Documentation |
On this page… |
---|
Change Options to Improve the Solution Process Some "Integer" Solutions Are Not Integers |
Note: Often, you can change the formulation of a MILP to make it more easily solvable. For suggestions on how to change your formulation, see Williams [1]. |
After you run intlinprog once, you might want to change some options and rerun it. The changes you might want to see include:
Lower run time
Lower final objective function value (a better solution)
Smaller final gap
More or different feasible points
Here are general recommendations for option changes that are most likely to help the solution process. Try the suggestions in this order:
For a faster and more accurate solution, increase the CutGenMaxIter option from its default 10 to a higher number such as 25. This can speed up the solution, but can also slow it.
For a faster and more accurate solution, change the CutGeneration option to 'intermediate' or 'advanced'. This can speed up the solution, but can use much more memory, and can slow the solution.
For a faster and more accurate solution, change the IPPreprocess option to 'advanced'. This can have a large effect on the solution process, either beneficial or not.
For a faster and more accurate solution, change the RootLPAlgorithm option to 'primal-simplex'. Usually this change is not beneficial, but occasionally it can be.
To try to find more or better feasible points, increase the HeuristicsMaxNodes option from its default 50 to a higher number such as 100.
To try to find more or better feasible points, change the Heuristics option to either 'round' or 'rins'.
To attempt to stop the solver more quickly, change the TolGapRel option to a higher value than the default 1e-4. Similarly, to attempt to obtain a more accurate answer, change the TolGapRel option to a lower value. These changes do not always improve results.
For a more accurate solution, decrease the RelObjThreshold option from its default 1e-4 to a smaller positive value such as 1e-6. This change can cause intlinprog to take more time to solve the problem, and to find more integer feasible points during its solution process.
Often, some supposedly integer-valued components of the solution x(intcon) are not precisely integers. intlinprog considers as integers all solution values within the TolInteger tolerance of an integer.
To round all supposed integers to be precisely integers, use the round function.
x(intcon) = round(x(intcon));
Caution Rounding can cause solutions to become infeasible. Check feasibility after rounding: max(A*x - b) % see if entries are not too positive, so have small infeasibility max(abs(Aeq*x - beq)) % see if entries are near enough to zero max(x - ub) % positive entries are violated bounds max(lb - x) % positive entries are violated bounds |
intlinprog does not enforce that solution components be integer valued when their absolute values exceed 2.1e9. When your solution has such components, intlinprog warns you. If you receive this warning, check the solution to see whether supposedly integer-valued components of the solution are close to integers.
intlinprog does not allow components of the problem, such as coefficients in f, A, or ub, to exceed 1e15 in absolute value. If you try to run intlinprog with such a problem, intlinprog issues an error.
If you get this error, sometimes you can scale the problem to have smaller coefficients:
For coefficients in f that are too large, try multiplying f by a small positive scaling factor.
For constraint coefficients that are too large, try multiplying all bounds and constraint matrices by the same small positive scaling factor.