Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improved constraint consensus methods for seeking feasibility in nonlinear programs

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

Abstract

The Constraint Consensus method moves quickly from an initial infeasible point to a point that is close to feasibility for a set of nonlinear constraints. It is a useful first step prior to launching an expensive local solver, improving the probability that the local solver will find a solution and the speed with which it is found. The two main ingredients are the method for calculating the feasibility vector for each violated constraint (the estimated vector to the closest point that satisfies the constraint), and the method of combining the feasibility vectors into a single consensus vector that updates the current point. We propose several improvements: (i) a simple new method for calculating the consensus vector, (ii) a predictor-corrector approach to adjusting the consensus vector, (iii) an improved way of selecting the output point, and (iv) ways of selecting subsets of the constraints to operate on at a given iteration. These techniques greatly improve the performance of barrier method local solvers. Quadratic feasibility vectors are also investigated. Empirical results are given for a large set of nonlinear and nonconvex models.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chinneck, J.W.: The constraint consensus method for finding approximately feasible points in nonlinear programs. INFORMS J. Comput. 16(3), 255–265 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Ibrahim, W., Chinneck, J.W.: Improving solver success in reaching feasibility for sets of nonlinear constraints. Comput. Oper. Res. 35(5), 1394–1411 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Chinneck, J.W.: Feasibility and Infeasibility in Optimization: Algorithms and Computational Methods, International Series in Operations Research and Management Sciences, vol. 118. Springer, Berlin (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Mittelmann, H.D.: Benchmarks for optimization software: AMPL-NLP benchmark. Accessed Online: October 29 (2010). http://plato.asu.edu/ftp/ampl-nlp.html

  5. Censor, Y., Zenios, S.: Parallel Optimization: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications. Oxford Univ. Press, New York (1997)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Gubin, L.G., Polyak, B.T., Raik, E.V.: The method of projections for finding the common point of convex sets. U.S.S.R. Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 7, 1–24 (1967)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cimmino: Calcolo approssimato per soluzioni dei sistemi di equazioni lineari. La Ricerca Sci. XVI, Ser. II, IX 1, 326–333

  8. Aharoni, R., Censor, Y.: Block-iterative projection methods for parallel computation of solutions to convex feasibility problems. Linear Algebra Appl. 120, 165–175 (1989)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Censor, Y., Lent, A.: Cyclic subgradient projections. Math. Program. 24, 233–235 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaczmarz, S.: Angenherte Auflsung von Systemen Linearer Gleichungen. Bull. Int. Acad. Pol. Sci. Lett., Ser. A, 35, 335–357 (1937)

    Google Scholar 

  11. McCormick, S.F.: An iterative procedure for the solution of constrained nonlinear equations with application to optimization problems. Numer. Math. 23(5), 271–385 (1975)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Meyn, K.H.: Solution of underdetermined nonlinear equations by stationary iteration methods. Numer. Math. 42(2), 161–172 (1983)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Martinez, J.M.: Solving systems of nonlinear equations by means of an accelerated successive orthogonal projections method. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 16(2), 169–179 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Censor, Y., Gordon, D., Gordon, R.: Component averaging: an efficient iterative parallel algorithm for large and sparse unstructured problems. Parallel Comput. 27(6), 777–808 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Tjalling, Y.J.: Historical development of the Newton-Raphson method. SIAM Rev. 37(4), 531–551 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Combettes, P.L.: The convex feasibility problem in image recovery. In: Hawkes, P. (ed.) Advances in Imaging and Electron Physics, vol. 95, pp. 155–270 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mehrotra, S.: On the implementation of a primal–dual interior point method. SIAM J. Optim. 2(4), 575–601 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. MacLeod, M.: Multistart constraint consensus for seeking feasibility in nonlinear programs. MASc Thesis, Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada (2006)

  19. Wachter, A., Biegler, L.T.: On the implementation of an interior-point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming. Math. Program. 106(1), 25–57 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Shcherbina, O., Neumaier, A., Sam-Haroud, D., Vu, X.H., Nguyen, T.V.: Benchmarking global optimization and constraint satisfaction codes. In: Bliek, C. et al. (eds.) COCOS 2002, LNCS, vol. 2861, pp. 211–222 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fourer, R., Gay, D.M.M., Kernighan, B.W.: AMPL: A Modeling Language for Mathematical Programming. Duxbury Press, N. Scituate (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wachter, A., Laird, C., Kawajir, Y.: Introduction to Ipopt: A tutorial for downloading, installing, and using Ipopt. Document Revision 1830, Accessed Online: July 25 (2011). https://projects.coin-or.org/Ipopt

  23. Smith, L.R.: Improved placement of local solver launch points for large-scale global optimization. Ph.D. Thesis, Systems and Computer Engineering Department, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (2011)

  24. Dolan, E.D., More, J.J.: Benchmarking optimization software with performance profiles. Math. Program. 91, 201–213 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Laurence Smith, John Chinneck & Victor Aitken

Authors
  1. Laurence Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Chinneck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Victor Aitken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Chinneck.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(PDF 282 kB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, L., Chinneck, J. & Aitken, V. Improved constraint consensus methods for seeking feasibility in nonlinear programs. Comput Optim Appl 54, 555–578 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-012-9473-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-012-9473-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation