Researcher profile

Andreas Grothey

Andreas Grothey contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
1topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Primal heuristics for Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition for unit commitment

The unit commitment problem is a short-term planning problem in the energy industry. Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition is a popular approach to solve the problem. This paper focuses on primal heuristics used with Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition. We propose two primal heuristics: one based on decomposition and one based on machine learning. The first one uses the fractional solution to the restricted master problem to fix a subset of the integer variables. In each iteration of the column generation procedure, the primal heuristic obtains the fractional solution, checks whether each binary variable satisfies the integrality constraint and fix those which do. The remaining variables are then optimised quickly by a solver to find a feasible, near-optimal solution to the original instance. The other primal heuristic based on machine learning is of interest when the problems are to be solved repeatedly with different demand data but with the same problem structure. The primal heuristic uses a pre-trained neural network to fix a subset of the integer variables. In the training phase, a neural network is trained to predict for any demand data and for each binary variable how likely it is that the variable takes each of two possible values. After the training, given an instance to be solved, the prediction of the model is used with a rounding threshold to fix some binary variables. Our numerical experiments compare our methods with solving the undecomposed problem and also with other primal heuristics from the literature. The experiments reveal that the primal heuristic based on machine learning is superior when the suboptimality tolerance is relatively large, such as 0.5% or 0.25%, while the decomposition is the best when the tolerance is small, for example 0.1%.

preprint2020arXiv

On the Effectiveness of Sequential Linear Programming for the Pooling Problem

The aim of this paper is to compare the performance of a local solution technique -- namely Sequential Linear Programming (SLP) employing random starting points -- with state-of-the-art global solvers such as Baron and more sophisticated local solvers such as Sequential Quadratic Programming and Interior Point for the pooling problem. These problems can have many local optima, and we present a small example that illustrates how this can occur. We demonstrate that SLP -- usually deemed obsolete since the arrival of fast reliable QP solvers, Interior Point Methods and sophisticated global solvers -- is still the method of choice for an important class of pooling problem when the criterion is the quality of the solution found within a given acceptable time budget. In addition we introduce a new formulation, the qq-formulation, for the case of fixed demands, that exclusively uses proportional variables. We compare the performance of SLP and the global solver Baron on the qq-formulation and other common formulations. While Baron with the qq-formulation generates weaker bounds than with the other formulations tested, for both SLP and Baron the qq-formulation finds the best solutions within a given time budget. The qq-formulation can be strengthened by pq-like cuts in which case the same bounds as for the pq-formulation are obtained. However the associated time penalty due to the additional constraints results in poorer solution quality within the time budget.