I'm new to SCIP, and I have a large-scale MINLP with about 500,000 integer variables, 500,000 linear constraints, and 100,000 nonlinear constraints.
I read a lot of papers about the performance of SCIP, but can't find how many variables and constraints SCIP can deal with.
One of the papers I found showing the number of sloved problems but not the number of variables and constraints as listed below.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11081-018-9411-8.pdf
Is there any experience or paper I can refer to how many variables and constraints SCIP can deal with, and how much time SCIP will take on solving?
There is hardly a limit on the size of the instances (if we're ignoring some limits imposed by the programming languages) that you can pass to SCIP - or any other MIP solver for that matter. Whether you can solve an instance in an acceptable time and without exceeding your memory is mainly a question of the computing resources at your disposal.
So, I'd say: Just give it a try!
Related
I have to solve a linear program with a very large number of constraints. I use MOSEK (mosekopt, with MSK_IPAR_INTPNT_BASIS set equal to MSK_BI_NEVER to save time).
The solver takes time to solve the program due to the large dimension.
I thought about manually coding the following iterative procedure:
Take a random subset of constraints and solve the restricted linear program.
If a solution of the restricted linear program does not exist, stop.
If a solution of the restricted linear program exists, check if it is a solution of the original linear program. If yes, stop. If not, repeat from 1. with a larger set of constraints that includes the constraints of this iteration.
The procedure does not seem to produce a notable saving of time. I wonder whether this is because 1.,2.,3. are essentially what the solver does without needing my input. Could you advise?
Could I do improve things if, when moving from 3. to 1., I supply to mosekopt the old solution of the restricted linear program?
This may or may not be faster, than using Mosek on the complete problem. At least theoretical your approach is inferior.
You say nothing of the dimension of the problem that would be interesting to know.
Or how long it takes to solve the complete problem.
One issue tricky is how many and which constraints you are adding in 3. That will be very important.
I have a series of linearly-constrained convex quadratic optimization problems that have around 100.000 variables, 1 linear constraint and 100.000 bound constraints (the same as the number of variables - the solution has to be positive). I am planning to use gurobi in R and/or Python. I have noticed that, although for small problems the solver can find a solution quite quickly, for medium to large problems (as the one I have), it takes forever (some benchmarks are shown in here - credits to Stéphane Caron).
I know that qp methods do not scale very well, but I'd like to know if you are aware of any solver/technique/tool that solves medium to large qp problems faster.
Thanks!
Please click here to see the optimization problem
Recently, I have been trying to learn a bit about CPLEX and was hoping someone could help me understand the complexity when solving for integer vs. binary constraints.
For example, say we are trying to allocate a pie around 10 people for maximum utility, where each person has a utility that is linear with the amount of pie they receive. However, we want to introduce the constraint that at least 3 people have to get a bit of pie.
What's the difference between thinking of this as a single integer constraint (number_of_people_with_pie >= 3) vs. 10 binary variables (person_1_has_pie + person_2_has_pie + ... person_10_has_pie >= 3)? I would imagine the former is simplest but wonder if there is any benefits to forming the problem in terms of binary variables?
In addition to this, any recommended reading for better understanding MIP and CPLEX would be greatly appreciated, especially in better understanding where the problem becomes NP or in what situations simplex struggles to find the global minima.
Thanks!
I agree with Alex and Erwin's comment that this really depends on what you want to model. For this particular model I disagree with Alex: to me it makes more sense to use one decision variable per person, otherwise it may become hard to figure out which person gets how much of the pie.
A problem becomes NP hard as soon as you add integrality or SOS constraints. A good reading for MIP in general is Alex Schrijver's "Theory of Integer and Linear Programming". That should cover all the topics you need for an in-depth understanding of things.
It really depends on the case but in yours I would use 1 decision variable rather than 10.
Sometimes, that's not obvious and trying and measuring can prove oneself right or wrong. And that's one of the reason why using high modeling languages can help. (Abstract modeling languages such as OPL)
I recommend a MOOC on cognitive class : https://cognitiveclass.ai/courses/mathematical-optimization-for-business-problems/
and the OPL language manual : https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSSA5P_12.7.0/ilog.odms.studio.help/pdf/opl_languser.pdf
I am trying to solve an optimisation problem consisting in finding the global maximum of a high dimensional (10+) monotonic function (as in monotonic in every direction). The constraints are such that they cut the search space with planes.
I have coded the whole thing in pyomo and I am using the ipopt solver. In most cases, I am confident it converges successfully to the global optimal. But if I play a bit with the constraints I see that it sometimes converges to a local minima.
It looks like a exploration-exploitation trade-off.
I have looked into the options that can be passed to ipopt and the list is so long that I cannot understand which parameters to play with to help with the convergence to the global minima.
edit:
Two hints of a solution:
my variables used to be defined with very infinite bounds, e.g. bounds=(0,None) to move on the infinite half-line. I have enforced two finite bounds on them.
I am now using multiple starts with:
opt = SolverFactory('multistart')
results = opt.solve(self.model, solver='ipopt', strategy='midpoint_guess_and_bound')
So far this has made my happy with the convergence.
Sorry, IPOPT is a local solver. If you really want to find global solutions, you can use a global solver such as Baron, Couenne or Antigone. There is a trade-off: global solvers are slower and may not work for large problems.
Alternatively, you can help local solvers with a good initial point. Be aware that active set methods are often better in this respect than interior point methods. Sometimes multistart algorithms are used to prevent bad local optima: use a bunch of different starting points. Pyomo has some facilities to do this (see the documentation).
I have a large MIP problem, and I use GLPSOL in GLPK to solve it. However, solving the LP relaxation problem takes many iterations, and each iteration the obj and infeas value are all the same. I think it has found the optimal solution, but it won't stop and has continued to run for many hours. Will this happen for every large-scale MIP/LP problem? How can I deal with such cases? Can anyone give me any suggestions about this? Thanks!
The problem of solving MIPs is NP-complete in general, which means that there are instances which can't be solved efficiently. But often our problems have enough structure, so that heuristics can help to solve these models. This allowed huge gains in solving-capabilities in the last decades (overview).
For understanding the basic-approach and understanding what exactly is the problem in your case (no progress in upper-bound, no progress in lower-bound, ...), read Practical Guidelines for Solving Difficult Mixed Integer Linear
Programs.
Keep in mind, that there are huge gaps between commercial solvers like Gurobi / Cplex and non-commercial ones in general (especially in MIP-solving). There is a huge amount of benchmarks here.
There are also a lot of parameters to tune. Gurobi for example has different parameter-templates: one targets fast findings of feasible solution; one targets to proof the bounds.
My personal opinion: compared to cbc (open-source) & scip (open-source but non-free for commercial usage), glpk is quite bad.