Skip to main content
Log in

The power of linear programming: some surprising and unexpected LPs

  • Educational Paper
  • Published:
4OR Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Linear programming has had a tremendous impact in the modeling and solution of a great diversity of applied problems, especially in the efficient allocation of resources. As a result, this methodology forms the backbone of introductory courses in operations research. What students, and others, may not appreciate is that linear programming transcends its linear nomenclature and can be applied to an even wider range of important practical problems. The objective of this article is to present a selection, and just a selection, from this range of problems that at first blush do not seem amenable to linear programming formulation. The exposition focuses on the most basic models in these selected applications, with pointers to more elaborate formulations and extensions. Thus, our intent is to expand the modeling awareness of those first encountering linear programming. In addition, we hope this article will be of interest to those who teach linear programming and to seasoned academics and practitioners, alike.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

References

  • Agarwal R, Karahanna E (2000) Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Q 24(4):665–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson D, Bjarnadottir M (2019) As good as it gets? An upper bound methodology (submitted for publication)

  • Appa G (2002) On the uniqueness of solutions to linear programs. J Oper Res Soc 53(10):1127–1132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assad AA, Gass SI (2011) Profiles in operations research: pioneers and innovators. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chandran B, Golden B, Wasil E (2005) Linear programming models for estimating weights in the analytic hierarchy process. Comput Oper Res 32(9):2235–2254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW (1961) Management models and industrial applications of linear programming. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW (1962) Programming with linear fractional functionals. Naval Res Logist Q 9(3–4):181–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Lemke CE (1954) Minimization of non-linear separable convex functionals. Naval Res Logist Q 1(4):301–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dantzig G, Fulkerson R, Johnson S (1954) Solution of a large-scale traveling-salesman problem. Oper Res 2(4):365–462

    Google Scholar 

  • DiNardo G, Levy D, Golden B (1989) Using decision analysis to manage Maryland’s river herring fishery: an application of AHP. J Environ Manag 29(2):192–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Dongarra J, Sullivan F (2000) Guest editors’ introduction: the top 10 algorithms. Comput Sci Eng 2(1):22–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emrouznejad A, Marra M (2017) The state of the art development of AHP (1979–2017): a literature review with a social network analysis. Int J Prod Res 55(22):6653–6675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emrouznejad A, Yang G-L (2018) A survey and analysis of the first 40 years of scholarly literature in DEA: 1978–2016. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 61:4–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1936) The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Ann Eugen 7(2):179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell R (1976) A new goal programming formulation. Omega 4(6):731–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freed N, Glover F (1981) Simple but powerful goal programming models for discriminant problems. Eur J Oper Res 7(1):44–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freed N, Glover F (1986) Evaluating alternative linear programming models to solve the two-group discriminant problem. Decis Sci 17(2):151–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gochet W, Stam A, Srinivasan V, Chen S (1997) Multigroup discriminant analysis using linear programming. Oper Res 45(2):213–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golden BL, Wasil EA, Harker PT (eds) (1989) The analytic hierarchy process: applications and studies. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones D, Tamiz M (2010) Practical goal programming. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler GJ (1990) Considerations for mathematical programming models in discriminant analysis. Manag Decis Econ 11(4):227–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenstra JK, Rinnooy Kan AHG, Schrijver A (eds) (1991) History of mathematical programming: a collection of personal reminiscences. Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica

  • Retchless T, Golden B, Wasil E (2007) Ranking US army generals of the 20th century: a group decision-making application of the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces 37(2):163–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinmura S (2016) New theory of discriminant analysis after R. Fisher. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler SM (1981) Gauss and the invention of least squares. Ann Stat 9(3):465–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition). Princeton University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1r2gkx

  • Wang Y (2017) Operations Research 04G: goal programming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1xYQdnmKvY. Accessed 8 Jan 2020

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas Shier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

This work is dedicated to the memory of Saul I. Gass (1926–2013).

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: On the uniqueness of solutions to linear programs

The author in Appa (2002) presents a method which examines whether an LP has a unique optimal solution, and, in the case that the solution is not unique, it provides an alternative optimal solution. In particular, this is achieved by solving an additional LP as described below.

