Home Mathematics A parametric linearizing approach for quadratically inequality constrained quadratic programs
Article Open Access

A parametric linearizing approach for quadratically inequality constrained quadratic programs

  • Hongwei Jiao EMAIL logo and Rongjiang Chen EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: April 20, 2018

Abstract

In this paper we propose a new parametric linearizing approach for globally solving quadratically inequality constrained quadratic programs. By utilizing this approach, we can derive the parametric linear programs relaxation problem of the investigated problem. To accelerate the computational speed of the proposed algorithm, an interval deleting rule is used to reduce the investigated box. The proposed algorithm is convergent to the global optima of the initial problem by subsequently partitioning the initial box and solving a sequence of parametric linear programs relaxation problems. Finally, compared with some existing algorithms, numerical results show higher computational efficiency of the proposed algorithm.

MSC 2010: 90C20; 90C26; 65K05

1 Introduction

In this paper we consider the following quadratically inequality constrained quadratic programs:

(QICQP):minH0(z)=k=1ndk0zk+j=1nk=1npjk0zjzks.t.Hi(z)=k=1ndkizk+j=1nk=1npjkizjzkbi,i=1,,m,zZ0={zRn:l0zu0},

where pjki,dki and bi are all arbitrary real numbers; l0=(l10,,ln0)T,u0=(u10,,un0)T. The investigated problem (QICQP) has a broad applications in investment portfolio, management decision, route optimization, engineering optimization, production planning and so on. In addition, the investigated problem (QICQP) usually owns multiple local optima which are not global optima, that is to say, in this kind of problems there are important theoretical and computational complexities. Therefore, it is very necessary to present an effective global optimization algorithm for solving the (QICQP).

In last decades, for the problem (QICQP) and its special cases many methods have been developed and described in the existent literature. For example, semi-definite relaxation method [1], reformulation-convexification approach [2], branch-and-reduce approaches [3, 4, 5, 6, 7], approximation algorithms [8, 9, 10], simplicial branch-and-bound method [11], branch-and-cut method [12], rectangle branch-and-bound algorithms [13,14], robust solution approach [15], and so on. In addition, some algorithms for geometric programming [16, 17, 18, 19, 20] and multiplicative (or fractional) programming [21, 22, 23, 24, 25] also can be used to solve the (QICQP). Although these methods can be used to solve the investigated problem (QICQP) or its special forms, less work has been still done for globally solving the investigated quadratically inequality constrained quadratic programs.

In this paper, we will present a new branch-and-bound algorithm for globally solving the (QICQP). Firstly, we present a new parametric linearizing technique. By utilizing this method, we can convert the (QICQP) into a parametric linear programs relaxation problem, which can be used to compute the lower bounds of the optimal values of the initial problem (QICQP) and its subproblems. Secondly, based on the branch-and-bound framework, by successive partitioning of the initial box and by solving those derived parametric linear programs relaxation problems, a new branch-and-bound algorithm is designed for globally solving the (QICQP). Thirdly, to accelerate the computational efficiency of the proposed branch-and-bound algorithm, an interval deleting rule is used to reduce the investigated box. Fourthly, the proposed algorithm is convergent to the global optima of the initial problem (QICQP) by successively partitioning of the initial box and by solving those derived parametric linear programs relaxation problems. Finally, compared with some existent algorithms, numerical results demonstrate the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithm.

The remaining sections of this article are organized as follows. First of all, we present a new parametric linearizing technique for deriving the parametric linear programs relaxation problem of the (QICQP) in Section 2. Secondly, based on the branch-and-bound framework, by combing the derived parametric linear programs relaxation problem with the interval deleting rule, a branch-and-bound algorithm is established for globally solving the (QICQP) in Section 3. Thirdly, compared with the existent methods, some numerical examples in existent literatures are used to verify the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithm in Section 4. Finally, some concluding remarks are presented.

2 New parametric linearizing approach

In this section, we propose a new parametric linearizing approach for deriving the parametric linear programs relaxation problem of the (QICQP). The detailed parametric linearizing approach is presented as follows:

Assume that Z = {(z1, z2, …, zn)TRn : ljzjuj, j = 1, …, n} ⊆ Z0, λ = (λjk)n × nRn × n is a symmetric matrix, and λjk ∈ {0, 1}. For convenience, for any zZ, for any k ∈ {1, 2, …, n}, some expressions are introduced as follows:

zk(λkk)=lk+λkk(uklk),zk(1λkk)=lk+(1λkk)(uklk),hkk(z)=zk2,h_kk(z,Z,λkk)=[zk(λkk)]2+2zk(λkk)[zkzk(λkk)],h¯kk(z,Z,λkk)=[zk(λkk)]2+2zk(1λkk)[zkzk(λkk)].

Obviously, we have zk(0) = lk, zk(1) = uk.

Theorem 2.1

For any k ∈ {1, 2, …, n}, for any zZ, consider the functions hkk(z), hkk(z, Z, λkk) and hkk(z, Z, λkk), then, the following conclusions hold:

h_kk(z,Z,λkk)hkk(z)h¯kk(z,Z,λkk);(1)
limul0[hkk(z)h_kk(z,Z,λkk)]=0(2)

and

limul0[h¯kk(z,Z,λkk)hkk(z)]=0.(3)

Proof

  1. By the mean value theorem, for any zZ, there exists a point ξk = α zk+(1 − α)zkkk), where α ∈ [0, 1], such that

    zk2=[zk(λkk)]2+2ξk[zkzk(λkk)].

    If λkk = 0, then we have

    ξklk=zk(λkk)andzkzk(λkk)=zklk0.

    If λkk = 1, then it follows that

    ξkuk=zk(λkk)andzkzk(λkk)=zkuk0.

    Thus, we can get that

    hkk(z)=zk2=[zk(λkk)]2+2ξk[zkzk(λkk)][zk(λkk)]2+2zk(λkk)[zkzk(λkk)]=h_kk(z,Z,λkk).

    Similarly, if λkk = 0, then we have

    ξkuk=zk(1λkk)andzkzk(λkk)=zklk0.

    If λkk = 1, then it follows that

    ξklk=zk(1λkk)andzkzk(λkk)=zkuk0.

