strong bounds for linear programs with cardinality limited violation clv constraint systems l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Strong Bounds for Linear Programs with Cardinality Limited Violation (CLV) Constraint Systems PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Strong Bounds for Linear Programs with Cardinality Limited Violation (CLV) Constraint Systems

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 28

Strong Bounds for Linear Programs with Cardinality Limited Violation (CLV) Constraint Systems - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 130 Views
  • Uploaded on

Strong Bounds for Linear Programs with Cardinality Limited Violation (CLV) Constraint Systems. Ali Tuncel Purdue University atuncel@purdue.edu Jean-Philippe Richard Purdue University jprichar@purdue.edu. Ronald L. Rardin University of Arkansas rrardin@uark.edu Mark Langer, M.D .

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Strong Bounds for Linear Programs with Cardinality Limited Violation (CLV) Constraint Systems' - monita


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
strong bounds for linear programs with cardinality limited violation clv constraint systems

Strong Bounds for Linear Programs with Cardinality Limited Violation (CLV) Constraint Systems

Ali Tuncel

Purdue University

atuncel@purdue.edu

Jean-Philippe Richard

Purdue University

jprichar@purdue.edu

Ronald L. Rardin

University of Arkansas

rrardin@uark.edu

Mark Langer, M.D.

Indiana University

mlanger@iupui.edu

Workshop on Mixed Integer Programming

August 4-7, 2008

lp s with clv constraints
LP’s with CLV Constraints
  • Models LPCLV have all constraints and the objective linear, but some constraints belong to systems where up to k of m may be violated
mip formulation of clv constraints
MIP Formulation of CLV Constraints
  • If some outer limit on violation is available, the CLV system is easily modeled
  • But a difficult MILP often results, especially when there is a great difference between and
application portfolio optimization
Application: Portfolio Optimization
  • LPCLV models arise in Value at Risk portfolio optimization, where decision variables xj represent the investment from budget P in asset j , and CLV constraints reflect risk under various scenarios i, at most k of which may exceed b
application radiation therapy fluence planning
Application: Radiation Therapy (Fluence) Planning
  • Radiation is delivered by an accelerator that rotates 360 degrees around the patient
  • Full beam area is large, around 10 cm square. However, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) can deliver shaped intensity maps composed of 3-10mm rectangular beamlets with independent fluence
application radiation therapy fluence planning6
Application: Radiation Therapy (Fluence) Planning
  • The goal of intensity/fluence/timeon planning optimization is to assign optimal beamlet intensities xj so that prescribed doses are delivered to different types of tissues:
    • Primary Target: Tumor region. Maximize dose within homogeneity requirements
    • Secondary Targets: Minimum dose limits to eliminate risk of microscopic infection.
    • Healthy/Normal Tissues: Maximum dose limits on all or specified fractions of surrounding tissues to avoid complications.
    • Dose-volume limits are ones on fractions of normal tissue volume (e.g. no more than 20% of points in the tissue can receive a dose exceeding 60)
dose volume tissues
Dose-Volume Tissues

+

+

  • Tissues are modeled as collections of imbedded points i
  • Dose at any point is approximately linear in beamlet fluence xj
  • Leads to a CLV system for each dose-volume constrained tissue with other constraints linear

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

computational challenge hard cases
Computational Challenge – Hard Cases

The difference between b and b values influences the initial optimality gap.

rounding heuristic
Rounding Heuristic
  • An LP-rounding heuristic often gives feasible integer solutions
    • Solve the LP relaxation
    • Sort the points in each dose-volume tissue by LP relaxation dose
    • Force all but the highest-dose k to satisfy b
    • Solve the modified LP relaxation
  • Results are good if the LP is a fair to good approximation of the MIP
computational challenge
Computational Challenge

LP relaxation and rounding heuristic

* feasible solution from later methods

Compared to CPLEX 11.0

lpclvs as disjunctive programs
LPCLVs As Disjunctive Programs

m=5, K=2

  • Disjunctive programming studies optimization problems over disjunctions (unions) of polyhedra (LP feasible sets)
  • Easy to see how LPCLVs can be viewed this way as a union over all the LPs with different sets of (m-k) of the tighter b RHSs explicitly enforced (here all 3 of 5)

x2

b= 20

x1

valid inequalities for disjunctive programming
Valid Inequalities for Disjunctive Programming
  • Balas proved that all needed valid inequalities for disjunctions of polyhedra can be constructed by rolling up each of the member linear systems with nonnegative multipliers, and picking the lowest of the rolled coefficients on the LHS and the largest on the RHS
valid inequalities for lpclv main disjunctive inequality
Valid Inequalities for LPCLV – Main Disjunctive Inequality

x2

m=5, K=2

b= 20

Average of lowest 3 values

x1

Main Disjunctive Inequality

valid inequalities for lpclv a family of disjunctive inequalities
Valid Inequalities for LPCLV – A Family of Disjunctive Inequalities

