skip to main content
research-article

A friendly smoothed analysis of the simplex method

Published: 20 June 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Explaining the excellent practical performance of the simplex method for linear programming has been a major topic of research for over 50 years. One of the most successful frameworks for understanding the simplex method was given by Spielman and Teng (JACM ‘04), who the developed the notion of smoothed analysis. Starting from an arbitrary linear program with d variables and n constraints, Spielman and Teng analyzed the expected runtime over random perturbations of the LP (smoothed LP), where variance σ Gaussian noise is added to the LP data. In particular, they gave a two-stage shadow vertex simplex algorithm which uses an expected O(n86 d55 σ−30) number of simplex pivots to solve the smoothed LP. Their analysis and runtime was substantially improved by SpielmanDeshpande (FOCS ‘05) and later Vershynin (SICOMP ‘09). The fastest current algorithm, due to Vershynin, solves the smoothed LP using an expected O(d3 log3 n  σ−4 + d9log7 n) number of pivots, improving the dependence on n from polynomial to logarithmic.
While the original proof of SpielmanTeng has now been substantially simplified, the resulting analyses are still quite long and complex and the parameter dependencies far from optimal. In this work, we make substantial progress on this front, providing an improved and simpler analysis of shadow simplex methods, where our main algorithm requires an expected O(d2 √logn σ−2 + d5 log3/2 n) number of simplex pivots. We obtain our results via an improved shadow bound, key to earlier analyses as well, combined with algorithmic techniques of Borgwardt (ZOR ‘82) and Vershynin. As an added bonus, our analysis is completely modular, allowing us to obtain non-trivial bounds for perturbations beyond Gaussians, such as Laplace perturbations.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (3c-4.mp4)