    Thus, we can get that

    hkk(z)=zk2=[zk(λkk)]2+2ξk[zkzk(λkk)][zk(λkk)]2+2zk(1λkk)[zkzk(λkk)]=h¯kk(z,Z,λkk).

    Therefore, for any zZ, we have that

    h_kk(z,Z,λkk)hkk(z)h¯kk(z,Z,λkk).
  2. Since

    hkk(z)h_kk(z,Z,λkk)=zk2{[zk(λkk)]2+2zk(λkk)[zkzk(λkk)]}=(zkzk(λkk))2(uklk)2,(4)

    we have

    limul0[hkk(z)h_kk(z,Z,λkk)]=0.

    Also since

    h¯kk(z,Z,λkk)hkk(z)=[zk(λkk)]2+2zk(1λkk)[zkzk(λkk)]zk2=(zk(λkk)+zk)(zk(λkk)zk)+2zk(1λkk)(zkzk(λkk))=[zkzk(λkk)][2zk(1λkk)zk(λkk)zk]=[zkzk(λkk)][zk(1λkk)zk(λkk)]+[zkzk(λkk)][zk(1λkk)zk]2(uklk)2.(5)

    Therefore, it follows that

    limul0[h¯kk(z,Z,λkk)hkk(z)]=0.

    The proof is completed. □

    Without loss of generality, for any zZ, for any j ∈ {1, 2, …, n}, k ∈ {1, 2, …, n}, jk, we define

    zj(λjk)=lj+λjk(ujlj),zk(λjk)=lk+λjk(uklk),zj(1λjk)=lj+(1λjk)(ujlj),zk(1λjk)=lk+(1λjk)(uklk),(zjzk)(λjk)=(ljuk)+λjk(ujlklj+uk),(zjzk)(1λjk)=(ljuk)+(1λjk)(ujlklj+uk).

    Obviously, we have (zjzk)(0) = ljuk, (zjzk)(1) = ujlk.

    In a similar way as in Theorem 2.1, we can get the following Theorem 2.2:

Theorem 2.2

For each j = 1, 2, …, n, k = 1, 2, …, n, for any zZ, we have:

  1. The following inequalities hold:

    [zj(λjk)]2+2zj(λjk)[zjzj(λjk)]zj2[zj(λjk)]2+2zj(1λjk)[zjzj(λjk)],zk(λjk)]2+2zk(λjk)[zkzk(λjk)]zk2[zk(λjk)]2+2zk(1λjk)[zkzk(λjk)],(zjzk)2[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(1λjk)[zjzk(zjzk)(λjk)],(zjzk)2[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(λjk)[zjzk(zjzk)(λjk)].
  2. The following limitations hold:

    limul0[zj2{[zj(λjk)]2+2zj(λjk)[zjzj(λjk)]}]=0,limul0[[zj(λjk)]2+2zj(1λjk)[zjzj(λjk)]zj2]=0,limul0[zk2{[zk(λjk)]2+2zk(λjk)[zkzk(λjk)]}]=0,limul0[[zk(λjk)]2+2zk(1λjk)[zkzk(λjk)]zk2]=0,limul0[[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(1λjk)[zjzk(zjzk)(λjk)](zjzk)2]=0,limul0[(zjzk)2{[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(λjk)[(zjzk)(zjzk)(λjk)]}]=0.

Proof

  1. From the inequality (1), replacing λkk by λjk, and replacing zk by zj, we can get that

    [zj(λjk)]2+2zj(λjk)[zjzj(λjk)]zj2[zj(λjk)]2+2zj(1λjk)[zjzj(λjk)].

    From the inequality (1), replacing λkk by λjk, we can get that

    [zk(λjk)]2+2zk(λjk)[zkzk(λjk)]zk2[zk(λjk)]2+2zk(1λjk)[zkzk(λjk)].

    From (1), replacing λkk and zk by λjk and (zjzk), respectively, we can get that

    (zjzk)2[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(1λjk)[(zjzk)(zjzk)(λjk)],(zjzk)2[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(λjk)[(zjzk)(zjzk)(λjk)].
  2. From the limitations (2) and (3), replacing λkk and zk by λjk and zj, we have

    limul0[zj2{[zj(λjk)]2+2zj(λjk)[zjzj(λjk)]}]=0

    and

    limul0[[zj(λjk)]2+2zj(1λjk)[zjzj(λjk)]zj2]=0.

From the limitations (2) and (3), replacing λkk by λjk, it follows that

limul0[zk2{[zk(λjk)]2+2zk(λjk)[zkzk(λjk)]}]=0

and

limul0[[zk(λjk)]2+2zk(1λjk)[zkzk(λjk)]zk2]=0.

By the limitations (2) and (3), replacing λkk and zk by λjk and (zjzk), respectively, we can get that

limul0[[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(1λjk)[zjzk(zjzk)(λjk)](zjzk)2]=0

and

limul0[(zjzk)2{[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(λjk)[zjzk(zjzk)(λjk)]}]=0.

The proof is completed. □

Without loss of generality, for any zZ, for any j ∈ {1, 2, …, n}, k ∈ {1, 2, …, n}, jk, define

hjk(z)=zjzk=zj2+zk2(zjzk)22,h_jk(z,Z,λjk)=12{[zj(λjk)]2+2zj(λjk)[zjzj(λjk)]+[zk(λjk)]2+2zk(λjk)[zkzk(λjk)]{[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(1λjk)[zjzk(zjzk)(λjk)]}},h¯jk(z,Z,λjk)=12{[zj(λjk)]2+2zj(1λjk)[zjzj(λjk)]+[zk(λjk)]2+2zk(1λjk)[zkzk(λjk)]{[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(λjk)[zjzk(zjzk)(λjk)]}}.