Lemma. For any subset S of i=1,…,m with K or more elements, the implied LPCLV(A[S],b,K) is a relaxation of the full LPCLV(A,b,K) where A[S] is the row sub- matrix of A for rows in S

Proposition. For any subset S of i=1,…,m with more than K elements, the inequality

is valid for full system LPCLV(A,b,K), where each

is the average of the (|S|-K) smallest coefficients in rows in S.

valid inequalities for lpclv disjunctive support inequalities
Valid Inequalities for LPCLV – Disjunctive Support Inequalities

Proposition. Let subset Sk of i=1,…,m be the K+1 rows with largest coefficients on xk . Then the inequality

is valid for full system LPCLV(A,b,K), where each

is smallest j coefficient for rows in Sk . Furthermore the inequality supports the convex hull of solutions to the full LPCLV(A,b,K) (at xk = b / , other xj = 0)

x2

m=5, K=2

b= 20

Average of the lowest value

x1

Disjunctive Support Inequality

results for disjunctive cuts
Results for Disjunctive Cuts

LP relaxation and rounding heuristic (except *)

* feasible solution from later methods

LP relaxation with disjunctive cuts and rounding heuristic

sce concept
SCE Concept
  • Consider relaxations enforcing only one row of the CLV system at a time
sce concept20
SCE Concept

Proposition. Let zi denote the optimal solution value of SCEi. Then the k+1st smallest such zi is a valid upper bound on the optimal solution value of the full LPCLV.

(Proof idea: There can be at most k of the single constraints violated in LPCLV, but thereafter all constraints must be satisfied at the b value.)

  • Direct implementation solves all one-row problems, sorts solution values, and picks the k+1st

Example with m=9, k=3

  • Direct SCE (i) solves all one-row problems, (ii) sorts solution values, and (iii) picks the k+1st smallest
slide21

Adaptive Single Constraint Enumeration (ASCE)

  • Do better by using one-row problems solved to get adaptive upper/lower bounds for unsolved SCEi

K+1st Lowest Upper Bound Is SCEUpper Bound

Solved Case

K+1st Lowest Lower Bound Is SCELower Bound

Each Box Shows SCE Value Upper – Lower Range with Bar for True Optimal Value

Bounds Improved by Solving Other SCEs

asce global bounds
ASCE – Global Bounds
  • The K+1st lowest of the upper bounds is a running upper bound on the ultimate SCE bound obtained (max of theseupper bounds >= max of their z’s >= max of ultimate K+1 z’s)
  • The K+1st lowest of the lower bounds is a running lower bound on the ultimate SCE bound obtained (max of these lower bounds <= max of lower bounds for ultimate K+1 <= max of their z’s)
asce surrogate relaxation upper bounds
ASCE – Surrogate Relaxation Upper Bounds
  • Each SCEi solved produces dual multipliers that can be used to quickly update running upper bounds on solution values for other SCEq
  • Construct a surrogate constraint valid for each SCEq using the dual solution for SCEi without any multipliers on the CLV constraints to roll up all the others Gx<=h
  • For each q not i in turn, solve a simple relaxation of SCEq having only such surrogate constraints and the single CLV inequality for q
  • These yield upper bounds on the solution values of the corresponding SCEq , and the running best upper bounds on their values can be updated
asce common feasible for lower bounds
ASCE – Common Feasible for Lower Bounds
  • If an SCEi solution vector is also feasible for constraint q of the CLV system, then i’s solution value is a lower bound on that SCEq and the running lower bound on that solution value can be updated
asce pruning
ASCE - Pruning
  • If the running upper bound on the value of SCEq is already < the best known LPCLV feasible solution value, then q is certain to be among the lowest K+1 that establish the global bound. No further processing of SCEq is needed.
  • If at least K+1 of the running upper bounds are no greater that the running lower bound for SCEq then it cannot be in the lowest K+1. No further exploration of q is required
results with sce and asce
Results with SCE and ASCE

LP relaxation with disjunctive cuts and rounding heuristic

LP relaxation with disjunctive cuts and SCE/ASCE and rounding heuristic

conclusions
Conclusions
  • Linear Programming Relaxations of MIP formulations of LPCLV problems can be arbitrarily weak
  • Commercial MIP solver (CPLEX 11) is not effective in closing the initial large optimality gaps
  • Efficient valid inequalities based on disjunctive programming theory can be generated to:
    • Strengthen LP relaxations and significantly reduce initial optimality gaps when problems are dense
    • Help find better feasible solutions within the rounding heuristic framework
    • Improve run times
conclusions28
Conclusions
  • SCE procedure can be implemented as a stand-alone procedure or in branch and bound
    • Significantly reduces upper bound values.
    • In some cases, finds better feasible solutions
  • Adaptive SCE accomplishes the SCE computation in significantly reduced time
  • The combined algorithm utilizing disjunctive inequalities and the ASCE procedure within the rounding heuristic framework produces lower optimality gaps and better feasible solution values