References

[1]
Karim A. Adiprasito and Bruno Benedetti. 2014. The Hirsch Conjecture Holds for Normal Flag Complexes. Mathematics of Operations Research 39, 4 (2014), 1340–1348.
[2]
Ilan Adler. 1983.
[3]
The expected number of pivots needed to solve parametric linear programs and the efficiency of the self-dual simplex method. Technical Report. University of California, Dept. of IE and OR.
[4]
Ilan Adler, Richard M. Karp, and Ron Shamir. 1987. A simplex variant solving an m × d linear program in O(min(m 2, d 2 )) expected number of pivot steps. J. Complexity 3, 4 (1987), 372–387. 064X(87)90007- 0
[5]
Ilan Adler and Nimrod Megiddo. 1985.
[6]
A simplex algorithm whose average number of steps is bounded between two quadratic functions of the smaller dimension. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 32, 4 (1985), 871–895.
[7]
Nina Amenta and Günter M. Ziegler. 1998.
[8]
Deformed Products and Maximal Shadows. Contemporary Math. 223 (1998), 57–90.
[9]
David Arthur, Bodo Manthey, and Heiko Röglin. 2011.
[10]
Smoothed analysis of the k-means method. J. ACM 58, 5 (2011), Art. 19, 31. 2027216.2027217 Preliminary version in FOCS ’09.
[11]
David Avis and Vasek Chvátal. 1978. Notes on Bland’s pivoting rule. In Polyhedral Combinatorics. Springer, 24–34.
[12]
Michel L. Balinski. 1984. The Hirsch conjecture for dual transportation polyhedra. Math. Oper. Res. 9, 4 (1984), 629–633.
[13]
David Barnette. 1974. An upper bound for the diameter of a polytope. Discrete Math. 10 (1974), 9–13.
[14]
Robert E. Bixby. 2012. A brief history of linear and mixed-integer programming computation. Doc. Math. (2012), 107–121.
[15]
Robert E. Bixby, Mary Fenelon, Zonghao Gu, Ed Rothberg, and Roland Wunderling. 2000. MIP: theory and practice—closing the gap. In System modelling and optimization (Cambridge, 1999). Kluwer Acad. Publ., Boston, MA, 19–49.
[16]
Wilhelm Blaschke. 1935. INTEGRALGEOMETRIE 2. Bulletin mathématique de la Société Roumaine des Sciences 37, 1 (1935), 3–11. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 43769768
[17]
Nicolas Bonifas, Marco Di Summa, Friedrich Eisenbrand, Nicolai Hähnle, and Martin Niemeier. 2014. On sub-determinants and the diameter of polyhedra. Discrete Comput. Geom. 52, 1 (2014), 102–115. 014- 9601x Preliminary version in SOCG ‘12.
[18]
Karl-Heinz Borgwardt. 1977.
[19]
Untersuchungen zur Asymptotik der mittleren Schrittzahl von Simplexverfahren in der linearen Optimierung. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universität Kaiserslautern.
[20]
Karl-Heinz Borgwardt. 1982. The average number of pivot steps required by the simplex-method is polynomial. Z. Oper. Res. Ser. A-B 26, 5 (1982), A157–A177.
[21]
Karl-Heinz Borgwardt. 1987.
[22]
The simplex method: A probabilistic analysis. Algorithms and Combinatorics: Study and Research Texts, Vol. 1. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. xii+268 pages.
[23]
Karl-Heinz Borgwardt. 1999.
[24]
A sharp upper bound for the expected number of shadow vertices in LP-polyhedra under orthogonal projection on twodimensional planes. Math. Oper. Res. 24, 3 (1999), 544–603. 1287/moor.24.3.544 A corrected version of Figure 1 appears in Volume 24(4), pp. 925–984.
[25]
Steffen Borgwardt, Jesús A. De Loera, and Elisabeth Finhold. 2017. The diameters of network-flow polytopes satisfy the Hirsch conjecture. Mathematical Programming (11 Jul 2017). 017- 1176x
[26]
Graham Brightwell, Jan van den Heuvel, and Leen Stougie. 2006. A linear bound on the diameter of the transportation polytope. Combinatorica 26, 2 (2006), 133–139. 006- 0010- 5
[27]
Tobias Brunsch, Kamiel Cornelissen, Bodo Manthey, Heiko Röglin, and Clemens Rösner. 2015. Smoothed analysis of the successive shortest path algorithm. SIAM J. Comput. 44, 6 (2015), 1798–1819.
[28]
Preliminary version in SODA ‘13.
[29]
Tobias Brunsch, Anna Großwendt, and Heiko Röglin. 2015.
[30]
Solving totally unimodular LPs with the shadow vertex algorithm. In Proceedings of the 32nd Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS ‘15).
[31]
Daniel Dadush and Nicolai Hähnle. 2016. On the shadow simplex method for curved polyhedra. Discrete Comput. Geom. 56, 4 (2016), 882–909. Preliminary version in SOCG ‘15.
[32]
George B. Dantzig. 1948.
[33]
Programming in a linear structure. Technical Report. U.S. Air Force Comptroller, USAF, Washington, D.C.
[34]
George B. Dantzig. 1951. Maximization of a linear function of variables subject to linear inequalities. In Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N. Y.; Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London, 339–347.
[35]
George B. Dantzig. 1959.
[36]
Linear programming and extensions. Princeton university press.
[37]
Jesús A. De Loera, Edward D. Kim, Shmuel Onn, and Francisco Santos. 2009.
[38]
Graphs of transportation polytopes. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 116, 8 (2009), 1306–1325.
[39]
Amit Deshpande and Daniel A. Spielman. 2005. Improved Smoothed Analysis of the Shadow Vertex Simplex Method. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS ‘05). 349–356. org/10.1109/SFCS.2005.44
[40]
Robert Dial, Fred Glover, David Karney, and Darwin Klingman. 1979. A computational analysis of alternative algorithms and labeling techniques for finding shortest path trees. Networks 9, 3 (1979), 215–248.