Theorem 2.3

For each k = 1, 2, …, n, consider the functions hjk(z, Z, λjk), hjk(z) and hjk(z, Z, λjk), then, for any zZ, we have the following conclusions:

h_jk(z,Z,λjk)hjk(z)h¯jk(z,Z,λjk),(6)
limul0[hjk(z)h_jk(z,Z,λjk)]=0(7)

and

limul0[h¯jk(z,Z,λjk)hjk(z)]=0.(8)

Proof

First of all, from the conclusions (i) of Theorem 2.2, it follows that

hjk(z)=zjzk=zj2+zk2(zjzk)2212{[zj(λjk)]2+2zj(λjk)[zjzj(λjk)]+[zk(λjk)]2+2zk(λjk)[zkzk(λjk)]{[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(1λjk)[zjzk(zjzk)(λjk)]}}=h_jk(z,Z,λjk)

and

hjk(z)=zjzk=zj2+zk2(zjzk)2212{[zj(λjk)]2+2zj(1λjk)[zjzj(λjk)]+[zk(λjk)]2+2zk(1λjk)[zkzk(λjk)]{[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(λjk)[zjzk(zjzk)(λjk)]}}=h¯jk(z,Z,λjk).

Secondly, from the inequalities (4) and (5), we have

hjk(z)h_jk(z,Z,λjk)=zjzkh_jk(z,Z,λjk)=zj2+zk2(zjzk)2212{[zj(λjk)]2+2zj(λjk)[zjzj(λjk)]+[zk(λjk)]2+2zk(λjk)[zkzk(λjk)]{[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(1λjk)[zjzk(zjzk)(λjk)]}},=12[zj2{[zj(λjk)]2+2zj(λjk)[zjzj(λjk)]}]+12[zk2{[zk(λjk)]2+2zk(λjk)[zkzk(λjk)]}]+12{{[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(1λjk)[zjzk(zjzk)(λjk)]}(zjzk)2}12(ujlj)2+12(uklk)2+(uk+ujljlk)2.

Thus, we can get that limul∥ → 0[hjk(z) − hjk(z, Z, λjk)] = 0.

Also from the inequalities (4) and (5), we get that

h¯jk(z,Z,λjk)hjk(z)=h¯jk(z,Z,λjk)zjzk=12{[zj(λjk)]2+2zj(1λjk)[zjzj(λjk)]+[zk(λjk)]2+2zk(1λjk)[zkzk(λjk)]{[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(λjk)[zjzk(zjzk)(λjk)]}}zj2+zk2(zjzk)22=12[[zj(λjk)]2+2zj(1λjk)[zjzj(λjk)]zj2]+12[[zk(λjk)]2+2zk(1λjk)[zkzk(λjk)]zk2]+12{(zjzk)2{[(zjzk)(λjk)]2+2(zjzk)(λjk)[zjzk(zjzk)(λjk)]}}=(zjzj(λjk))(zkzk(λjk))(ujlj)2+(uklk)2+(uk+ujlklj)2.

Thus, it follows that limul∥ → 0[hjk(z, Z, λjk) − hjk(z)] = 0. □

Without loss of generality, for any Z = [l, u] ⊆ Z0, for any parameter matrix λ = (λjk)n × n, for any zZ and i ∈ {0, 1, …, m}, we let

f_kki(z,Z,λkk)=pkkih_kk(z,Z,λkk),ifpkki>0,pkkih¯kk(z,Z,λkk),ifpkki<0,f¯kki(z,Z,λkk)=pkkih¯kk(z,Z,λkk),ifpkki>0,pkkih_kk(z,Z,λkk),ifpkki<0,f_jki(z,Z,λjk)=pjkih_jk(z,Z,λjk),ifpjki>0,jk,pjkih¯jk(z,Z,λjk),ifpjki<0,jk,f¯jki(z,Z,λjk)=pjkih¯jk(z,Z,λjk),ifpjki>0,jk,pjkih_jk(z,Z,λjk),ifpjki<0,jk.HiL(z,Z,λ)=k=1n(dkizk+f_kki(z,Z,λkk))+j=1nk=1,kjnf_jki(z,Z,λjk).HiU(z,Z,λ)=k=1n(dkizk+f¯kki(z,Z,λkk))+j=1nk=1,kjnf¯jki(z,Z,λjk).

Theorem 2.4

ForzZ = [l, u] ⊆ Z0, for any given parameter matrix λ = (λjk)n × n, for each i = 0, 1, …, m, we have the following conclusions:

HiL(z,Z,λ)Hi(z)HiU(z,Z,λ),limul0[Hi(z)HiL(z,Z,λ)]=0

and

limul0[HiU(z,Z,λ)Hi(z)]=0.

Proof

First of all, from the inequalities (1) and (6), for any j, k ∈ {1, …, n}, we have

f_kki(z,Z,λkk)pkkizk2f¯kki(z,Z,λkk),(9)
f_jki(z,Z,λjk)pjkizjzkf¯jki(z,Z,λjk).(10)

By the above inequalities (9) and (10), for any zZZ0, we can get that

HiL(z,Z,λ)=k=1n(dkizk+f_kki(z,Z,λkk))+j=1nk=1,kjnf_jki(z,Z,λjk)k=1ndkizk+k=1npkkizk2+j=1nk=1,kjnpjkizjzk=Hi(z)k=1n(dkizk+f¯kki(z,Z,λkk))+j=1nk=1,kjnf¯jki(z,Z,λjk)=HiU(z,Z,λ).

Therefore, we have HiL(z,Z,λ)Hi(z)HiU(z,Z,λ).

Secondly,

Hi(z)HiL(z,Z,λ)=k=1ndkizk+k=1npkkizk2+j=1nk=1,kjnpjkizjzk[k=1ndkizk+k=1nf_kki(z,Z,λkk)+j=1nk=1,kjnf_jki(z,Z,λjk)]=k=1n[pkkizk2f_kki(z,Z,λkk)]+j=1nk=1,kjn[pjkizjzkf_jki(z,Z,λjk)]=k=1,pkki>0npkki[hkk(z)h_kk(z,Z,λkk)]+k=1,pkki<0npkki[hkk(z)h¯kk(z,Z,λkk)]+j=1nk=1,kj,pjki>0npjki[hjk(z)h_jk(z,Z,λjk)]+j=1nk=1,kj,pjki<0npjki[hjk(z)h¯jk(z,Z,λjk)].

From the limitations (2), (3), (7) and (8), limul∥ → 0[hkk(z) − hkk(z, Z, λkk)] = 0, limul∥ → 0[hkk(z, Z, λkk) − hkk(z)] = 0, limul∥ → 0[hjk(z) − hjk(z, Z, λjk)] = 0 and limul∥ → 0[hjk(z, Z, λjk) − hjk(z)] = 0.

