[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-glpk] numerical instability (cycling?)
From: |
Andrew Makhorin |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-glpk] numerical instability (cycling?) |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:49:40 +0400 |
> I am sure we both agree that getting into an infinite loop is not
> acceptable.
>> and applying geometric mean scaling makes the instance badly scaled.
> What is your opinion about the Curtis-Reid scaling algorithm?
I do not think that another scaling algorithm would help. The defect
is in the simplex solver.
>> However, a much better way is to replace tiny constraint coefficients
>> by exact zeros.
> How can i figure out what "tiny" is?
It depends on the instance's nature. I could suggest the following
criteria: a[i,j] is tiny if |a[i,j]| < 1e-8 * max|a[i,*]| assuming
that max|a[i,*]| is not very huge. For example, in the row:
1.23 x1 + 2.34 x2 + 3.45e-15 x3 + 4.56 x4 <= 5.67
constraint coefficient '3.45e-15' is tiny and should be replaced by
exact zero (or skipped at all).
- Re: [Bug-glpk] numerical instability (cycling?), Andrew Makhorin, 2009/08/22
- Re: [Bug-glpk] numerical instability (cycling?), Ali Baharev, 2009/08/22
- Re: [Bug-glpk] numerical instability (cycling?), Andrew Makhorin, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Bug-glpk] numerical instability (cycling?), Ali Baharev, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Bug-glpk] numerical instability (cycling?), Andrew Makhorin, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Bug-glpk] numerical instability (cycling?), Ali Baharev, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Bug-glpk] numerical instability (cycling?),
Andrew Makhorin <=
- Re: [Bug-glpk] numerical instability (cycling?), Ali Baharev, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Bug-glpk] numerical instability (cycling?), Andrew Makhorin, 2009/08/28
- Re: [Bug-glpk] numerical instability (cycling?), Ali Baharev, 2009/08/28
- Re: [Bug-glpk] numerical instability (cycling?), Ali Baharev, 2009/08/29