In Gurobi, is it possible to see if a group of constraints and variables are feasible without actually optimizing the problem? It seems if the objective is a constant, Gurobi still does a lot of heavy computation to find an optimal solution, which I don't need!
Sorry. Except for very easy infeasibilities that can be detected in the presolver, Gurobi may have to do lots of work to prove whether the model is feasible or infeasible. No silver bullets here.
I am not sure if there is a better way to do this, but you can use either solution limits or time limits to stop the solver once a condition is met.
For example:
model.Params.SolutionLimit = n stops the solver once n solutions have been found.
model.Params.SolutionLimit = n stops the solver once it has run for n seconds too.
You can look at this gurobi parameters page for more info here
Related
I have a large MILP that I build with cvxpy and want to solve with GUROBI. When I give use the solve() function of cvxpy it take a really really really long time to setup and does not start solving for hours. Whilest doing that only 1 core of my cluster is being used. It is used for 100%. I would like to use multiple cores to build the model so that the process of building the model does not take so long. Running grbprobe also shows that gurobi knows about the other cores and for solving the problem it uses multiple cores.
I have tried to run with different flags i.e. turning presolve off and on or giving the number of Threads to be used (this seemed like i didn't even for the solving.
I also have reduce the number of constraints in the problem and it start solving much faster which means that this is definitively not a problem of the model itself.
The problem in it's normal state should have 2200 constraints i reduce it to 150 and it took a couple of seconds until it started to search for a solution.
The problem is that I don't see anything since it takes so long to get the ""set username parameters"" flag and I don't get any information on what the computer does in the mean time.
Is there a way to tell GUROBI or CVXPY that it can take more cpus for the build-up?
Is there another way to solve this problem?
Sorry. The first part of the solve (cvxpy model generation, setup, presolving, scaling, solving the root, preprocessing) is almost completely serial. The parallel part is when it really starts working on the branch-and-bound tree. For many problems, the parallel part is by far the most expensive, but not for all.
This is not only the case for Gurobi. Other high-end solvers have the same behavior.
There are options to do less presolving and preprocessing. That may get you earlier in the B&B. However, usually, it is better not to touch these options.
Running things with verbose=True may give you more information. If you have more detailed questions, you may want to share the log.
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.
As far as i know Gurobi resumes optimizing where it left after calling Model.Terminate() and then calling Model.Optimize() again. So I can terminate and get the best solution so far and then proceed.Now I want to do the same, but since I want to use parts of the suboptimal solution I need to set some variables to fixed values before I call Model.Optimize() again and optimize the rest of the model. How can i do this so that gurobi does not start all over again?
First, it sounds like you're describing a mixed-integer program (MIP); model modification is different for continuous optimization (linear programming, quadratic programming).
When you modify a MIP model, the tree information is no longer helpful. Instead, you must resolve the continuous (LP) relaxation and create a new branch-and-cut tree. However, the prior solution may still be used as a MIP start, which can reduce the solve time for the second model.
However, your method may be redundant with the RINS algorithm, which is an automatic feature of Gurobi MIP. You can control the behavior of RINS via the parameters RINS, SubMIPNodes and Heuristics.
I know that column generation gives an optimal solution and it can be used with other heuristics. But does that make it an exact algorithm? Thanks in advance.
Traditional CG operates on the relaxed problem. Although it finds the optimal LP solution, this may not translate directly into an optimal MIP solution. For some problems (e.g. 1d cutting stock) there is evidence this gap is small, and we just apply the set of columns found for the relaxed problem to a final MIP knowing this is a good solution but necessarily optimal. So it is a heuristic.
With some effort you can use column generation inside a branch-and-bound algorithm (this is called branch-and-price). This gives proven optimal solutions.
An exact algorithm means that the algorithm can solve the optimization problem globally i.e it has given the global optima.
Column generation technique is conventionally applied to relaxed LP problem and tries to optimize the relaxed LP problem by constantly improving the current solution with the help of dual multipliers. It gives an exact LP solution for the relaxed LP problem. But sometimes in real-world problems, the exact solution of the relaxed Lp problem is not feasible to use, it needs to be translated to an integer solution in order to use it. Now if the problem scale is small, then there are many exact MIP algorithms (such as Branch and Bound) which can solve it exactly and give an integer solution. But if the problem is large-scale, even the exact MIP algorithms can take longer runtimes, hence, we use some special/intelligent heuristics to lower the difficulty of the MIP problem.
Summary: Column generation is an exact technique for solving the relaxed LP problem, not the original IP problem.
First, strictly speaking, all algorithms are heuristic, including Simplex Method.
Second, I think Column generation is a heuristic algorithm, because it solves the LP relaxation of the master problem. It does not guarantee IP optimal. Actually CG does not always converge very well.
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.