Therefore, it follows that

limul0[Hi(z)HiL(z,Z,λ)]=0.

Similarly, we can prove that

limul0[HiU(z,Z,λ)Hi(z)]=0.

The proof is completed. □

By Theorem 2.4, we can construct the parametric linear programs relaxation problem (PLPRP) of the (QICQP) over Z as follows:

(PLPRP):minH0L(z,Z,λ),s.t.HiL(z,Z,λ)bi,i=1,,m,zZ={z:lzu}.

where

HiL(z,Z,λ)=k=1n(dkizk+f_kki(z,Z,λkk))+j=1nk=1,kjnf_jki(z,Z,λjk).

Based on the former parametric linearizing technique, each feasible solution of the (QICQP) must be also feasible to the (PLPRP) in the sub-region Z; and the minimum value of the (PLPRP) must be less than or equal to that of the (QICQP) in the sub-region Z. Hence, the (PLPRP) offers a reliable lower bound for the minimum value of the (QICQP) in the sub-region Z. In addition, Theorem 2.4 ensures that the optimal solution of the (PLPRP) will sufficiently approximate the optimal solution of the (QICQP) as ∥ul∥ → 0, and this guarantees the global convergence of the proposed algorithm.

3 Branch-and-bound global optimization algorithm

In this section, a new branch-and-bound global optimization algorithm is proposed for solving the (QICQP). In this algorithm, there are the following several important techniques: branching, bounding the lower bound, bounding upper bound and interval deleting.

Branching: The branching step will generate a more refined box partition. Here we choose a typical box-bisection method, which is sufficient to ensure the global convergence of the proposed branch-and-bound method. For any selected box Z = [l, u] ⊆ Z0. Set η ∈ arg max {uili:i=1,2,,n}, by partitioning [z_η,z¯η]into[z_η,(z_η+z¯η)/2]and[(z_η+z¯η)/2,z¯η], we can subdivide Z into two new sub-boxes Z′1 and Z′2.

Bounding the lower bound: For each sub-box ZZ0, which has not been deleted, the bounding the lower bound step needs to solve the parametric linear programs relaxation problem over each sub-box, and denote by LBs = min{LB(Z)|ZΩs}, where Ωs denotes the set of sub-box which has not been deleted after s iteration.

Bounding the upper bound: The bounding upper bound step needs to judge the feasibility of the midpoint of each investigated sub-box Z and the optimal solution of the (PLPRP) over the investigated sub-box Z, where ZΩs. In addition, we need to calculate the objective function values of each known feasible solutions for the (QICQP), and denote by UBs = min{H0(z) : zΘ} the best upper bound, where Θ is the known feasible point set.

Interval deleting: To improve the convergent speed of the branch-and-bound algorithm, an interval deleting rule is introduced as follows. For convenience, for any zZ, i ∈ {0,1, …, m}, q ∈ {1, …, n}, and denote by HUB the current upper bound of the (QICQP), we let

HiL(z,Z,λ)=j=1nαij(λ)zj+βi(λ),RLBi(λ)=j=1nmin{αij(λ)lj,αij(λ)uj}+βi(λ).

Theorem 3.1

For any investigated sub-boxZ = (Zj)nZ0, we have the following conclusions:

  1. IfRLB0(λ) > HUB, then the whole investigated sub-boxZshould be deleted.

  2. IfRLB0(λ) ≤ HUB, then: for anyq ∈ {1,2, …, n}, ifα0q(λ) > 0, the intervalZqshould be replaced by[lq,HUBRLB0(λ)+min{α0q(λ)lq,α0q(λ)uq}α0q(λ)]Zq; if α0q(λ) < 0, the intervalZqshould be replaced by[HUBRLB0(λ)+min{α0q(λ)lq,α0q(λ)uq}α0q(λ),uq]Zq.

  3. IfRLBi(λ) > bifor somei ∈ {1, …, m}, then the whole investigated sub-boxZshould be deleted.

  4. IfRLBi(λ) ≤ bifor eachi ∈ {1, …, m}, then, for anyq ∈ {1,2, …, n}, ifαiq(λ) > 0, the intervalZqcan be replaced by[lq,biRLBi(λ)+min{αiq(λ)lq,αiq(λ)uq}αiq(λ)]Zq;ifαiq(λ) < 0, the intervalZqcan be replaced by[biRLBi(λ)+min{αiq(λ)lq,αiq(λ)uq}αiq(λ),uq]Zq.

Proof

In a similar way as in the proof of Theorem 3 in [14], we may draw the conclusions for Theorem 3.1, so here it is omitted.

From Theorem 3.1, we can construct an interval deleting step to compress the investigated box for improving the convergent speed of the proposed branch-and-bound algorithm.

3.1 New branch-and-bound algorithm

For any sub-box ZsZ0, we denote by LB(Zs) the optimal value of the (PLPRP) over the sub-box Zs, and denote by zs = z(Zs) the optimal solution of the (PLPRP) over the sub-box Zs. Based on the branch-and-bound framework, combining the former branching step, bounding the lower bound step, bounding upper bound step and interval deleting step together, a new branch-and-bound algorithm is designed as follows.

Branch-and-Bound Algorithm Steps

Initializing step. Given the initial convergent error ϵ, the initial randomly generated parameter matrix λ.

Solve the (PLPRP) over the initial box Z0 to obtain its optimal solution z0 and optimal value LB(Z0), denote by the initial lower bound LB0 = LB(Z0). If z0 is a feasible solution of the (QICQP), we denote by the initial upper bound UB0 = H0(z0). Otherwise, we denote by the initial upper bound UB0 = + ∞.

If UB0LB0ϵ, the proposed algorithm terminates, z0 is a global ϵ-optimal solution of the initial problem (QICQP). Otherwise, set Ω0 = {Z0}, Λ = ∅, s = 1.

Branching step. Let UBs = UBs−1. Partition the investigated sub-box Zs−1 into two sub-boxes Zs,1, Zs,2 by the selected branching rule, and denote by Λ = Λ ∪ {Zs−1} the set of the deleting sub-boxes.

