IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijmore/v13y2018i1p91-106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison between linear programming and integer linear programming: a review

Author

Listed:
  • Mei Lee Sam
  • Adi Saptari
  • Mohd Rizal Bin Salleh
  • Effendi Mohamad

Abstract

This research discusses comparison of linear programming (LP) and integer linear programming (ILP). Two techniques to solve LP, simplex method and interior-point method were introduced. For ILP, available algorithms can be classified into exact algorithms and heuristic algorithms. Three criteria were used to evaluate the characteristics: time complexity, problem size and computational time. Simplex method is effective to solve small sized problems with less number of iterations while interior-point method was recommended for large sized problems due to its excellent performance and shorter computational time than simplex method. Exact algorithms are suitable for small sized problems and attain optimal solution in reasonable computational time. Meanwhile, heuristics outperform exact algorithms in solving large sized problem where it can obtain near optimal solution in an acceptable computational time. Heuristics are not guaranteed to obtain optimal solutions, compared to exact algorithms.

Suggested Citation

  • Mei Lee Sam & Adi Saptari & Mohd Rizal Bin Salleh & Effendi Mohamad, 2018. "Comparison between linear programming and integer linear programming: a review," International Journal of Mathematics in Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 13(1), pages 91-106.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijmore:v:13:y:2018:i:1:p:91-106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=92966
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijmore:v:13:y:2018:i:1:p:91-106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=320 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.