Example 3.11: Alternative Search of the Branch-and-Bound Tree
In this example, the HALDI10 problem from Example 3.10 
 is solved.  However, here the default strategy for searching 
 the branch-and-bound tree is modified. 
 By default, the search strategy has VARSELECT=FAR. 
 This means that when searching for an integer variable 
 on which to branch, the procedure uses the one that has a value 
 farthest from an integer value. 
 An alternative strategy has VARSELECT=PENALTY. 
 This strategy causes PROC LP to look at the cost, in terms of 
 the objective function, of branching on an integer variable. 
 The procedure looks at PENALTYDEPTH= integer variables 
 before choosing the one with the largest cost. 
 This is a much more expensive strategy (in terms of execution 
 time) than the VARSELECT=FAR strategy, 
 but it can be beneficial if 
 fewer integer iterations must be done to find an optimal 
 solution.
 
  
    proc lp data=haldi10 varselect=penalty; 
    run;
 
Compare the number of integer iterations needed to 
 solve the problem using this heuristic with the 
 default strategy used in Example 3.10. 
 In this example, the difference is profound; in general, 
 solution times can vary significantly with the search technique. 
 See Output 3.11.1.
 
Output 3.11.1: Summaries and an Integer Programming Iteration Log: 
 Using VARSELECT=PENALTY
| 
The LP Procedure 
 
 
| Max _OBS1_ |  
| _rhs_ |  
| _type_ |  
| 31.82 |  
|  |  
| Number |  
|  |  
| 6 |  
| 6 |  
| 10 |  
|  |  
| 22 |  
|  |  
| Number |  
|  |  
| 10 |  
| 1 |  
|  |  
| 11 |  | 
| 
The LP Procedure 
 
 
 
| 0 | ACTIVE | 18.709524 | x4 | 0.8 | 1.11905 | 2 | . |  
| 1 | ACTIVE | 16.585187 | x1 | 0.447 | 2.33824 | 3 | . |  
| 2 | ACTIVE | 14.86157 | x5 | 0.221 | 2.09584 | 4 | . |  
| 3 | ACTIVE | 14.807195 | x2 | 0.897 | 1.31729 | 5 | . |  
| -4 | ACTIVE | 14.753205 | x8 | 14.58 | 0.61538 | 6 | . |  
| 5 | ACTIVE | 14.730078 | x6 | 0.043 | 0.79446 | 7 | . |  
| -6 | ACTIVE | 13.755102 | x3 | 0.051 | 0.58163 | 8 | . |  
| -7 | ACTIVE | 11.6 | x8 | 11.6 | 0.4 | 9 | . |  
| 8 | ACTIVE | 11.6 | x12 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 10 | . |  
| -9 | ACTIVE | 11.6 | x8 | 10.6 | 0.4 | 11 | . |  
| 10 | ACTIVE | 11.6 | x12 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 12 | . |  
| -11 | ACTIVE | 11.6 | x8 | 9.6 | 0.4 | 13 | . |  
| 12 | ACTIVE | 11.6 | x12 | 2.6 | 0.4 | 14 | . |  
| -13 | ACTIVE | 11.571429 | x9 | 0.143 | 0.57143 | 15 | . |  
| 14 | ACTIVE | 11.5 | x8 | 8.5 | 0.5 | 16 | . |  
| -15 | INFEASIBLE | 9 | . | . | . | 15 | . |  
| 15 | ACTIVE | 11.375 | x12 | 3.375 | 0.375 | 16 | . |  
| -17 | ACTIVE | 11.166667 | x8 | 7.167 | 0.16667 | 17 | . |  
| 18 | ACTIVE | 11.125 | x12 | 4.125 | 0.125 | 18 | . |  
| 19 | SUBOPTIMAL | 11 | . | . | . | 7 | 7 |  
| 7 | ACTIVE | 13.5 | x8 | 13.5 | 0.5 | 8 | 7 |  
| -21 | INFEASIBLE | 11 | . | . | . | 7 | 7 |  
| 21 | ACTIVE | 13.375 | x12 | 0.375 | 0.375 | 8 | 7 |  
| -23 | ACTIVE | 13.166667 | x8 | 12.17 | 0.16667 | 9 | 7 |  
| 24 | ACTIVE | 13.125 | x12 | 1.125 | 0.125 | 10 | 7 |  
| 25 | SUBOPTIMAL | 13 | . | . | . | 4 | 5 |  
| 6 | ACTIVE | 14.535714 | x3 | 0.045 | 0.50893 | 5 | 5 |  
| -27 | FATHOMED | 12.625 | . | . | . | 4 | 5 |  
| 27 | SUBOPTIMAL | 14 | . | . | . | 1 | 4 |  
| -1 | ACTIVE | 18.309524 | x3 | 0.129 | 1.31905 | 2 | 4 |  
| 30 | ACTIVE | 17.67723 | x6 | 0.886 | 0.43662 | 3 | 4 |  
| 31 | ACTIVE | 15.485156 | x2 | 0.777 | 1.50833 | 4 | 4 |  
| -32 | ACTIVE | 15.2625 | x1 | 0.121 | 1.38333 | 4 | 4 |  
| 33 | ACTIVE | 15.085106 | x10 | 3.532 | 0.91489 | 4 | 4 |  
| 34 | FATHOMED | 14.857143 | . | . | . | 3 | 4 |  
| 32 | FATHOMED | 11.212121 | . | . | . | 2 | 4 |  
| -31 | ACTIVE | 17.56338 | x10 | 7.93 | 0.43662 | 3 | 4 |  
| 37 | ACTIVE | 17.225962 | x8 | 2.38 | 0.69231 | 4 | 4 |  
| 38 | ACTIVE | 17.221818 | x1 | 0.016 | 0.37111 | 5 | 4 |  
| -39 | FATHOMED | 14.43662 | . | . | . | 4 | 4 |  
| 39 | ACTIVE | 17.172375 | x2 | 0.133 | 0.31948 | 5 | 4 |  
| 41 | ACTIVE | 16.890196 | x5 | 0.086 | 0.19608 | 6 | 4 |  
| 42 | ACTIVE | 16.75 | x12 | 9.75 | 0.25 | 7 | 4 |  
| -43 | SUBOPTIMAL | 15 | . | . | . | 6 | 3 |  
| 43 | SUBOPTIMAL | 16 | . | . | . | 3 | 2 |  
| -38 | FATHOMED | 17.138028 | . | . | . | 2 | 2 |  
| -37 | SUBOPTIMAL | 17 | . | . | . | 1 | 1 |  
| -30 | FATHOMED | 16.566667 | . | . | . | 0 | . |  | 
| 
The LP Procedure 
 