Interval deleting step. For each investigated sub-box Zs,t, t = 1, 2, use the former interval deleting rule to compress the investigated sub-box, still denote by Zs,t the remaining sub-box.

Bounding the lower bound step. For each remaining sub-box Zs,t, where t = 1, 2, solve the (PLPRP) over Zs,t to obtain its optimal solution zs,t and optimal value LB(Zs,t), and let Ωs = {Z|ZΩs−1 ∪ {Zs,1, Zs,2}, ZΛ} and LBs = min{LB(Z)|ZΩs}.

Bounding the upper bound step. For each sub-box Zs,t, if its midpoint zmid is the feasible point of the initial problem (QICQP), let Θ := Θ ∪ {zmid}, denote by the new upper bound UBs = minzΘH0(z); if the optimal solution zs,t of the (PLPRP) is the feasible point of the initial problem (QICQP), denote by the new upper bound UBs = min{UBs, H0(zs,t)}, and denote by zs the best existent feasible point such that UBs = H0(zs).

Terminating judgement step. If UBsLBsϵ, the proposed algorithm terminates, zs is a global ϵ-optimal solution of the initial problem (QICQP). Otherwise, denote by s = s + 1, and go to the Branching step.

3.2 Global convergence of the proposed algorithm

Without loss of generality, we assume that v is the global optimal value of the initial problem (QICQP). If the proposed algorithm terminates after s finite iterations, where s is a finite number such that s ≥ 0, then it follows that

UBsLBs+ϵ.

From the bounding the upper bound step of the proposed algorithm, we know that there must exist a feasible point zs of the initial problem (QICQP) such that

vUBs=H0(zs).

By the branch-and-bound structure of the proposed algorithm, we have

LBkv.

Combining the above several inequalities together, it follows that

vUBs=H0(zs)LBs+ϵv+ϵ.

Therefore, zs is an ϵ-global optimal solution of the initial problem (QICQP).

If the proposed algorithm does not terminate after finite iterations, for this case, the detailed convergent conclusions are given as follows.

Theorem 3.2

If the proposed algorithm does not terminate after finite iterations, then it will generate an infinite partitioning sequence {Zs} of the initial boxZ0, and any accumulation point of the sequence {Zs} will be a global optimum solution of the initial problem (QICQP).

Proof

First of all, in the proposed algorithm the selected branching method is the bisection of box, so that the branching process is exhaustive, that is to say, the branching step will ensure that the intervals of all variables tend to 0, i.e., ‖ul‖ → 0.

Secondly, from Theorem 2.4, the optimal solution of the (PLPRP) will sufficiently approximate the optimal solution of the (QICQP) as ‖ul‖ → 0, and this ensures that the limitation lims→∞(UBsLBs) = 0 holds. So that the bounding operation is consistent.

Thirdly, in the proposed algorithm the subdivided box which attains the actual lower bound is selected for further partition at the later immediate iteration, so that the used selecting operation is bound improving.

From [26, Theorem IV.3], the sufficient condition of global convergence of the branch-and-bound algorithm is that the branching method is exhaustive, the bounding method is consistent and the selecting method is improvement, therefore, the proposed algorithm is convergent to the global optimal solution of the initial (QICQP). □

4 Numerical experiments

Given the convergent error ϵ = 10−6 and the parameter matrix λ = (λjk)n×nRn×n, where λjk ∈ {0, 1}, compared with the existing methods, several numerical examples in existing literature are tested on microcomputer, the procedure is coded in C++ software, the parametric linear programs relaxation problems are solved by the simplex method. These examples and their numerical results are listed as follows. In the following Tables 1 and 2, the number of iteration and running time in seconds for the algorithm are represented by “Iteration” and “Time(s)”, respectively.

Table 1

Numerical comparisons for Examples 4.1-4.7

ExampleRefs.Optimal valueOptimal solutionIterationTime(s)
1our1.177124344(1.177124344, 2.177124344)220.0103
[16]1.177124327(1.177124327, 2.177124353)4341.0000
2our-0.999999106(2.000000, 1.000000)210.0079
[16]-1.0(2.000000, 1.000000)240.0129
3our6.778046494(2.000000000, 1.666747279)120.0039
[4]6.777778340(2.000000000, 1.666666667)300.0068
[5]6.777782016(2.000000000, 1.666666667)400.0320
[17]6.7780(2.00003, 1.66665)440.1800
4our0.500000000(0.500000000, 0.500000000)250.0070
[5]0.500004627(0.5, 0.5)340.0560
[14]0.500000442(0.500000000, 0.500000000)370.0193
[17]0.5(0.5, 0.5)910.8500
[18]0.5(0.5, 0.5)961.0000
5our118.392375925(2.560178568, 3.125000000)460.0294
[4]118.383672050(2.555409888, 3.130613160)490.0744
[6]118.383756475(2.5557793695, 3.1301646393)2100.7800
[14]118.383671904(2.555745855, 3.130201688)590.0385
6our-1.162882315(1.499977112, 1.5)370.0756
[19]-1.16288(1.5, 1.5)840.1257
7our-11.363636364(1.0, 0.181815071, 0.983332741)980.1672
[14]-11.363636364(1.0, 0.181818470, 0.983332113)4200.2845
[20]-10.35(0.998712,0.196213,0.979216)16480.3438

Table 2

Numerical results for Example 4.8

Refs.Dimension nOptimal valueIterationTime(s)
This paper525.0110.01632
10100.0300.22646
20400.0864.35751
30900.020431.2676
401600.030080.161
[3]525.014110.11
10100.028321.86
20400.065147.00
30900.0965106.33
[14]525.0120.01818
10100.0320.30216
20400.0886.01095
30900.020644.4965
401600.030298.122

Example 4.1

([16]).

{minH0(z)=z1s.t.H1(z)=14z1+12z2116z12116z221,H2(z)=114z12+114z2237z137z21,1z15.5,1z25.5.

Example 4.2

([16]).

{minH0(z)=z1z22z1+z2+1s.t.H1(z)=8z226z116z211,H2(z)=z22+3z1+2z27,1z12.5,1z22.225.

Example 4.3

([4,5,17]).

{minH0(z)=z12+z22s.t.H1(z)=0.3z1z21,2z15,1z23.

Example 4.4

([5,14,17,18]).

{minH0(z)=z1s.t.H1(z)=4z24z121,H2(z)=z1z21,0.01z1,z215.

Example 4.5

([4,6,14]).

{minH0(z)=6z12+4z22+5z1z2s.t.H1(z)=6z1z248,0z1,z210.

Example 4.6

([19]).

{minH0(z)=z1+z1z20.5z2s.t.H1(z)=6z1+8z23,H2(z)=3z1z23,1z1,z21.5.

Example 4.7

([14,20]).

{minH0(z)=4z2+(z11)2+z2210z32s.t.H1(z)=z12+z22+z322,H2(z)=(z12)2+z22+z322,22z12,0z2,z32.

Example 4.8

([3,14]).

{maxH0(z)=i=1nzi2s.t.Hj(z)=i=1jzij,j=1,2,,n,zi0,i=1,2,,n.

Compared with the existing algorithms, the numerical results for examples 1-8 show that the proposed algorithm can be used to globally solve the quadratically inequality constrained quadratic programs with higher computational efficiency.

5 Concluding remarks

In this paper, we propose a new branch-and-bound algorithm for globally solving the quadratically inequality constrained quadratic programs. In this algorithm, we present a new parametric linearizing technique, which can be used to derive the parametric linear programs relaxation problem of the investigated problem (QICQP). To accelerate the computational speed of the proposed branch-and-bound algorithm, an interval deleting rule is used to reduce the investigated box. By subsequently partitioning the initial box and solving a sequence of parametric linear programs relaxation problems, the proposed algorithm is convergent to the global optima of the initial problem (QICQP). Finally, compared with some existing algorithms, numerical results show higher computational efficiency of the proposed algorithm.

Acknowledgement

This paper is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11671122, 11471102), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2017M622340), the Basic and Frontier Technology Research Program of Henan Province (152300410097), the Cultivation Plan of Young Key Teachers in Colleges and Universities of Henan Province (2016GGJS-107), the Higher School Key Scientific Research Projects of Henan Province (18A110019,17A110021), the Major Scientific Research Projects of Henan Institute of Science and Technology (2015ZD07), the High-level Scientific Research Personnel Project for Henan Institute of Science and Technology (2015037), Henan Institute of Science and Technology Postdoctoral Science Foundation.

References

[1] Burer S., Vandenbussche D., A finite branch-and-bound algorithm for nonconvex quadratic programming via semidefinite relaxations. Math. Program., 2008, 113, 259-282.10.1007/s10107-006-0080-6Search in Google Scholar

[2] Sherali H.D., Tuncbilek C.H., A reformulation-convexification approach for solving nonconvex quadratic programming problems. J. Glob. Optim., 1995, 7, 1-31.10.1007/BF01100203Search in Google Scholar

[3] Gao Y., Xue H., Shen P., A new box branch-and-reduce approach for solving nonconvex quadratic programming problems. Appl. Math. Comput., 2005, 168, 1409-1418.10.1016/j.amc.2004.10.024Search in Google Scholar

[4] Jiao H., Liu S., Lu N., A parametric linear relaxation algorithm for globally solving nonconvex quadratic programming, Appl. Math. Comput., 2015, 250, 973-985.10.1016/j.amc.2014.11.032Search in Google Scholar

[5] Shen P., Liu L., A global optimization approach for quadratic programs with nonconvex quadratic constraints. Chin. J. Eng. Math., 2008, 25, 923-926.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Gao Y., Shang Y., Zhang L., A branch and reduce approach for solving nonconvex quadratic programming problems with quadratic constraints. OR Transactions, 2005, 9(2), 9-20.10.1016/j.amc.2004.10.024Search in Google Scholar

[7] Jiao H., Liu S., An efficient algorithm for quadratic sum-of-ratios fractional programs problem, Numer. Func. Anal. Opt. 2017, 38(11), 1426-1445.10.1080/01630563.2017.1327869Search in Google Scholar

[8] Fu M., Luo Z.Q., Ye Y., Approximation algorithms for quadratic programming. J. Comb. Optim., 1998, 2, 29-50.10.1023/A:1009739827008Search in Google Scholar

[9] Shen P., Zhang T., Wang C., Solving a class of generalized fractional programming problems using the feasibility of linear programs, J. Inequal. Appl., 2017, 2017, 147. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-017-1420-110.1186/s13660-017-1420-1Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[10] Shen P., Wang C., Linear decomposition approach for a class of nonconvex programming problems, J. Inequal. Appl. 2017, 2017, 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-017-1342-y10.1186/s13660-017-1342-ySearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[11] Linderoth J., A simplicial branch-and-bound algorithm for solving quadratically constrained quadratic programs. Math. Program., 2005, 103, 251-282.10.1007/s10107-005-0582-7Search in Google Scholar

[12] Audet C., Hansen P., Jaumard B., Savard G., A branch and cut algorithm for nonconvex quadratically constrained quadratic programming. Math. Program., 2000, 87, 131-152.10.1007/s101079900106Search in Google Scholar

[13] Qu S.-J., Zhang K.-C., Ji Y., A global optimization algorithm using parametric linearization relaxation. Appl. Math. Comput., 2007, 186, 763-771.10.1016/j.amc.2006.08.028Search in Google Scholar

[14] Jiao H., Chen Y., A global optimization algorithm for generalized quadratic programming, J. Appl. Math., 2013, 2013, 215312. 10.1155/2013/215312.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Shen P., Duan Y., Ma Y., A robust solution approach for nonconvex quadratic programs with additional multiplicative constraints. Appl. Math. Comput., 2008, 201, 514-526.10.1016/j.amc.2007.12.039Search in Google Scholar

[16] Shen P., Jiao H., A new rectangle branch-and-pruning appproach for generalized geometric programming. Appl. Math. Comput., 2006, 183, 1027-1038.10.1016/j.amc.2006.05.137Search in Google Scholar

[17] Wang Y., Liang Z., A deterministic global optimization algorithm for generalized geometric programming. Appl. Math. Comput., 2005, 168, 722-737.10.1016/j.amc.2005.01.142Search in Google Scholar