[41]
Martin Dyer and Alan Frieze. 1994. Random walks, totally unimodular matrices, and a randomised dual simplex algorithm. Mathematical Programming 64, 1 (1994), 1–16.
[42]
Friedrich Eisenbrand and Santosh Vempala. 2017. Geometric random edge. Mathematical Programming (2017), 1–15.
[43]
Matthias Englert, Heiko Röglin, and Berthold Vöcking. 2014.
[44]
Worst case and probabilistic analysis of the 2-opt algorithm for the TSP. Algorithmica 68, 1 (2014), 190–264. 013- 9801- 4 Preliminary version in SODA ‘07.
[45]
John J. Forrest and Donald Goldfarb. 1992. Steepest-edge simplex algorithms for linear programming. Math. Programming 57, 3, Ser. A (1992), 341–374.
[46]
Oliver Friedmann. 2011. A Subexponential Lower Bound for Zadeh’s Pivoting Rule for Solving Linear Programs and Games. In Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization (IPCO ‘11), Oktay Günlük and Gerhard J. Woeginger (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 192–206. 3- 642- 20807- 2_16 STOC’18, June 25–29, 2018, Los Angeles, CA, USA Daniel Dadush and Sophie Huiberts
[47]
Oliver Friedmann, Thomas Dueholm Hansen, and Uri Zwick. 2011.
[48]
Subexponential Lower Bounds for Randomized Pivoting Rules for the Simplex Algorithm. In Proceedings of the Forty-third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC ‘11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 283–292.
[49]
Saul Gass and Thomas Saaty. 1955. The computational algorithm for the parametric objective function. Naval Res. Logist. Quart. 2 (1955), 39–45.
[50]
Markus Göhl and Karl-Heinz Borgwardt. 2014.
[51]
The average number of pivot steps of the simplex-algorithm based on a generalized rotation-symmetrymodel. Math. Methods Oper. Res. 80, 3 (2014), 329–366. s00186- 014- 0483- 8
[52]
Andrew V. Goldberg, Michael D. Grigoriadis, and Robert E. Tarjan. 1991. Use of dynamic trees in a network simplex algorithm for the maximum flow problem. Math. Programming 50, 3, (Ser. A) (1991), 277–290.
[53]
Donald Goldfarb. 1976. Using the steepest-edge simplex algorithm to solve sparse linear programs. Sparse matrix computations (1976), 227–240.
[54]
Donald Goldfarb. 1983.
[55]
Worst case complexity of the shadow vertex simplex algorithm. Technical Report. Columbia University, New York.
[56]
Donald Goldfarb and Jianxiu Hao. 1990. A primal simplex algorithm that solves the maximum flow problem in at most nm pivots and O(n 2 m) time. Mathematical Programming 47, 1 (1990), 353–365.
[57]
Donald Goldfarb and Jianxiu Hao. 1992. Polynomial-time primal simplex algorithms for the minimum cost network flow problem. Algorithmica 8, 2 (1992), 145–160.
[58]
Donald Goldfarb, Jianxiu Hao, and Sheng-Roan Kai. 1990. Efficient shortest path simplex algorithms. Oper. Res. 38, 4 (1990), 624–628. 38.4.624
[59]
Donald Goldfarb and William Y. Sit. 1979. Worst case behavior of the steepest edge simplex method. Discrete Appl. Math. 1, 4 (1979), 277–285.
[60]
M. Haimovich. 1983.
[61]
The simplex method is very good! On the expected number of pivot steps and related properties of random linear programs. Technical Report. Columbia University.
[62]
Thomas Dueholm Hansen and Uri Zwick. 2015.
[63]
An Improved Version of the Random-Facet Pivoting Rule for the Simplex Algorithm. In Proceedings of the Forty-seventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC ‘15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 209–218.
[64]
Gabriele Höfner. 1995.
[65]
Lineare Optimierung mit dem Schatteneckenalgorithmus: Untersuchungen zum mittleren Rechenaufwand und Entartungsverhalten. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universität Augsburg.
[66]
Ming S. Hung. 1983. A polynomial simplex method for the assignment problem. Oper. Res. 31, 3 (1983), 595–600.
[67]
Robert G. Jeroslow. 1973. The simplex algorithm with the pivot rule of maximizing criterion improvement. Discrete Math. 4 (1973), 367–377. 0012- 365X(73)90171- 4
[68]
Gil Kalai. 1992. A Subexponential Randomized Simplex Algorithm (Extended Abstract). In Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC ‘92). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 475–482. 1145/129712.129759
[69]
Gil Kalai and Daniel J. Kleitman. 1992. A quasi-polynomial bound for the diameter of graphs of polyhedra. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 26, 2 (1992), 315–316. 0979- 1992- 00285- 9
[70]
Narendra Karmarkar. 1984. A new polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming. Combinatorica 4, 4 (1984), 373–395.
[71]
Jonathan A. Kelner and Daniel A. Spielman. 2006. A randomized polynomial-time simplex algorithm for linear programming. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC ‘06). ACM, New York, 51–60.
[72]
Leonid G. Khachiyan. 1979.
[73]
A polynomial algorithm in linear programming. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 244, 5 (1979), 1093–1096.
[74]
Victor Klee and George J. Minty. 1970.
[75]
How good is the simplex algorithm. Technical Report. University of Washington.
[76]
David G. Larman. 1970. Paths of polytopes. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 20 (1970), 161–178.
[77]
Yin Tat Lee and Aaron Sidford. 2014. Path Finding Methods for Linear Programming: Solving Linear Programs in √ rank Iterations and Faster Algorithms for Maximum Flow. In Proceedings of the IEEE 55th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS ‘14). 424–433.
