb 12, 2019•12 citations

Globally solving Non-Convex Quadratic Programs via Linear Integer Programming techniques

Wei Xia, Juan C. Vera, Luis F. Zuluaga

Quadratic programming (QP) is a well-studied fundamental NP-hard optimization problem which optimizes a quadratic objective over a set of linear constraints. In this paper, we reformulate QPs as a mixed-integer linear problem (MILP). This is done via the reformulation of QP as a linear complementary problem, and the use of binary variables and big-M constraints, to model the complementary constraints. To obtain such reformulation, we show how to impose bounds on the dual variables without eliminating all the (globally) optimal primal solutions; using some fundamental results on the solution of perturbed linear systems. Reformulating non-convex QPs as MILPs provides an advantageous way to obtain global solutions as it allows the use of current state-of-the-art MILP solvers. To illustrate this, we compare the performance of our solution approach, labeled quadprogIP, with the current benchmark global QP solver quadprogBB, as well as with BARON, one of the leading non-linear programming (NLP) solvers, and CPLEX's non-convex QP solver, on a large variety of QP test instances. In practice, quadprogIP is shown to typically outperform by orders of magnitude quadprogBB, BARON, and CPLEX on standard QPs. For general QPs, quadprogIP outperforms quadprogBB, outperforms BARON in most instances, while CPLEX performs the best on these instances. For box-constrained QPs, quadprogIP has a comparable performance to quadprogBB and BARON in small- to medium-scale instances, but is outperformed by these solvers on large-scale instances; while CPLEX performs the best on box-constrained QP instances. Also, unlike quadprogBB, the solution approach proposed here is able to solve QP instances whose dual feasible set is unbounded. The MATLAB code, called quadprogIP, and the instances used to perform these numerical experiments are publicly available at https://github.com/xiawei918/quadprogIP.

arXiv:1511.02423•Nov 8, 2015•9 citations

Résolution de programmes quadratiques en nombres entiers

Amélie Lambert

Let $(QP)$ be an integer quadratic program that consists in minimizing a quadratic function subject to linear constraints. A such problem belongs to the class of $\mathcal{NP}\textrm{-Hard}$ problems. Standard solvers that use a Branch and Bound algorithm can efficiently solve $(QP)$ in the specific case where its objective function is convex. Thus, to solve $(QP)$, we choose to reformulate it into an equivalent problem with a convex objective function. Two reformulations are possible: either we reformulate $(QP)$ into a linear program, or we reformulate it into a convex quadratic program. \par In the first part of this dissertation, we present several linearizations of $(QP)$, i.e. reformulations into an equivalent program with a linear objective function. Many linearization methods for the quadratic binary programs are known. A natural approach when considering $(QP)$ is therefore to reformulate it into a quadratic binary program. This can be done by the binary decomposition of each integer variable and then the linearization of each new product of two binary variables. However, this method, that we denote by \texttt{BBL (Binary Binary Linearization)}, leads to a linear program with a large number of variables and constraints. We then present a new approach, \texttt{BIL (Binary Integer Linearization)}, that consists in reformulating $(QP)$ into a particular quadratic integer program where each quadratic term is the product of an integer variable by a binary variable. As in the \texttt{BBL} approach, the binary variables come from the binary decomposition of the initial integer variables. Then, we linearize the obtained program by replacing each quadratic term by a new real variable and a set of inequalities. As the number of quadratic terms is lower than in the \texttt{BBL} approach, the number of additional variables is reduced. Hence, the obtained integer linear program is significantly smaller in the \texttt{BIL} approach. Moreover, contrary to what one might think, the \texttt{BIL} approach provides a better bound obtained by continuous relaxation than the \texttt{BBL} approach. Each reformulation leads to an integer linear program that is equivalent to $(QP)$ and that we improve by adding valid inequalities. \par In a second part, we present several quadratic convex reformulations of $(QP)$, i.e. we reformulate $(QP)$ into an equivalent program, with a quadratic convex objective function. We first introduce a simple approach to convexify $(QP)$ that consists in expressing linearly the squares of integer variables using their unary decompositions, and then to convexify with the smallest eigenvalue of the Hessian matrix of $(QP)$. We call this approach \texttt{NC (Naive Convexification)}. Then, we introduce a new convex reformulation scheme that perturbs the objective function of $(QP)$ with the linear expression of the products of integer variables, and the equality constraints of $(QP)$. Then, we show that we can compute, within this scheme, an optimal reformulation of $(QP)$ in terms of bound obtained by continuous relaxation : the \texttt{IQCR (Integer Quadratic Convex Reformulation)} approach. This reformulation is based on the optimal dual solution of a semi-definite relaxation of $(QP)$. Moreover, we show that the method \texttt{IQCR} is easily adaptable to mixed-integer programming. This adaptation, that we call \texttt{IQCRs}, also allows us to integrate the inequality constraints of $(QP)$ into the perturbation of the objective function of our convex reformulation scheme. Then, we present an interesting restriction of the method \texttt{IQCR}, called \texttt{CQCR (Compact Quadratic Convex Reformulation)}. The difference between this last approach and \texttt{IQCR} is that \texttt{CQCR} only uses the linear expression of the integer variable squares to perturb the objective function, while \texttt{IQCR} uses all the products. The interest is that \texttt{CQCR} produces a reformulated problem with a reduced size in comparison with the \texttt{IQCR} approach, what could be profitable experimentally. Finally, we apply these $3$ methods \texttt{NC}, \texttt{CQCR} and \texttt{IQCR} to binary quadratic programming. We show that \texttt{NC} and \texttt{CQCR} are equivalent to existing binary convex reformulations. An interesting result is that \texttt{IQCR} is an improvement of existing convexifications for binary quadratic programming.\par In a third part, we design a specific Branch and Bound algorithm based on a projection property of the \texttt{IQCR} approach.\par Finally, we compare the four obtained linearizations and the three obtained quadratic convex reformulations from the computational point of view. For integer programming, computational experiences are carried out with two classes of instances of $(QP)$, the first having one equality constraint, and the other having one inequality constraint. The results show that most of the considered instances with up to $40$ variables can be solved in one hour of CPU time by the \texttt{IQCR} and \texttt{CQCR} approaches. We then test \texttt{IQCR} on binary quadratic programming. The results corroborate that our approach \texttt{IQCR} improves existing convexifications.