[18] Wang Y.J., Zhang K.C., Gao Y.L., Global optimization of generalized geometric programming. Comput. Math. Appl., 2004, 48, 1505-1516.10.1016/j.camwa.2004.07.008Search in Google Scholar

[19] Shen P., Linearization method of global optimization for generalized geometric programming. Appl. Math. Comput., 2005, 162, 353-370.10.1016/j.amc.2003.12.101Search in Google Scholar

[20] Shen P., Li X., Branch-reduction-bound algorithm for generalized geometric programming. J. Glob. Optim., 2013, 56(3), 1123-1142.10.1007/s10898-012-9933-0Search in Google Scholar

[21] Jiao H., Liu S., Zhao Y., Effective algorithm for solving the generalized linear multiplicative problem with generalized polynomial constraints, Appl. Math. Model., 2015, 39, 7568-7582.10.1016/j.apm.2015.03.025Search in Google Scholar

[22] Jiao H., Liu S., Range division and compression algorithm for quadratically constrained sum of quadratic ratios, Comput. Appl. Math., 2017, 36(1), 225-247.10.1007/s40314-015-0224-5Search in Google Scholar

[23] Hou Z., Jiao H., Cai L., Bai C., Branch-delete-bound algorithm for globally solving quadratically constrained quadratic programs, Open Math., 2017, 15, 1212-1224.10.1515/math-2017-0099Search in Google Scholar

[24] Wang C.-F., Liu S.-Y., Shen P.-P., Global minimization of a generalized linear multiplicative programming, Appl. Math. Model., 2012, 36(6), 2446-2451.10.1016/j.apm.2011.09.002Search in Google Scholar

[25] Wang C.-F., Bai Y.-Q., Shen P.-P., A practicable branch-and-bound algorithm for globally solving linear multiplicative programming, Optimization, 2017, 66, 397-405.10.1080/02331934.2016.1269765Search in Google Scholar

[26] Horst R., Tuy H., Global Optimization: Deterministic Approaches, second ed., Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1993.10.1007/978-3-662-02947-3Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-12-01
Accepted: 2018-02-20
Published Online: 2018-04-20