[78]
Carlton E. Lemke. 1965. Bimatrix equilibrium points and mathematical programming. Management science 11, 7 (1965), 681–689.
[79]
Jiri Matoušek, Micha Sharir, and Emo Welzl. 1996. A subexponential bound for linear programming. Algorithmica 16, 4-5 (1996), 498–516. 1007/s004539900062
[80]
Benjamin Matschke, Francisco Santos, and Christophe Weibel. 2015. The width of five-dimensional prismatoids. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 110, 3 (2015), 647–672.
[81]
Nimrod Megiddo. 1985. A note on the generality of the self-dual algorithm with various starting points. Methods of operations research 49 (1985), 271–275.
[82]
Nimrod Megiddo. 1986. Improved asymptotic analysis of the average number of steps performed by the self-dual simplex algorithm. Math. Programming 35, 2 (1986), 140–172.
[83]
Sanjay Mehrotra. 1992. On the implementation of a primal-dual interior point method. SIAM J. Optim. 2, 4 (1992), 575–601.
[84]
Katta G. Murty. 1980.
[85]
Computational complexity of parametric linear programming. Math. Programming 19, 2 (1980), 213–219. BF01581642
[86]
Denis Naddef. 1989. The Hirsch conjecture is true for (0, 1)-polytopes. Math. Programming 45, 1, Ser. B (1989), 109–110.
[87]
James B. Orlin. 1984.
[88]
Genuinely polynomial simplex and non-simplex algorithms for the minimum cost flow problem. Technical Report. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[89]
James B. Orlin, Serge A. Plotkin, and Éva Tardos. 1993. Polynomial dual network simplex algorithms. Math. Programming 60, 3, Ser. A (1993), 255–276.
[90]
Ian Post and Yinyu Ye. 2015.
[91]
The simplex method is strongly polynomial for deterministic markov decision processes. Mathematics of Operations Research 40, 4 (2015), 859–868. Preliminary version in SODA ‘14.
[92]
James Renegar. 1988. A polynomial-time algorithm, based on Newton’s method, for linear programming. Math. Programming 40, 1, (Ser. A) (1988), 59–93.
[93]
Arvind Sankar, Daniel A. Spielman, and Shang-Hua Teng. 2006.
[94]
Smoothed analysis of the condition numbers and growth factors of matrices. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 28, 2 (2006), 446–476.
[95]
Francisco Santos. 2012. A counterexample to the Hirsch conjecture. Ann. of Math. (2) 176, 1 (2012), 383–412.
[96]
Emanuel Schnalzger. 2014.
[97]
Ron Shamir. 1987. The efficiency of the simplex method: a survey. Management Sci. 33, 3 (1987), 301–334.
[98]
Steve Smale. 1983.
[99]
On the average number of steps of the simplex method of linear programming. Mathematical programming 27, 3 (1983), 241–262.
[100]
Daniel A. Spielman and Shang-Hua Teng. 2003. Smoothed analysis of termination of linear programming algorithms. Math. Program. 97, 1-2, Ser. B (2003), 375–404. 003- 0448- 9 ISMP, 2003 (Copenhagen).
[101]
Daniel A. Spielman and Shang-Hua Teng. 2004. Smoothed analysis of algorithms: why the simplex algorithm usually takes polynomial time. J. ACM 51, 3 (2004), 385–463 (electronic).
[102]
Michael J. Todd. 1986.
[103]
Polynomial expected behavior of a pivoting algorithm for linear complementarity and linear programming problems. Mathematical Programming 35, 2 (1986), 173–192.
[104]
Michael J. Todd. 2014. An Improved Kalai–Kleitman Bound for the Diameter of a Polyhedron. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 28, 4 (2014), 1944–1947.
[105]
Roman Vershynin. 2009. Beyond Hirsch conjecture: walks on random polytopes and smoothed complexity of the simplex method. SIAM J. Comput. 39, 2 (2009), 646–678. Preliminary version in FOCS ‘06.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
STOC 2018: Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing
June 2018
1332 pages
ISBN:9781450355599
DOI:10.1145/3188745
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 20 June 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Linear Programming
  2. Shadow Vertex Simplex Method
  3. Smoothed Analysis

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

STOC '18
Sponsor:
STOC '18: Symposium on Theory of Computing
June 25 - 29, 2018
CA, Los Angeles, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,469 of 4,586 submissions, 32%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)51
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 22 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2021)Stochastic approximation versus sample average approximation for Wasserstein barycentersOptimization Methods and Software10.1080/10556788.2021.196560037:5(1603-1635)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2021
  • (2021)Fast Quantum Subroutines for the Simplex MethodInteger Programming and Combinatorial Optimization10.1007/978-3-030-73879-2_22(311-325)Online publication date: 5-May-2021
  • (2020)Fast Algorithms for Rank-1 Bimatrix GamesOperations Research10.1287/opre.2020.1981Online publication date: 4-Jun-2020
  • (2020)Smoothing the gap between NP and ER2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)10.1109/FOCS46700.2020.00099(1022-1033)Online publication date: Nov-2020
  • (2019)Beyond worst-case analysisCommunications of the ACM10.1145/323253562:3(88-96)Online publication date: 21-Feb-2019

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media