Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:11:14.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Duality for linear multiplicative programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Carlton H. Scott  and
Thomas R. Jefferson
Carlton H. Scott
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Management, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3125, USA; e-mail: [email protected].
Thomas R. Jefferson
Affiliation:
Decision and Information Sciences Department, Warrington School of Business, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Linear multiplicative programs are an important class of nonconvex optimisation problems that are currently the subject of considerable research as regards the development of computational algorithms. In this paper, we show that mathematical programs of this nature are, in fact, a special case of more general signomial programming, which in turn implies that research on this latter problem may be valuable in analysing and solving linear multiplicative programs. In particular, we use signomial programming duality theory to establish a dual program for a nonconvex linear multiplicative program. An interpretation of the dual variables is given.

Type
Research Article
Information
The ANZIAM Journal , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , January 2005 , pp. 393 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Mathematical Society 2005

References

[1]Benson, H. P. and Boger, G. M., “Multiplicative programming problems: analysis and efficient point search heuristic”, J. Optim. Theory Appl. 94 (1997) 487–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Benson, H. P. and Boger, G. M., “Outcome-space cutting-plane algorithm for linear multiplicative programming”, J. Optim. Theory Appl. 104 (2000) 301–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Craven, B. D., “Lagrangean conditions and quasiduality”, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 16 (1977) 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Duffin, R. J., Peterson, E. L. and Zener, C., Geometric programming (Wiley, New York, 1967).Google Scholar
[5]Forgo, F., “The solution of a special quadratic programming problem”, SZIGMA 8 (1975) 53–59.Google Scholar
[6]Henderson, J. M. and Quandt, R. E., Microeconomic theory (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971).Google Scholar
[7]Konno, H. and Inori, M., “Bond portfolio optimization by linear fractional programming”, J. Oper. Res. Soc. Japan 10 (1997) 229–256.Google Scholar
[8]Konno, H. and Kuno, T., “Linear multiplicative programming”, Math. Programs. 56 (1992) 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Konno, H. and Kuno, T., Multiplicative programming (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1995).Google Scholar
[10]Kuno, T., Yajima, Y. and Konno, H., “An outer approximation method for minimizing the product of several convex functions on a convex set”, J. Global Optim. 3 (1993) 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Liu, X. J., Umegaki, T. and Yamamoto, Y., “Heuristic methods for linear multiplicative programming”, J. Global Optim. 15 (1999) 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Maling, K., Mueller, S. H. and Heller, W. R., “On finding most optimal rectangular package plans”, in Proceedings of the 19th Design Automation Conference, (IEEE,Piscataway, NJ, 1982) 663–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Matsui, T., “NP-hardness of linear multiplicative programming and related problems”, J. Global Optim. 9 (1996) 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Passy, V. and Wilde, D. J., “Generalized polynomial optimization”, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 15 (1967) 1344–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Ryoo, H. S. and Sahinidis, N. V., “A branch-and-reduce approach to global optimization”, J. Global Optim. 8 (1996) 107–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Swarup, K., “Quadratic programming”, Cahiers Centre Études Recherche Opér. 8 (1966) 223–234.Google Scholar
[17]Thoai, N. V., “A global optimization approach for solving the convex multiplicative programming problem”, J. Global Optim. 1 (1991) 341–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar