I want to control these approximation algorithms in time and solution quality with my own approximation algorithm for a problem of mine and the MIP solution itself.
So what are the known approximation algorithms that will be created from the LP relaxation of the problem?
Note: If you wanna explain it I will appreciate it but if you don't names of those algorithms are more than enough.
Thank you all in advance.
MIP solvers are very good in finding good solutions quickly. So, Stop on time limit, essentially makes it a polynomial approximation algorithm. It gives you a constant time complexity, and in many cases a good solution. An alternative is to stop on the gap (no good complexity bound). The idea is that MIP solvers show most improvements at the beginning of the search. These stopping conditions exploit that.
Related
I am trying to solve linear constraint satisfaction problems. So I grabbed the "GNU Linear Programming Kit," wrote my constraints, and let it loose on it with some simple objective function.
GLPK claimed to find a solution, but if I check it against the constraints, they are not satisfied. Namely an expression that should be <= 0 is actually around 1e-10. I.e., slightly greater than 0.
I can probably live with the issue, by setting up my constraints to return the Chebyshev centre of the polyhedron, but I wonder if such discrepancies are to be expected with linear programming solvers, or I should report it as a bug for the GLPK folks.
All LP solvers use feasibility and other tolerances. These are needed because floating-point computations are not exact. You can tighten them a bit, but in general, it is better not to touch them.
So, you should expect solutions with the following properties:
variables are slightly outside their bounds
constraints may be violated by a small amount
binary and integer variables are slightly non-integer
What is the best online solution to solve a linear programming problem?
I heard about several like Gurobi.
One thing I especially want is the possibility to get an approximate solution when the exact resolution takes too long.
The most comprehensive online optimization system is NEOS. It takes models in a variety of input formats and has a wide range of solvers.
Many solvers have settings to allow them to terminate early, even before optimality is reached, if you want an approximate and quick solution. But often your best bet in that case is to use a heuristic algorithm designed specifically for your problem.
Is there a good algorithm for detecting outliers in small sets of decimal numbers? The best idea I have come up with so far is a kind of recursive standard deviation based approach, but it seems a bit computationally expensive.
I'm using c++, so any existing functionality in say Boost or other maths helper libraries is welcome in your answers.
Thanks.
You can do it in O(n) time with an online variance algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithms_for_calculating_variance#Online_algorithm) and then a second pass to mark outliers.
I have an integer linear optimisation problem and I'm interested in feasible, good solutions. As far as I know, for example the Gnu Linear Programming Kit only returns the optimal solution (given it exists).
This takes endless time and is not exactly what I'm looking for: I would be happy with any good solution, not only the optimal one.
So a LP-Solver that e.g. stops after some time and returns the best solution he found so far, would do the job.
Is there any such software? It would be great if that software was open source or at least free as in beer.
Alternatively: Is there any other way that usually speeds up Integer LP problems?
Is this the right place to ask?
Many solvers provide a time limit parameter; if you set the time limit parameter, they will stop once the time limit is reached. If an integer feasible solution has been found, it will return the best feasible solution found to that point.
As you may know, integer programming is NP-hard, and there is a real art to finding optimal solutions as well as good feasible solutions quickly. To compare the different solvers, see Prof. Hans Mittelmann's Benchmarks for Optimization Software. The MILP benchmarks - particularly MIPLIB2010 and the Feasibility Benchmark should be most relevant.
In addition to selecting a good solver, there are many things that can be done to improve solve times including tuning the parameters of the solver and model reformulation. Many people in research and industry - including myself - spend our careers working on improving the solve times of MIP models, both in general and for specific models.
If you are an academic user, note that the top commercial systems like CPLEX and Gurobi are free for academic use. See the respective websites for details.
Finally, you may want to look at OR-Exchange, a sister site to Stack Overflow that focuses on the field of operations research.
(Disclaimer: I currently work for Gurobi Optimization and formerly worked for ILOG, which provided CPLEX).
