Computational Comparison of Convex Underestimators for Use in a Branch-and-Bound Global Optimization Framework

Yannis A. Guzman (), M. M. Faruque Hasan () and Christodoulos A. Floudas ()
Additional contact information
Yannis A. Guzman: Princeton University, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering
M. M. Faruque Hasan: Princeton University, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering
Christodoulos A. Floudas: Princeton University, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering

A chapter in Optimization in Science and Engineering, 2014, pp 229-246 from Springer

Abstract: Abstract Applications that require the optimization of nonlinear functions involving nonconvex terms include reactor network synthesis, separations design and synthesis, robust process control, batch process design, protein folding, and molecular structure prediction. The global optimization method α-branch-and-bound (αBB; Adjiman and Floudas, J. Glob. Optim. 9(1):23–40, 1996; Adjiman et al., Comput. Chem. Eng. 22(9):1137–1158, 1998; Adjiman et al., Comput. Chem. Eng. 22(9):1159–1179, 1998; Androulakis et al., J. Glob. Optim. 7(4):337–363, 1995; Floudas, Deterministic Global Optimization: Theory, Methods and Applications, vol. 37. Springer, New York, 2000; Maranas and Floudas, J. Glob. Optim. 4(2):135–170, 1994), guarantees the global optimum with ε-convergence for any 𝒞 2 $$\mathcal{C}^{2}$$ -continuous function within a finite number of iterations via fathoming nodes of a branch-and-bound tree through assignment of lower and upper bounds. Lower bounds are generated through convexification over a node’s subdomain to yield a convex nonlinear program at each node. This chapter explores the performance of the αBB method as well as number of competing methods designed to provide tight, convex underestimators, including the piecewise (Meyer and Floudas, J. Glob. Optim. 32(2):221–258, 2005), generalized (Akrotirianakis and Floudas, J. Glob. Optim. 30(4):367–390, 2004; Akrotirianakis and Floudas, J. Glob. Optim. 29(3):249–264, 2004), and nondiagonal (Skjäl et al., J. Optim. Theory Appl. 154(2):462–490, 2012) αBB methods, the Brauer and Rohn+E (Skjäl and Westerlund, J. Glob. Optim. 1–17, 2013) αBB methods, and the moment approach (Lasserre and Thanh, J. Glob. Optim. 56(1):1–25, 2013). Their performance is gauged through a test suite of 20 multivariate, box-constrained, nonconvex functions.

Keywords: Automatic Differentiation; Perturbation Matrix; Maximum Separation Distance; Nonconvex Function; Moment Approach (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2014
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-1-4939-0808-0_11

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/9781493908080

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0808-0_11

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Springer Books from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().