•Nov 26, 2009•1 citation

Enhancing Quadratic Programming Solvers via Quadratic Nonconvex Reformulation

Cheng Zhu Lu, Fei Yu, Kang, Gaojian +4 more

In this paper, we consider solving nonconvex quadratic programming problems using modern solvers such as Gurobi and SCIP. It is well-known that the classical techniques of quadratic convex reformulation can improve the computational efficiency of global solvers for mixed-integer quadratic optimization problems. In contrast, the use of quadratic nonconvex reformulation (QNR) has not been previously explored. This paper introduces a QNR framework--an unconventional yet highly effective approach for improving the performance of state-of-the-art quadratic programming solvers such as Gurobi and SCIP. Our computational experiments on diverse nonconvex quadratic programming problem instances demonstrate that QNR can substantially accelerate both Gurobi and SCIP. Notably, with QNR, Gurobi achieves state-of-the-art performance on several benchmark and randomly generated instances.

arXiv:2508.20897•Aug 28, 2025•1 citation

Multi-objective QUBO Solver: Bi-objective Quadratic Assignment Problem

Mayowa Ayodele, Richard Allmendinger, Manuel López‐Ibáñez +1 more

Quantum and quantum-inspired optimisation algorithms are designed to solve problems represented in binary, quadratic and unconstrained form. Combinatorial optimisation problems are therefore often formulated as Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimisation Problems (QUBO) to solve them with these algorithms. Moreover, these QUBO solvers are often implemented using specialised hardware to achieve enormous speedups, e.g. Fujitsu’s Digital Annealer (DA) and D-Wave’s Quantum Annealer. However, these are single-objective solvers, while many real-world problems feature multiple conflicting objectives. Thus, a common practice when using these QUBO solvers is to scalarise such multi-objective problems into a sequence of single-objective problems. Due to design trade-offs of these solvers, formulating each scalarisation may require more time than finding a local optimum.We present the first attempt to extend the algorithm supporting a commercial QUBO solver as a multi-objective solver that is not based on scalarisation. The proposed multi-objective DA algorithm is validated on the bi-objective Quadratic Assignment Problem. We observe that algorithm performance significantly depends on the archiving strategy adopted, and that combining DA with non-scalarisation methods to optimise multiple objectives outperforms the current scalarised version of the DA in terms of final solution quality.

