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
NP-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.
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.
Unconstrained quadratic zero-one programming belongs to the class of NP-complete problems. It is therefore considered computationally intractable. Much research has been done in trying to find subsets of unconstrained quadratic 0-1 programs that can be solved in polynomial time. However, for the general problem, nonpolynomial methods must be used, resulting in limitations on the size of problems that can be solved. Branch and bound is a computational method that implicitly enumerates all possible solutions. Research on branch and bound algorithms is vast. Due to the computational complexity of the algorithm, efficient implementations are necessary in order to solve even moderate size problems.
It is natural to expect that any implementation of a branch and bound algorithm may consume large amounts of computer resources due to the nature of the algorithm. Therefore, it is desirable to exploit contemporary high performance computers.
In this thesis, efficiencies in the implementation of new 0-1 branch and bound algorithms on contemporary computer architectures are studied. Though not primarily designed for combinatorial problems, it is shown that many contemporary architectures, including distributed and shared memory multiprocessors, are capable of increasing the scope of solvable discrete programming problems.
An application of unconstrained quadratic 0-1 programming is the maximum clique problem. It is shown that the variable selection rule in the proposed algorithm is equivalent to a nongreedy vertex selection rule for the maximum clique problem. This rule enhances the use of preprocessing rules that are applied to all branch and bound subproblems. By using this rule and by exploiting efficient data structures, maximum clique problems are solved for graphs of up to 1,000 vertices and 150,000 edges.
We propose a feasible active set method for convex quadratic programming problems with nonnegativity constraints. This method is specifically designed to be embedded into a branch-and-bound algorithm for convex quadratic mixed- integer programming problems. The branch-and-bound algorithm generalizes the approach for unconstrained convex quadratic integer programming proposed by Buchheim, Caprara, and Lodi [Math. Program., 135 (2012), pp. 369--395] to the presence of linear constraints. The main feature of the latter approach consists of a sophisticated preprocessing phase, leading to a fast enumeration of the branch-and-bound nodes. Moreover, the feasible active set method takes advantage of this preprocessing phase and is well suited for reoptimization. Experimental results for randomly generated instances show that the new approach significantly outperforms the MIQP solver of \tt CPLEX 12.6 for instances with a small number of constraints.
We reformulate a (indefinite) quadratic program (QP) as a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) problem by first reformulating a QP as a linear complementary problem, and then using binary variables and big-M constraints to model its complementary constraints. To obtain such reformulation, we use fundamental results on the solution of perturbed linear systems to impose bounds on the QP’s dual variables without eliminating any of its (globally) optimal primal solutions. Reformulating a nonconvex QP as a MILP problem allows the use of current state-of-the-art MILP solvers to find its global optimal solution. To illustrate this, we compare the performance of this MILP-based solution approach, labeled quadprogIP, with quadprogBB, BARON, and CPLEX. In practice, quadprogIP is shown to typically outperform by orders of magnitude quadprogBB, BARON, and CPLEX on standard QPs. Also, unlike quadprogBB, quadprogIP is able to solve QP instances in which the dual feasible set is unbounded. The MATLAB code quadprogIP and the instances used to perform the reported numerical experiments are publicly available at https://github.com/xiawei918/quadprogIP .
At the intersection of combinatorial and nonlinear optimization, quadratic programming (QP) plays an important role in practice and optimization theory.With wide-spread real-world applications including, but not limited to, engineering design, game theory, and economics, quadratic programming has many valuable contributions and has attracted considerable interest over the past few decades.As a more general formulation, quadratically constrained quadratic programming (QCQP) problems arise naturally from a lot of applications such as facility location, production planning, economic equilibria and Euclidean distance geometry, etc.Most global optimization approaches for nonconvex QCQPs are based on constructing a convex or linear relaxation of the problem, and embedding it within an exhaustive search mechanism, where a lower bound is calculated as the value of the objective function of this relaxation (for a minimization problem) at each iteration of the search tree.The two principle elements affecting the overall effectiveness of such exhaustive search methods are the tightness of the underlying relaxation and the efficiency of calculating the lower bound.Besides, the performance of a branch-and-bound algorithm also relies on the procedure used to select a branching node and branching variable, which leads to good quality feasible solutions or equivalently an upper bound.vii LIST OF TABLES 5.5 Computational results of 0-1 QPs with n = 40 . . . . . . . . . . . .110 5.6 Computational results of 0-1 QPs with n = 50 . . . . . . . . . . . .