© 2018 Jiao and Chen, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Regular Articles
  2. Algebraic proofs for shallow water bi–Hamiltonian systems for three cocycle of the semi-direct product of Kac–Moody and Virasoro Lie algebras
  3. On a viscous two-fluid channel flow including evaporation
  4. Generation of pseudo-random numbers with the use of inverse chaotic transformation
  5. Singular Cauchy problem for the general Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation
  6. Ternary and n-ary f-distributive structures
  7. On the fine Simpson moduli spaces of 1-dimensional sheaves supported on plane quartics
  8. Evaluation of integrals with hypergeometric and logarithmic functions
  9. Bounded solutions of self-adjoint second order linear difference equations with periodic coeffients
  10. Oscillation of first order linear differential equations with several non-monotone delays
  11. Existence and regularity of mild solutions in some interpolation spaces for functional partial differential equations with nonlocal initial conditions
  12. The log-concavity of the q-derangement numbers of type B
  13. Generalized state maps and states on pseudo equality algebras
  14. Monotone subsequence via ultrapower
  15. Note on group irregularity strength of disconnected graphs
  16. On the security of the Courtois-Finiasz-Sendrier signature
  17. A further study on ordered regular equivalence relations in ordered semihypergroups
  18. On the structure vector field of a real hypersurface in complex quadric
  19. Rank relations between a {0, 1}-matrix and its complement
  20. Lie n superderivations and generalized Lie n superderivations of superalgebras
  21. Time parallelization scheme with an adaptive time step size for solving stiff initial value problems
  22. Stability problems and numerical integration on the Lie group SO(3) × R3 × R3
  23. On some fixed point results for (s, p, α)-contractive mappings in b-metric-like spaces and applications to integral equations
  24. On algebraic characterization of SSC of the Jahangir’s graph 𝓙n,m
  25. A greedy algorithm for interval greedoids
  26. On nonlinear evolution equation of second order in Banach spaces
  27. A primal-dual approach of weak vector equilibrium problems
  28. On new strong versions of Browder type theorems
  29. A Geršgorin-type eigenvalue localization set with n parameters for stochastic matrices
  30. Restriction conditions on PL(7, 2) codes (3 ≤ |𝓖i| ≤ 7)
  31. Singular integrals with variable kernel and fractional differentiation in homogeneous Morrey-Herz-type Hardy spaces with variable exponents
  32. Introduction to disoriented knot theory
  33. Restricted triangulation on circulant graphs
  34. Boundedness control sets for linear systems on Lie groups
  35. Chen’s inequalities for submanifolds in (κ, μ)-contact space form with a semi-symmetric metric connection
  36. Disjointed sum of products by a novel technique of orthogonalizing ORing
  37. A parametric linearizing approach for quadratically inequality constrained quadratic programs
  38. Generalizations of Steffensen’s inequality via the extension of Montgomery identity
  39. Vector fields satisfying the barycenter property
  40. On the freeness of hypersurface arrangements consisting of hyperplanes and spheres
  41. Biderivations of the higher rank Witt algebra without anti-symmetric condition
  42. Some remarks on spectra of nuclear operators
  43. Recursive interpolating sequences
  44. Involutory biquandles and singular knots and links
  45. Constacyclic codes over 𝔽pm[u1, u2,⋯,uk]/〈 ui2 = ui, uiuj = ujui
  46. Topological entropy for positively weak measure expansive shadowable maps
  47. Oscillation and non-oscillation of half-linear differential equations with coeffcients determined by functions having mean values
  48. On 𝓠-regular semigroups
  49. One kind power mean of the hybrid Gauss sums
  50. A reduced space branch and bound algorithm for a class of sum of ratios problems
  51. Some recurrence formulas for the Hermite polynomials and their squares
  52. A relaxed block splitting preconditioner for complex symmetric indefinite linear systems
  53. On f - prime radical in ordered semigroups
  54. Positive solutions of semipositone singular fractional differential systems with a parameter and integral boundary conditions
  55. Disjoint hypercyclicity equals disjoint supercyclicity for families of Taylor-type operators
  56. A stochastic differential game of low carbon technology sharing in collaborative innovation system of superior enterprises and inferior enterprises under uncertain environment
  57. Dynamic behavior analysis of a prey-predator model with ratio-dependent Monod-Haldane functional response
  58. The points and diameters of quantales
  59. Directed colimits of some flatness properties and purity of epimorphisms in S-posets
  60. Super (a, d)-H-antimagic labeling of subdivided graphs
  61. On the power sum problem of Lucas polynomials and its divisible property
  62. Existence of solutions for a shear thickening fluid-particle system with non-Newtonian potential
  63. On generalized P-reducible Finsler manifolds
  64. On Banach and Kuratowski Theorem, K-Lusin sets and strong sequences
  65. On the boundedness of square function generated by the Bessel differential operator in weighted Lebesque Lp,α spaces
  66. On the different kinds of separability of the space of Borel functions
  67. Curves in the Lorentz-Minkowski plane: elasticae, catenaries and grim-reapers
  68. Functional analysis method for the M/G/1 queueing model with single working vacation
  69. Existence of asymptotically periodic solutions for semilinear evolution equations with nonlocal initial conditions
  70. The existence of solutions to certain type of nonlinear difference-differential equations
  71. Domination in 4-regular Knödel graphs
  72. Stepanov-like pseudo almost periodic functions on time scales and applications to dynamic equations with delay
  73. Algebras of right ample semigroups
  74. Random attractors for stochastic retarded reaction-diffusion equations with multiplicative white noise on unbounded domains
  75. Nontrivial periodic solutions to delay difference equations via Morse theory
  76. A note on the three-way generalization of the Jordan canonical form
  77. On some varieties of ai-semirings satisfying xp+1x
  78. Abstract-valued Orlicz spaces of range-varying type
  79. On the recursive properties of one kind hybrid power mean involving two-term exponential sums and Gauss sums
  80. Arithmetic of generalized Dedekind sums and their modularity
  81. Multipreconditioned GMRES for simulating stochastic automata networks
  82. Regularization and error estimates for an inverse heat problem under the conformable derivative
  83. Transitivity of the εm-relation on (m-idempotent) hyperrings
  84. Learning Bayesian networks based on bi-velocity discrete particle swarm optimization with mutation operator
  85. Simultaneous prediction in the generalized linear model
  86. Two asymptotic expansions for gamma function developed by Windschitl’s formula
  87. State maps on semihoops
  88. 𝓜𝓝-convergence and lim-inf𝓜-convergence in partially ordered sets
  89. Stability and convergence of a local discontinuous Galerkin finite element method for the general Lax equation
  90. New topology in residuated lattices
  91. Optimality and duality in set-valued optimization utilizing limit sets
  92. An improved Schwarz Lemma at the boundary
  93. Initial layer problem of the Boussinesq system for Rayleigh-Bénard convection with infinite Prandtl number limit
  94. Toeplitz matrices whose elements are coefficients of Bazilevič functions
  95. Epi-mild normality
  96. Nonlinear elastic beam problems with the parameter near resonance
  97. Orlicz difference bodies
  98. The Picard group of Brauer-Severi varieties
  99. Galoisian and qualitative approaches to linear Polyanin-Zaitsev vector fields
  100. Weak group inverse
  101. Infinite growth of solutions of second order complex differential equation
  102. Semi-Hurewicz-Type properties in ditopological texture spaces
  103. Chaos and bifurcation in the controlled chaotic system
  104. Translatability and translatable semigroups
  105. Sharp bounds for partition dimension of generalized Möbius ladders
  106. Uniqueness theorems for L-functions in the extended Selberg class
  107. An effective algorithm for globally solving quadratic programs using parametric linearization technique
  108. Bounds of Strong EMT Strength for certain Subdivision of Star and Bistar
  109. On categorical aspects of S -quantales
  110. On the algebraicity of coefficients of half-integral weight mock modular forms
  111. Dunkl analogue of Szász-mirakjan operators of blending type
  112. Majorization, “useful” Csiszár divergence and “useful” Zipf-Mandelbrot law
  113. Global stability of a distributed delayed viral model with general incidence rate
  114. Analyzing a generalized pest-natural enemy model with nonlinear impulsive control
  115. Boundary value problems of a discrete generalized beam equation via variational methods
  116. Common fixed point theorem of six self-mappings in Menger spaces using (CLRST) property
  117. Periodic and subharmonic solutions for a 2nth-order p-Laplacian difference equation containing both advances and retardations
  118. Spectrum of free-form Sudoku graphs
  119. Regularity of fuzzy convergence spaces
  120. The well-posedness of solution to a compressible non-Newtonian fluid with self-gravitational potential
  121. On further refinements for Young inequalities
  122. Pretty good state transfer on 1-sum of star graphs
  123. On a conjecture about generalized Q-recurrence
  124. Univariate approximating schemes and their non-tensor product generalization
  125. Multi-term fractional differential equations with nonlocal boundary conditions
  126. Homoclinic and heteroclinic solutions to a hepatitis C evolution model
  127. Regularity of one-sided multilinear fractional maximal functions
  128. Galois connections between sets of paths and closure operators in simple graphs
  129. KGSA: A Gravitational Search Algorithm for Multimodal Optimization based on K-Means Niching Technique and a Novel Elitism Strategy
  130. θ-type Calderón-Zygmund Operators and Commutators in Variable Exponents Herz space
  131. An integral that counts the zeros of a function
  132. On rough sets induced by fuzzy relations approach in semigroups
  133. Computational uncertainty quantification for random non-autonomous second order linear differential equations via adapted gPC: a comparative case study with random Fröbenius method and Monte Carlo simulation
  134. The fourth order strongly noncanonical operators
  135. Topical Issue on Cyber-security Mathematics
  136. Review of Cryptographic Schemes applied to Remote Electronic Voting systems: remaining challenges and the upcoming post-quantum paradigm
  137. Linearity in decimation-based generators: an improved cryptanalysis on the shrinking generator
  138. On dynamic network security: A random decentering algorithm on graphs
Downloaded on 10.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/math-2018-0037/html
Scroll to top button