•Mar 25, 2022•0 citations

A quantum constraint generation framework for binary linear programs

András Czégel, Boglárka G.-Tóth

Abstract We propose a new approach to utilize quantum computers for binary linear programming (BLP), which can be extended to general integer linear programs (ILP). Quantum optimization algorithms, hybrid or quantum-only, are currently general purpose, standalone solvers for ILP. However, to consider them practically useful, we expect them to overperform the current state of the art classical solvers. That expectation is unfair to quantum algorithms: in classical ILP solvers, after many decades of evolution, many different algorithms work together as a robust machine to get the best result. This is the approach we would like to follow now with our quantum ‘solver’ solutions. In this study we wrap any suitable quantum optimization algorithm into a quantum informed classical constraint generation framework. First we relax our problem by dropping all constraints and encode it into an Ising Hamiltonian for the quantum optimization subroutine. Then, by sampling from the solution state of the subroutine, we obtain information about constraint violations in the initial problem, from which we decide which coupling terms we need to introduce to the Hamiltonian. The coupling terms correspond to the constraints of the initial binary linear program. Then we optimize over the new Hamiltonian again, until we reach a feasible solution, or other stopping conditions hold. Since one can decide how many constraints they add to the Hamiltonian in a single step, our algorithm is at least as efficient as the (hybrid) quantum optimization algorithm it wraps. We support our claim with results on small scale minimum cost exact cover problem instances.

