1972
DOI: 10.1137/0123007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Canonical Cuts on the Unit Hypercube

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
116
1
1

Year Published

1999
1999
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 217 publications
(118 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
116
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Let g be locally Lipschitz at every point in an open set containing X, let D be a finite box such that ∂g(x) ⊆ D for all x ∈ X, and let g(x) = g(x) + min d∈D d(x −x) as in (4). Then the inequality g(x) ≤ 0 is valid for P .…”
Section: Interval-gradient and Interval-subgradient Cutsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Let g be locally Lipschitz at every point in an open set containing X, let D be a finite box such that ∂g(x) ⊆ D for all x ∈ X, and let g(x) = g(x) + min d∈D d(x −x) as in (4). Then the inequality g(x) ≤ 0 is valid for P .…”
Section: Interval-gradient and Interval-subgradient Cutsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, we consider the extension to MINLP of a classical family of MILP cuts mostly known as No-good cuts (or Farkas cuts) and originally introduced, to the best of our knowledge, in [4] with the name of canonical cuts. These cutting planes are generated with respect to a specific solutionx by imposing a positive distance betweenx and any new solution 1 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…first mentioned by Balas and Jeroslow [3]. Thus, constraints (11) for x binary are equivalent to the following set of canonical cuts i∈x * (1)…”
Section: Implicit Reformulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Balas and Jeroslow (1972) propose "no-good" cuts for the case of binary master variables (Eq. 23) X i:…”
Section: £mentioning
confidence: 99%