 
 
| 17 |  
|  |  
| 0 |  
| 13 |  
| 79 |  
| 48 |  
| 6 |  
| 12 |  
| 0 |  
| 17 |  
|  |  
| 1E-8 |  
| 1.797693E308 |  
| 100 |  
| 100 |  
| 99999999 |  
| 100 |  
| 120 |  | 
| 
The LP Procedure 
 
 
 
| x1 | DEGEN | BINARY | 0 | 0 | 0 |  
| x2 |  | BINARY | 0 | 0 | -4 |  
| x3 |  | BINARY | 0 | 0 | -4 |  
| x4 |  | BINARY | 0 | 1 | -18 |  
| x5 | DEGEN | BINARY | 0 | 0 | 0 |  
| x6 |  | BINARY | 0 | 1 | -1 |  
| x7 |  | INTEGER | 1 | 0 | -6.5 |  
| x8 |  | INTEGER | 1 | 0 | -3 |  
| x9 |  | INTEGER | 1 | 0 | -1 |  
| x10 |  | INTEGER | 1 | 8 | -8 |  
| x11 |  | INTEGER | 1 | 0 | -8.545455 |  
| x12 | BASIC | INTEGER | 1 | 9 | 0 |  
| _OBS2_ | BASIC | SLACK | 0 | 20 | 0 |  
| _OBS3_ | BASIC | SLACK | 0 | 5 | 0 |  
| _OBS4_ | BASIC | SLACK | 0 | 10 | 0 |  
| _OBS5_ |  | SLACK | 0 | 0 | -1 |  
| _OBS6_ |  | SLACK | 0 | 0 | -1.5 |  
| _OBS7_ | DEGEN | SLACK | 0 | 0 | 0 |  
| _OBS8_ | DEGEN | SLACK | 0 | 0 | 0 |  
| _OBS9_ | BASIC | SLACK | 0 | 2 | 0 |  
| _OBS10_ |  | SLACK | 0 | 0 | -2.545455 |  
| _OBS11_ | BASIC | SLACK | 0 | 2 | 0 |  | 
| 
The LP Procedure 
 
 
 
| _OBS1_ | OBJECTVE | . | 0 | 17 | . |  
| _OBS2_ | LE | 13 | 110 | 90 | 0 |  
| _OBS3_ | LE | 14 | 95 | 90 | 0 |  
| _OBS4_ | LE | 15 | 80 | 70 | 0 |  
| _OBS5_ | LE | 16 | 100 | 100 | 1 |  
| _OBS6_ | LE | 17 | 0 | 0 | 1.5 |  
| _OBS7_ | LE | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 |  
| _OBS8_ | LE | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 |  
| _OBS9_ | LE | 20 | 0 | -2 | 0 |  
| _OBS10_ | LE | 21 | 0 | 0 | 2.5454545 |  
| _OBS11_ | LE | 22 | 0 | -2 | 0 |  | 
Although the VARSELECT=PENALTY 
 strategy works well in this 
 example, there is no guarantee that it will work well with your model. 
 Experimentation with various strategies is necessary 
 to find the one that works well with your model and data, 
 particularly if a model is solved repeatedly with few 
 changes to either the structure or the data.
 
 
Copyright © 2008 by SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA. All rights reserved.