arXiv:2503.21222•EPJ Quantum Technology•May 19, 2025•0 citations
Inspired by the decomposition in the hybrid quantum-classical optimization algorithm we introduced in arXiv:1902.04215, we propose here a new (fully classical) approach to solving certain non-convex integer programs using Graver bases. This method is well suited when (a) the constraint matrix AAA has a special structure so that its Graver basis can be computed systematically, (b) several feasible solutions can also be constructed easily and (c) the objective function can be viewed as many convex functions quilted together. Classes of problems that satisfy these conditions include Cardinality Boolean Quadratic Problems (CBQP), Quadratic Semi-Assignment Problems (QSAP) and Quadratic Assignment Problems (QAP). Our Graver Augmented Multi-seed Algorithm (GAMA) utilizes augmentation along Graver basis elements (the improvement direction is obtained by comparing objective function values) from these multiple initial feasible solutions. We compare our approach with a best-in-class commercially available solver (Gurobi). Sensitivity analysis indicates that the rate at which GAMA slows down as the problem size increases is much lower than that of Gurobi. We find that for several instances of practical relevance, GAMA not only vastly outperforms in terms of time to find the optimal solution (by two or three orders of magnitude), but also finds optimal solutions within minutes when the commercial solver is not able to do so in 4 or 10 hours (depending on the problem class) in several cases.
We propose a novel hybrid quantum-classical approach to calculate Graver bases, which have the potential to solve a variety of hard linear and non-linear integer programs, as they form a test set (optimality certificate) with very appealing properties. The calculation of Graver bases is exponentially hard (in general) on classical computers, so they not used for solving practical problems on commercial solvers. With a quantum annealer, however, it may be a viable approach to use them. We test two hybrid quantum-classical algorithms (on D-Wave)--one for computing Graver basis and a second for optimizing non-linear integer programs that utilize Graver bases--to understand the strengths and limitations of the practical quantum annealers available today. Our experiments suggest that with a modest increase in coupler precision--along with near-term improvements in the number of qubits and connectivity (density of hardware graph) that are expected--the ability to outperform classical best-in-class algorithms is within reach, with respect to non-linear integer optimization.
Quadratic programming (QP) is a well-studied fundamental NP-hard optimization problem which optimizes a quadratic objective over a set of linear constraints. In this paper, we reformulate QPs as a mixed-integer linear problem (MILP). This is done via the reformulation of QP as a linear complementary problem, and the use of binary variables and big-M constraints, to model the complementary constraints. To obtain such reformulation, we show how to impose bounds on the dual variables without eliminating all the (globally) optimal primal solutions; using some fundamental results on the solution of perturbed linear systems. Reformulating non-convex QPs as MILPs provides an advantageous way to obtain global solutions as it allows the use of current state-of-the-art MILP solvers. To illustrate this, we compare the performance of our solution approach, labeled quadprogIP, with the current benchmark global QP solver quadprogBB, as well as with BARON, one of the leading non-linear programming (NLP) solvers, and CPLEX's non-convex QP solver, on a large variety of QP test instances. In practice, quadprogIP is shown to typically outperform by orders of magnitude quadprogBB, BARON, and CPLEX on standard QPs. For general QPs, quadprogIP outperforms quadprogBB, outperforms BARON in most instances, while CPLEX performs the best on these instances. For box-constrained QPs, quadprogIP has a comparable performance to quadprogBB and BARON in small- to medium-scale instances, but is outperformed by these solvers on large-scale instances; while CPLEX performs the best on box-constrained QP instances. Also, unlike quadprogBB, the solution approach proposed here is able to solve QP instances whose dual feasible set is unbounded. The MATLAB code, called quadprogIP, and the instances used to perform these numerical experiments are publicly available at https://github.com/xiawei918/quadprogIP.
Let (QP)(QP)(QP) be an integer quadratic program that consists in minimizing a quadratic function subject to linear constraints. A such problem belongs to the class of NP-Hard\mathcal{NP}\textrm{-Hard}NP-Hard problems. Standard solvers that use a Branch and Bound algorithm can efficiently solve (QP)(QP)(QP) in the specific case where its objective function is convex. Thus, to solve (QP)(QP)(QP), we choose to reformulate it into an equivalent problem with a convex objective function. Two reformulations are possible: either we reformulate (QP)(QP)(QP) into a linear program, or we reformulate it into a convex quadratic program. \par In the first part of this dissertation, we present several linearizations of (QP)(QP)(QP), i.e. reformulations into an equivalent program with a linear objective function. Many linearization methods for the quadratic binary programs are known. A natural approach when considering (QP)(QP)(QP) is therefore to reformulate it into a quadratic binary program. This can be done by the binary decomposition of each integer variable and then the linearization of each new product of two binary variables. However, this method, that we denote by \texttt{BBL (Binary Binary Linearization)}, leads to a linear program with a large number of variables and constraints. We then present a new approach, \texttt{BIL (Binary Integer Linearization)}, that consists in reformulating (QP)(QP)(QP) into a particular quadratic integer program where each quadratic term is the product of an integer variable by a binary variable. As in the \texttt{BBL} approach, the binary variables come from the binary decomposition of the initial integer variables. Then, we linearize the obtained program by replacing each quadratic term by a new real variable and a set of inequalities. As the number of quadratic terms is lower than in the \texttt{BBL} approach, the number of additional variables is reduced. Hence, the obtained integer linear program is significantly smaller in the \texttt{BIL} approach. Moreover, contrary to what one might think, the \texttt{BIL} approach provides a better bound obtained by continuous relaxation than the \texttt{BBL} approach. Each reformulation leads to an integer linear program that is equivalent to (QP)(QP)(QP) and that we improve by adding valid inequalities. \par In a second part, we present several quadratic convex reformulations of (QP)(QP)(QP), i.e. we reformulate (QP)(QP)(QP) into an equivalent program, with a quadratic convex objective function. We first introduce a simple approach to convexify (QP)(QP)(QP) that consists in expressing linearly the squares of integer variables using their unary decompositions, and then to convexify with the smallest eigenvalue of the Hessian matrix of (QP)(QP)(QP). We call this approach \texttt{NC (Naive Convexification)}. Then, we introduce a new convex reformulation scheme that perturbs the objective function of (QP)(QP)(QP) with the linear expression of the products of integer variables, and the equality constraints of (QP)(QP)(QP). Then, we show that we can compute, within this scheme, an optimal reformulation of (QP)(QP)(QP) in terms of bound obtained by continuous relaxation : the \texttt{IQCR (Integer Quadratic Convex Reformulation)} approach. This reformulation is based on the optimal dual solution of a semi-definite relaxation of (QP)(QP)(QP). Moreover, we show that the method \texttt{IQCR} is easily adaptable to mixed-integer programming. This adaptation, that we call \texttt{IQCRs}, also allows us to integrate the inequality constraints of (QP)(QP)(QP) into the perturbation of the objective function of our convex reformulation scheme. Then, we present an interesting restriction of the method \texttt{IQCR}, called \texttt{CQCR (Compact Quadratic Convex Reformulation)}. The difference between this last approach and \texttt{IQCR} is that \texttt{CQCR} only uses the linear expression of the integer variable squares to perturb the objective function, while \texttt{IQCR} uses all the products. The interest is that \texttt{CQCR} produces a reformulated problem with a reduced size in comparison with the \texttt{IQCR} approach, what could be profitable experimentally. Finally, we apply these 333 methods \texttt{NC}, \texttt{CQCR} and \texttt{IQCR} to binary quadratic programming. We show that \texttt{NC} and \texttt{CQCR} are equivalent to existing binary convex reformulations. An interesting result is that \texttt{IQCR} is an improvement of existing convexifications for binary quadratic programming.\par In a third part, we design a specific Branch and Bound algorithm based on a projection property of the \texttt{IQCR} approach.\par Finally, we compare the four obtained linearizations and the three obtained quadratic convex reformulations from the computational point of view. For integer programming, computational experiences are carried out with two classes of instances of (QP)(QP)(QP), the first having one equality constraint, and the other having one inequality constraint. The results show that most of the considered instances with up to 404040 variables can be solved in one hour of CPU time by the \texttt{IQCR} and \texttt{CQCR} approaches. We then test \texttt{IQCR} on binary quadratic programming. The results corroborate that our approach \texttt{IQCR} improves existing convexifications.
In this paper, we consider solving nonconvex quadratic programming problems using modern solvers such as Gurobi and SCIP. It is well-known that the classical techniques of quadratic convex reformulation can improve the computational efficiency of global solvers for mixed-integer quadratic optimization problems. In contrast, the use of quadratic nonconvex reformulation (QNR) has not been previously explored. This paper introduces a QNR framework--an unconventional yet highly effective approach for improving the performance of state-of-the-art quadratic programming solvers such as Gurobi and SCIP. Our computational experiments on diverse nonconvex quadratic programming problem instances demonstrate that QNR can substantially accelerate both Gurobi and SCIP. Notably, with QNR, Gurobi achieves state-of-the-art performance on several benchmark and randomly generated instances.
Quantum and quantum-inspired optimisation algorithms are designed to solve problems represented in binary, quadratic and unconstrained form. Combinatorial optimisation problems are therefore often formulated as Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimisation Problems (QUBO) to solve them with these algorithms. Moreover, these QUBO solvers are often implemented using specialised hardware to achieve enormous speedups, e.g. Fujitsu’s Digital Annealer (DA) and D-Wave’s Quantum Annealer. However, these are single-objective solvers, while many real-world problems feature multiple conflicting objectives. Thus, a common practice when using these QUBO solvers is to scalarise such multi-objective problems into a sequence of single-objective problems. Due to design trade-offs of these solvers, formulating each scalarisation may require more time than finding a local optimum.We present the first attempt to extend the algorithm supporting a commercial QUBO solver as a multi-objective solver that is not based on scalarisation. The proposed multi-objective DA algorithm is validated on the bi-objective Quadratic Assignment Problem. We observe that algorithm performance significantly depends on the archiving strategy adopted, and that combining DA with non-scalarisation methods to optimise multiple objectives outperforms the current scalarised version of the DA in terms of final solution quality.
Abstract We propose a new approach to utilize quantum computers for binary linear programming (BLP), which can be extended to general integer linear programs (ILP). Quantum optimization algorithms, hybrid or quantum-only, are currently general purpose, standalone solvers for ILP. However, to consider them practically useful, we expect them to overperform the current state of the art classical solvers. That expectation is unfair to quantum algorithms: in classical ILP solvers, after many decades of evolution, many different algorithms work together as a robust machine to get the best result. This is the approach we would like to follow now with our quantum ‘solver’ solutions. In this study we wrap any suitable quantum optimization algorithm into a quantum informed classical constraint generation framework. First we relax our problem by dropping all constraints and encode it into an Ising Hamiltonian for the quantum optimization subroutine. Then, by sampling from the solution state of the subroutine, we obtain information about constraint violations in the initial problem, from which we decide which coupling terms we need to introduce to the Hamiltonian. The coupling terms correspond to the constraints of the initial binary linear program. Then we optimize over the new Hamiltonian again, until we reach a feasible solution, or other stopping conditions hold. Since one can decide how many constraints they add to the Hamiltonian in a single step, our algorithm is at least as efficient as the (hybrid) quantum optimization algorithm it wraps. We support our claim with results on small scale minimum cost exact cover problem instances.