1981
DOI: 10.1287/opre.29.1.49
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Logical Reduction Methods in Zero-One Programming—Minimal Preferred Variables

Abstract: In the first part of this paper, the concept of logical reduction is presented Minimal preferred variable inequalities are introduced, and algorithms are given for their calculation. A simple illustrative example is carried along from the start, further examples are provided later. The second part of the paper describes certain properties of the generated logical inequalities. It then explains some of the decreases of computational effort which may be achieved by the use of minimal preferred inequalities and o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

1987
1987
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 76 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This behavior is usually denoted double contracting [66,67,150] to contrast it with the behavior of branching on y (only up-branching fixes other variables), which is denoted single contracting. The fact that double contracting incremental formulations result in solves with fewer branch-and-bound nodes was confirmed computationally in [155,157].…”
Section: Incremental Formulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This behavior is usually denoted double contracting [66,67,150] to contrast it with the behavior of branching on y (only up-branching fixes other variables), which is denoted single contracting. The fact that double contracting incremental formulations result in solves with fewer branch-and-bound nodes was confirmed computationally in [155,157].…”
Section: Incremental Formulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this regard, it is sometimes advantageous to use a model with a larger number of integer variables, a larger number of constraints, or both. Discussions of alternative formulation approaches are given in Guignard and Spielberg (1981) and Williams (1985), and a description of approaches to automatic reformulation or preprocessing is given in Anderson and Anderson (1995), Atamturk and Savelsbergh (2000), Brearley et al (1975), Hoffman and Padberg (1991), Roy and Wolsey (1987), and Savelsbergh (1994).…”
Section: Automatic Reformulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We will briefly discuss a number of these techniques here and mention how they can be controlled in modern IP solvers. We refer the reader to [3,28,31,53] for detailed explanation of preprocessing techniques.…”
Section: Preprocessingmentioning
confidence: 99%