Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Interior Point Solving for LP-based prediction+optimisation

About

Solving optimization problems is the key to decision making in many real-life analytics applications. However, the coefficients of the optimization problems are often uncertain and dependent on external factors, such as future demand or energy or stock prices. Machine learning (ML) models, especially neural networks, are increasingly being used to estimate these coefficients in a data-driven way. Hence, end-to-end predict-and-optimize approaches, which consider how effective the predicted values are to solve the optimization problem, have received increasing attention. In case of integer linear programming problems, a popular approach to overcome their non-differentiabilty is to add a quadratic penalty term to the continuous relaxation, such that results from differentiating over quadratic programs can be used. Instead we investigate the use of the more principled logarithmic barrier term, as widely used in interior point solvers for linear programming. Specifically, instead of differentiating the KKT conditions, we consider the homogeneous self-dual formulation of the LP and we show the relation between the interior point step direction and corresponding gradients needed for learning. Finally our empirical experiments demonstrate our approach performs as good as if not better than the state-of-the-art QPTL (Quadratic Programming task loss) formulation of Wilder et al. and SPO approach of Elmachtoub and Grigas.

Jayanta Mandi, Tias Guns• 2020

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Minimum Cost Vertex CoverPOLSKA Real-life (test)
Mean Regret2.3
20
Minimum Cost Vertex CoverPDH Real-life (test)
Mean Regret8.79
20
Minimum Cost Vertex CoverPDH Artificial (test)
Mean Regret66.12
20
Minimum Cost Vertex CoverPOLSKA Artificial (test)
Mean Regret118.4
20
Minimum Cost Flow Problem (MCFP)GÉANT Real-life Size 100
Mean Regret82.42
10
Minimum Cost Flow Problem (MCFP)GÉANT (Real-life) Size 300
Mean Regret87.61
10
Minimum Cost Flow Problem (MCFP)USANet Real-life Size 300
Mean Regret141
10
Minimum Cost Flow Problem (MCFP)GÉANT Artificial Size 100
Mean Regret778.2
10
Minimum Cost Flow Problem (MCFP)GÉANT Artificial Size 300
Mean Regret763
10
Minimum Cost Flow Problem (MCFP)USANet Artificial Size 300
Mean Regret1.75e+3
10
Showing 10 of 12 rows

Other info

Follow for update