Consider a LP in the standard form:

$$\begin{aligned}&\max {} \begin{aligned}&\sum _{j=1}^{n} c_j x_j \\ \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(66)
$$\begin{aligned}&\text {subject to} \nonumber \\&\sum _{j=1}^{n} a_{ij} x_j = b_i, \quad \forall i \end{aligned}$$
(67)
$$\begin{aligned}&x_j \ge 0, \quad \forall j. \end{aligned}$$
(68)

Let \(x^* = \{x^*_1, x^*_2, \ldots , x^*_n\}\) be an optimal solution to the above LP, and let T denote the set of all variables in \(x^*\) that are equal to zero. We also define parameter \(d_j\) to be equal to 1 if j is in T, and to equal 0 otherwise. In order to check if \(x^*\) is unique, we can solve the following LP:

$$\begin{aligned}&\max {} \begin{aligned}&\sum _{j=1}^{n} d_j x_j \\ \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(69)
$$\begin{aligned}&\text {subject to} \nonumber \\&\sum _{j=1}^{n} a_{ij} x_j = b_i, \quad \forall i \end{aligned}$$
(70)
$$\begin{aligned}&\sum _{j=1}^{n} c_j x_j = \sum _{j=1}^{n} c_j x^*_j \end{aligned}$$
(71)
$$\begin{aligned}&x_j \ge 0, \quad \forall j. \end{aligned}$$
(72)

Let \({\bar{x}}= \{{\bar{x}}_1, {\bar{x}}_2, \ldots , {\bar{x}}_n\}\) be an optimal solution to the above LP. If the objective value equals zero when solved optimally (i.e., \(\sum _{j=1}^{n} d_j {\bar{x}}_j = 0\)), then \(x^*\) is a unique optimal solution to the initial LP. On the other hand, if \(\sum _{j=1}^{n} d_j {\bar{x}}_j > 0\), then \({\bar{x}}\) is an alternative optimal solution of the initial LP. In other words, what the second LP does is that it forces the variables in \(x^*\) that are equal to zero to take strictly positive values if it is possible (objective function (69)), while maintaining the same objective value obtained in the initial LP [constraint (71)].

Note that, if the reduced costs are available, we can modify the definitions of T and \(d_j\). In particular, we can let T denote the set of all variables in \(x^*\) that are equal to zero and have a reduced cost of 0. If T is empty, then there are no multiple optimal solutions. If T is not empty, set coefficient \(d_j\) equal to 1 if j is in T, and equal to 0 otherwise. Then, we solve the above LP.

Appendix B: An example of a first stage LP for AHP

For the pairwise comparison matrix in Fig. 9, the first stage LP given below emerges:

$$\begin{aligned}&\min {} \begin{aligned}&\text { } z_{12} + z_{13} + z_{23} \\ \end{aligned}\\&\text {subject to} \\&x_1 - x_2 - y_{12} = ln(2), \quad x_2 - x_1 - y_{21} = ln(1/2) \\&x_1 - x_3 - y_{13} = ln(5), \quad x_3 - x_1 - y_{31} = ln(1/5) \\&x_2 - x_3 - y_{23} = ln(2), \quad x_3 - x_2 - y_{32} = ln(1/2) \\&z_{12} \ge y_{12}, \quad z_{12} \ge y_{21} \\&z_{13} \ge y_{13}, \quad z_{13} \ge y_{31} \\&z_{23} \ge y_{23}, \quad z_{23} \ge y_{32} \\&x_1 - x_2 \ge 0, \quad x_1 = 0 \\&x_1 - x_3 \ge 0, \quad z_{ij} \ge 0, \quad \forall i,j \\&x_2 - x_3 \ge 0, \quad x_i, y_{ij} \text { unrestricted,} \quad \forall i,j. \end{aligned}$$

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Golden, B., Schrage, L., Shier, D. et al. The power of linear programming: some surprising and unexpected LPs. 4OR-Q J Oper Res 19, 15–40 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10288-020-00441-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10288-020-00441-2

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Navigation