Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feasibility issues in a primal-dual interior-point method for linear programming

  • Published:
Mathematical Programming Submit manuscript

Abstract

A new method for obtaining an initial feasible interior-point solution to a linear program is presented. This method avoids the use of a “big-M”, and is shown to work well on a standard set of test problems. Conditions are developed for obtaining a near-optimal solution that is feasible for an associated problem, and details of the computational testing are presented. Other issues related to obtaining and maintaining accurate feasible solutions to linear programs with an interior-point method are discussed. These issues are important to consider when solving problems that have no primal or dual interior-point feasible solutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • I. Adler, N. Karmarkar, M.G.C. Resende and G. Veiga, “An implementation of Karmarkar's algorithm for linear programming,”Mathematical Programming 44 (1989) 297–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Barnes, “A variation on Karmarkar's algorithm for solving linear programming problems,”Mathematical Programming 36 (1985) 174–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • I.C. Choi, C.L. Monma and D.F. Shanno, “Further development of a primal—dual interior point method,” manuscript, Columbia University (New York, NY, 1988), to appear in:ORSA Journal on Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  • G.B. Dantzig,Linear Programming and Extensions (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  • I.I. Dikin, “Iterative solution of problems of linear and quadratic programming,”Soviet Mathematics Doklady 8 (1967) 674–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • D.M. Gay, “Electronic mail distribution of linear programming test problems,”Mathematical Programming Society COAL Newsletter (December, 1985).

  • J.A. George and J.W.H. Liu,Computer Solution of Large Sparse Positive Definite Systems (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • P.E. Gill, W. Murray, M.A. Saunders, J.A. Tomlin and M.H. Wright, “On projected Newton barrier methods for linear programming and an equivalence to Karmarkar's projective method,”Mathematical Programming 36 (1986) 183–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • P.E. Gill, W. Murray, M.A. Saunders and M.H. Wright, “A practical anti-cycling procedure for linearly constrained optimization,”Mathematical Progamming 45 (1990) 437–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Karmarkar, “A new polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming,”Combinatorica 4 (1984) 373–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Kojima, S. Mizuno and A. Yoshise, “A primal—dual interior point algorithm for linear programming,” in: N. Megiddo, ed.,Progress in Mathematical Programming (Springer, New York, 1988) pp. 29–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • J.W.H. Liu, “The multifrontal method and paging in sparse Cholesky factorization,” Technical Report CS-87-09, Department of Computer Science, York University (Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1987a).

    Google Scholar 

  • J.W.H. Liu, “A collection of routines for an implementation of the multifrontal method,” Technical Report CS-87-10, Department of Computer Science, York University (Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1987b).

    Google Scholar 

  • I.J. Lustig, “A generic primal—dual interior point algorithm,” Technical Report SOR 88-3, Program in Statistics and Operations Research, Department of Civil Engineering and Operations Research, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Princeton University (Princeton, NJ, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • I.J. Lustig, “An analysis of an available set of linear programming test problems,”Computers and Operations Research 16 (1989) 173–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • K.A. McShane, C.L. Monma and D.F. Shanno, “An implementation of a primal—dual interior point method for linear programming,”ORSA Journal on Computing 1 (1989) 70–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Megiddo, “Pathways to the optimal set in linear programming,” in: N. Megiddo, ed.,Progress in Mathematical Programming (Springer, New York, 1988) pp. 131–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • C.L. Monma and A.J. Morton, “Computational experience with a dual affine variant of Karmarkar's method for linear programming,”Operations Research Letters 6 (1987) 261–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • R.C. Monteiro and I. Adler, “Interior path following primal—dual algorithms—Part I: linear programming,”Mathematical Programming 44 (1989) 27–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • B.A. Murtagh and M.A. Saunders, MINOS 5.1 user's guide, Technical Report SOL 83-20R, Department of Operations Research, Stanford University (Stanford, CA, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • R.J. Vanderbei, M.S. Meketon and B.A. Freedman, “A modification of Karmarkar's linear programming algorithm,”Algorithmica 1 (1986) 395–408.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program in Statistics and Operations Research, Department of Civil Engineering and Operations Research, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Princeton University, 08544, Princeton, NJ, USA

    Irvin J. Lustig

Authors
  1. Irvin J. Lustig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lustig, I.J. Feasibility issues in a primal-dual interior-point method for linear programming. Mathematical Programming 49, 145–162 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01588785

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01588785

Key words

Search

Navigation