Theoretical and numerical comparison of seven single-level reformulations for bilevel programs

Fuente: arXiv
Enregistré dans:
Détails bibliographiques
Auteurs principaux: Li, Yu-Wei, Lin, Gui-Hua, Zhu, Xide
Format: Preprint
Publié: 2025
Sujets:
Accès en ligne:
Tags: Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
_version_ 1866915650958524416
author Li, Yu-Wei
Lin, Gui-Hua
Zhu, Xide
author_facet Li, Yu-Wei
Lin, Gui-Hua
Zhu, Xide
contents This paper considers a bilevel program. To solve this bilevel program, it is generally necessary to transform it into some single-level optimization problem. One approach is to replace the lower-level program by its KKT conditions to transform the bilevel program as a mathematical program with complementarity constraints (MPCC). Another approach is to apply the lower-level Wolfe/Mond-Weir/extended Mond-Weir duality to transform the bilevel program into some duality-based single-level reformulations, called WDP, MDP, and eMDP respectively in the literature. In this paper, inspired by a conjecture from a recent publication that the tighter feasible region of a reformulation, the better its numerical performance, we present three new duality-based single-level reformulations, called TWDP/TMDP/eTMDP, with tighter feasible regions. Our main goal is to compare all above-mentioned reformulations by designing some direct and relaxation algorithms with projection and implementing these algorithms on 450 test examples generated randomly. Our numerical experiments show that, whether overall comparison or pairwise comparison, at least in our tests, the WDP/MDP/TWDP/TMDP reformulations were always better than the MPCC reformulation, while the eMDP/eTMDP reformulations were always the worst ones among six duality-based reformulations, which indicates that the above conjecture is incorrect. In particular, for the relaxation algorithms, the WDP/MDP/TWDP/TMDP reformulations performed 3-5 times better than the MPCC reformulation, while the eMDP/eTMDP reformulations performed 2 times better than the MPCC reformulation.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2512_03376
institution arXiv
publishDate 2025
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle Theoretical and numerical comparison of seven single-level reformulations for bilevel programs
Li, Yu-Wei
Lin, Gui-Hua
Zhu, Xide
Optimization and Control
This paper considers a bilevel program. To solve this bilevel program, it is generally necessary to transform it into some single-level optimization problem. One approach is to replace the lower-level program by its KKT conditions to transform the bilevel program as a mathematical program with complementarity constraints (MPCC). Another approach is to apply the lower-level Wolfe/Mond-Weir/extended Mond-Weir duality to transform the bilevel program into some duality-based single-level reformulations, called WDP, MDP, and eMDP respectively in the literature. In this paper, inspired by a conjecture from a recent publication that the tighter feasible region of a reformulation, the better its numerical performance, we present three new duality-based single-level reformulations, called TWDP/TMDP/eTMDP, with tighter feasible regions. Our main goal is to compare all above-mentioned reformulations by designing some direct and relaxation algorithms with projection and implementing these algorithms on 450 test examples generated randomly. Our numerical experiments show that, whether overall comparison or pairwise comparison, at least in our tests, the WDP/MDP/TWDP/TMDP reformulations were always better than the MPCC reformulation, while the eMDP/eTMDP reformulations were always the worst ones among six duality-based reformulations, which indicates that the above conjecture is incorrect. In particular, for the relaxation algorithms, the WDP/MDP/TWDP/TMDP reformulations performed 3-5 times better than the MPCC reformulation, while the eMDP/eTMDP reformulations performed 2 times better than the MPCC reformulation.
title Theoretical and numerical comparison of seven single-level reformulations for bilevel programs
topic Optimization and Control
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.03376