If you would like to get a feasibel integer solution fast and if you don't need the optimal solution, you can try
Increase the relative or absolute Gap. Usually solvers have small gaps of say 0.0001% for relative gap. This means that the solver will continue searching for MIP solutions until it the MIP solution is not farther than 0.0001% away from the optimal solution. Increase this gab to e.g. 1%., So you get good solution, but the solver will not spent a long time in proving optimality.
Try different values for solver parameters concerning MIP heuristics.
CPLEX and GUROBI have parameters to control, MIP emphasis. This means that the solver will put more emphasis on looking for feasible solutions or on proving optimality. Set emphasis to feasible MIP solutions.
Most solvers like CPLEX, Gurobi, MOPS or GLPK have settings for gap and heuristics. MIP emphasis can be set - as far as I know - only in CPLEX and Gurobi.
A usual approach for solving ILP is branch-and-bound. This utilized the solution of many sub-LP (without-I). The finally optimal result is the best of all sub-LP. As at least one solution is found you could stop anytime and would have a best-so-far.
One package that could do it, is the free lpsolve. Look there at set_timeout for giving a time limit, and when it is ILP the solve function can return in SUPOPTIMAL the best_so_far value.
As far as I know CPLEX can. It can return the solution pool which contains primal feasible solutions in the search, and if you specify the search focus on feasibility rather on optimality, more faesible solutions can be generated. At the end you can just export the pool. You can use the pool to do a hot start so it's pretty up to you. CPlex is free now at least in my country as you can sign up as a researcher.
Could you take into account Microsoft Solver Foundation? The only restriction is technology stack that you prefer and here you should use, as you guess, Microsoft technologies: C#, vb.net, etc. Here is example how to use it with Excel: http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Modeling-with-Solver-Foundation-30 .
Regarding to your question it is possible to have not a fully optimized solutions if you set efficiency (for example 85% or 0.85). In outcome you can see all possible solutions for such restriction.
How would one go about implementing least squares regression for factor analysis in C/C++?
the gold standard for this is LAPACK. you want, in particular, xGELS.
When I've had to deal with large datasets and large parameter sets for non-linear parameter fitting I used a combination of RANSAC and Levenberg-Marquardt. I'm talking thousands of parameters with tens of thousands of data-points.
RANSAC is a robust algorithm for minimizing noise due to outliers by using a reduced data set. Its not strictly Least Squares, but can be applied to many fitting methods.
Levenberg-Marquardt is an efficient way to solve non-linear least-squares numerically.
The convergence rate in most cases is between that of steepest-descent and Newton's method, without requiring the calculation of second derivatives. I've found it to be faster than Conjugate gradient in the cases I've examined.
The way I did this was to set up the RANSAC an outer loop around the LM method. This is very robust but slow. If you don't need the additional robustness you can just use LM.
Get ROOT and use TGraph::Fit() (or TGraphErrors::Fit())?
Big, heavy piece of software to install just of for the fitter, though. Works for me because I already have it installed.
Or use GSL.
If you want to implement an optimization algorithm by yourself Levenberg-Marquard seems to be quite difficult to implement. If really fast convergence is not needed, take a look at the Nelder-Mead simplex optimization algorithm. It can be implemented from scratch in at few hours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelder%E2%80%93Mead_method
Have a look at
http://www.alglib.net/optimization/
They have C++ implementations for L-BFGS and Levenberg-Marquardt.
You only need to work out the first derivative of your objective function to use these two algorithms.
I've used TNT/JAMA for linear least-squares estimation. It's not very sophisticated but is fairly quick + easy.
Lets talk first about factor analysis since most of the discussion above is about regression. Most of my experience is with software like SAS, Minitab, or SPSS, that solves the factor analysis equations, so I have limited experience in solving these directly. That said, that the most common implementations do not use linear regression to solve the equations. According to this, the most common methods used are principal component analysis and principal factor analysis. In a text on Applied Multivariate Analysis (Dallas Johnson), no less that seven methods are documented each with their own pros and cons. I would strongly recommend finding an implementation that gives you factor scores rather than programming a solution from scratch.
The reason why there's different methods is that you can choose exactly what you're trying to minimize. There a pretty comprehensive discussion of the breadth of methods here.