Skip to main content
Log in

The Complexity of Self-Regular Proximity Based Infeasible IPMs

  • Published:
Computational Optimization and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Primal-Dual Interior-Point Methods (IPMs) have shown their power in solving large classes of optimization problems. In this paper a self-regular proximity based Infeasible Interior Point Method (IIPM) is proposed for linear optimization problems. First we mention some interesting properties of a specific self-regular proximity function, studied recently by Peng and Terlaky, and use it to define infeasible neighborhoods. These simple but interesting properties of the proximity function indicate that, when the current iterate is in a large neighborhood of the central path, large-update IIPMs emerge as the only natural choice. Then, we apply these results to design a specific self-regularity based dynamic large-update IIPM in large neighborhood. The new dynamic IIPM always takes large-updates and does not utilize any inner iteration to get centered. An \(O(n^{2}\log{\frac{n}{\epsilon}})\) worst-case iteration bound of the algorithm is established. Finally, we report the main results of our computational experiments.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. E.D. Andersen, C. Roos, T. Terlaky, T. Trafalis, and J.P. Warners, “The use of low-rank updates in interior-point methods,” in Numerical Linear Algebra and Optimization, Y. Yuan (Ed.), Science Press, Beijing, China, pp. 1–12, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Gupta, WSMP: Watson Sparse Matrix Package (Part I: Direct solution of symmetric sparce systems). Technical Report RC 21866(98462), IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY, 2000. http://www.cs.umn.edu/~agupta/wsmp.html

  3. N. Karmarkar, “New polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming,” Combinatorica, vol. 4, pp. 373–395, 1984.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. M. Kojima, “Basic lemmas in polynomial-time infeasible-interior-point methods for linear programs,” Annals of Operations Research, vol. 62, pp. 1–28, 1996.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. M. Kojima, N. Megiddo, and S. Mizuno, “A primal-dual infeasible-interior-point algorithm for linear programming,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 61, pp. 263–280, 1993.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. I.J. Lustig, “Interior point methods: Computational state of the art,” Linear Algebra and Its Applications, vol. 152, pp. 191–222, 1993.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. I.J. Lustig, “Feasible issues in a primal-dual interior-point methods for linear programming,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 49, pp. 145–162, 1990/91.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. S. Mehrotra, “On the implementation of a primal-dual interior point method,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 2, pp. 575–601, 1992.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. S. Mizuno, “Polynomiality of infeasible-interior-point algorithms for linear programming,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 67, pp. 109–119, 1994.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. R.D.C. Monteiro and I. Adler, “Interior path following primal-dual algorithms. Part I: Linear programming,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 44, pp. 27–41, 1989.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. OSL: The Optimization Solution Library. Home page: http://www-3.ibm.com/software/data/bi/index.html

  12. J. Peng, C. Roos, and T. Terlaky, Self-Regularity: A New Paradigm for Primal-Dual Interior-Point Algorithms. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Peng and T. Terlaky, “A dynamic large-update primal-dual interior-point methods for linear optimizaion,” Optimization Methods and Software, vol. 17, pp. 1077–1104, 2002.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. J. Peng, C. Roos, and T. Terlaky, “Self-Regular proximities and new search directions for linear and semidefinite optimization,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 93, pp. 129–171, 2002.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. F.A. Potra, “A quadratically convergence predictor-corrector method for solving linear programs from infeasible starting points,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 67, pp. 383–406, 1994.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. C. Roos, T. Terlaky, and J.-Ph. Vial, Theory and Algorithms for Linear Optimization. An Interior Point Approach. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  17. D. Shanno and E. Simantiraki, “An infeasible interior-point method for linear complementarity problems,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 620–640, 1997.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. J. Stoer, M. Wechs, and S. Mizuno, “High order infeasible-interior-point methods for solving sufficient linear complementarity problems,” in System Modeling and Optimization, Detroit, MI, Chapman Hall/CRC Res. Notes Math., vol. 396, pp. 245–252, 1997.

  19. K. Tanabe, “Centered Newton method for linear programming: Interior and ‘exterior’ point method (in Janpanese),” in New Methods for Linear Programming, K. Tone (Ed.), vol. 3, pp. 98–100, 1990.

  20. T. Terlaky (Ed.), Interior Point Methods of Mathematical Programming. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.

  21. M.J. Todd and Y. Ye, “Approximate Farkas lemmas and stopping rules for iterative infeasible-point algorithms for linear programming,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 81, pp. 1–21, 1998.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. P. Tseng, “Analysis of an infeasible interior path-following method for complementarity problems,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 386–402, 1997.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. R.H. Tütüncü, “An infeasible-interior-point potential-reduction algorithm for linear programming,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 313–334, 1999.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. S.J. Wright, Primal-Dual Interior-Point Methods. SIAM: Philadelphia, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  25. S.J. Wright, “An infeasible-interior-point algorithm for linear complementarity problems,” Mathematical Programming,” vol. 67, pp. 29–52, 1994.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. S.J. Wright and Y. Zhang, “A superquadratic infeasible-interior-point method for linear complementarity problems,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 269–289, 1996.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Y. Ye, Interior-Point Algorithms, Theory and Analysis. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Y. Ye, M.J. Todd, and S. Mizuno, “An \(O(\sqrt{n}L\))-iteration homogeneous and self-dual linear programming algorithm,” Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 19, pp. 53–67, 1994.

  29. Y. Zhang, “On the convergence of a class of infeasible-interior-point methods for the horizantal linear complementarity problem,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 4, pp. 208–227, 1994.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Y. Zhang, “Solving large-scale linear programs by interior-point methods under the MATLAB environment,” Optimization Methods and Software, vol. 10, pp. 1–31, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Y. Zhang, “User's Guide to LIPSOL Linear-programming Interior Point Solvers V0.4.”, Optimization Methods and Software, vol. 11/12, pp. 385–396, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maziar Salahi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Salahi, M., Terlaky, T. & Zhang, G. The Complexity of Self-Regular Proximity Based Infeasible IPMs. Comput Optim Applic 33, 157–185 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-005-3064-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-005-3064-1

Keywords

Navigation