Computational Experience and the Explanatory Value of Condition Numbers for Linear Optimization

The modern theory of condition numbers for convex optimization problems was initially developed for convex problems in the following conic format: (CPd) : z∗ := min x {ctx | Ax − b ∈ CY , x ∈ CX} . The condition number C(d) for (CPd) has been shown in theory to be connected to a wide variety of behavioral and computational characteristics of (CPd), from sizes of optimal solutions to the complexity of algorithms for solving (CPd). The goal of this paper is to develop some computational experience and test the practical relevance of condition numbers for linear optimization on problem instances that one might encounter in practice. We used the NETLIB suite of linear optimization problems as a test bed for condition number computation and analysis. Our computational results indicate that 72% of the NETLIB suite problem instances are ill-conditioned. However, after pre-processing heuristics are applied, only 19% of the post-processed problem instances are ill-conditioned, and log C(d) of the finitely-conditioned post-processed problems is fairly nicely distributed. We also show that the number of IPM iterations needed to solve the problems in the NETLIB suite varies roughly linearly (and monotonically) with log C(d) of the post-processed problem instances. Empirical evidence yields a positive linear relationship between IPM iterations and log C(d) for the post-processed problem instances, significant at the 95% confidence level. Furthermore, 42% of the variation in IPM iterations among the NETLIB suite problem instances is accounted for by log C(d) of the problem instances after pre-processing. ∗MIT Operations Research Center, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Bldg. E40-149, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA, email: fordon@mit.edu †MIT Sloan School of Management, 50 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA, email: rfreund@mit.edu

[1]  J. Pe Computing the Distance to Infeasibility: Theoretical and Practical Issues , 1998 .

[2]  Jorge R. Vera,et al.  On the complexity of linear programming under finite precision arithmetic , 1998, Math. Program..

[3]  Robert M. Freund,et al.  Some characterizations and properties of the “distance to ill-posedness” and the condition measure of a conic linear system , 1999, Math. Program..

[4]  Michael J. Todd,et al.  Barrier Functions and Interior-Point Algorithms for Linear Programming with Zero-, One-, or Two-Sided Bounds on the Variables , 1995, Math. Oper. Res..

[5]  J. Renegar Some perturbation theory for linear programming , 1994, Math. Program..

[6]  Robert M. Freund,et al.  Opera Tions Research Center Working Paper Condition-measure Bounds on the Behavior of the Central Trajectory of a Semi-definite Program , 2022 .

[7]  Sharon Filipowski On the Complexity of Solving Sparse Symmetric Linear Programs Specified with Approximate Data , 1997, Math. Oper. Res..

[8]  V. Klee,et al.  HOW GOOD IS THE SIMPLEX ALGORITHM , 1970 .

[9]  Jorge Rafael,et al.  Ill-posedness in mathematical programming and problem-solving with approximate data , 1992 .

[10]  Robert M. Freund,et al.  On the Complexity of Computing Estimates of Condition Measures of a Conic Linear System , 2003, Math. Oper. Res..

[11]  Yurii Nesterov,et al.  Interior-point polynomial algorithms in convex programming , 1994, Siam studies in applied mathematics.

[12]  Jorge R. Vera Ill-Posedness and the Complexity of Deciding Existence of Solutions to Linear Programs , 1996, SIAM J. Optim..

[13]  Robert M. Freund,et al.  Condition measures and properties of the central trajectory of a linear program , 1998, Math. Program..

[14]  R. Shamir The Efficiency of the Simplex Method: A Survey , 1987 .

[15]  Fernando Ordóñez,et al.  On the explanatory value of condition numbers for convex optimization : theoretical issues and computational experience , 2002 .

[16]  Felipe Cucker,et al.  A Primal-Dual Algorithm for Solving Polyhedral Conic Systems with a Finite-Precision Machine , 2002, SIAM J. Optim..

[17]  Robert M. Freund,et al.  A New Condition Measure, Preconditioners, and Relations Between Different Measures of Conditioning for Conic Linear Systems , 2002, SIAM J. Optim..

[18]  James Renegar,et al.  Linear programming, complexity theory and elementary functional analysis , 1995, Math. Program..

[19]  Robert M. Freund,et al.  Condition-Based Complexity of Convex Optimization in Conic Linear Form via the Ellipsoid Algorithm , 1999, SIAM J. Optim..

[20]  James Renegar,et al.  Computing approximate solutions for convex conic systems of constraints , 2000, Math. Program..

[21]  Sharon Filipowski,et al.  On the Complexity of Solving Feasible Linear Programs Specified with Approximate Data , 1999, SIAM J. Optim..