The Decomposition Algorithm

Example 18.11 Kidney Donor Exchange and METHOD=SET

This example looks at an application of integer programming to help create a kidney donor exchange. Suppose someone needs a kidney transplant and a family member is willing to be a donor. If the donor and recipient are incompatible (because of blood type, tissue mismatch, and so on), the transplant cannot happen. Now suppose two donor-recipient pairs, i and j, are in this situation, but donor i is compatible with recipient j and donor j is compatible with recipient i. Then two transplants can take place in a two-way swap, shown in Figure 18.8. More generally, an n-way swap can be performed involving n donors and n recipients (Willingham 2009).

Figure 18.8: Kidney Donor Exchange Two-Way Swap

Kidney Donor Exchange Two-Way Swap


Figure 18.9: Kidney Donor Exchange Network

Kidney Donor Exchange Network


To model this problem, define a directed graph as follows. Each node is an incompatible donor-recipient pair. Link exists if the donor from node i is compatible with the recipient from node j, as shown in Figure 18.9. Let N define the set of nodes and A define the set of arcs. The link weight, , is a measure of the quality of the match. By introducing dummy links whose weight is 0, you can also include altruistic donors who have no recipients or recipients who have no donors. The idea is to find a maximum-weight node-disjoint union of directed cycles. You want the union to be node-disjoint so that no kidney is donated more than once, and you want cycles so that the donor from node i donates a kidney if and only if the recipient from node i receives a kidney.

Without any other constraints, the problem could be solved as a linear assignment problem. But doing so would allow arbitrarily long cycles in the solution. For practical considerations (such as travel) and to mitigate risk, each cycle must have no more than L links. The kidney exchange problem is to find a maximum-weight node-disjoint union of short directed cycles.

Define an index set of candidate disjoint unions of short cycles (called matchings). Let be a binary variable that, if set to 1, indicates that arc is in a matching m. Let be a binary variable that, if set to 1, indicates that node i is covered by matching m. In addition, let be a binary slack variable that, if set to 1, indicates that node i is not covered by any matching.

The kidney donor exchange can be formulated as a MILP as follows:

In this formulation, the Packing constraints ensure that each node is covered by at most one matching. The Donate and Receive constraints enforce the condition that if node i is covered by matching m, then the matching m must use exactly one arc that leaves node i (Donate) and one arc that enters node i (Receive). Conversely, if node i is not covered by matching m, then no arcs that enter or leave node i can be used by matching m. The Cardinality constraints enforce the condition that the number of arcs in matching m must not exceed L.

In this formulation, the matching identifier is arbitrary. Because it is not necessary to cover each incompatible donor-recipient pair (node), the Packing constraints can be modeled by using set partitioning constraints and the slack variable s. Consider a decomposition by matching, in which the Packing constraints form the master problem and all other constraints form identical matching subproblems. As described in the section Special Case: Identical Blocks and Ryan-Foster Branching, this is a situation in which an aggregate formulation and Ryan-Foster branching can greatly improve performance by reducing symmetry.

The following DATA step sets up the problem by first creating a random graph on n nodes with link probability p and Uniform(0,1) weight:

/* create random graph on n nodes with arc probability p
   and uniform(0,1) weight */
%let n = 100;
%let p = 0.02;
data ArcData;
   call streaminit(1);
   do i = 0 to &n - 1;
      do j = 0 to &n - 1;
         if i eq j then continue;
         else if rand('UNIFORM') < &p then do;
            weight = rand('UNIFORM');
            output;
         end;
      end;
   end;
run;

In this case, you can specify METHOD=SET and let the decomposition algorithm automatically detect the set partitioning master constraints (Packing) and each independent matching subproblem. The following PROC OPTMODEL statements read in the data, declare the optimization model, and use the decomposition algorithm to solve it:

%let max_length = 10;
proc optmodel sessref="mysess";
   set <num,num> ARCS;
   num weight {ARCS};
   read data ArcData into ARCS=[i j] weight;
   print weight;
   set NODES = union {<i,j> in ARCS} {i,j};
   set MATCHINGS = 1..card(NODES)/2;

   /* UseNode[i,m] = 1 if node i is used in matching m, 0 otherwise */
   var UseNode {NODES, MATCHINGS} binary;

   /* UseArc[i,j,m] = 1 if arc (i,j) is used in matching m, 0 otherwise */
   var UseArc {ARCS, MATCHINGS} binary;

   /* maximize total weight of arcs used */
   max TotalWeight
      = sum {<i,j> in ARCS, m in MATCHINGS} weight[i,j] * UseArc[i,j,m];

   /* each node appears in at most one matching */
   /* rewrite as set partitioning (so decomp uses identical blocks)
      sum{} x <= 1 => sum{} x + s = 1, s >= 0 with no associated cost */
   var Slack {NODES} binary;
   con Packing {i in NODES}:
      sum {m in MATCHINGS} UseNode[i,m] + Slack[i] = 1;

   /* at most one recipient for each donor */
   con Donate {i in NODES, m in MATCHINGS}:
      sum {<(i),j> in ARCS} UseArc[i,j,m] = UseNode[i,m];

   /* at most one donor for each recipient */
   con Receive {j in NODES, m in MATCHINGS}:
      sum {<i,(j)> in ARCS} UseArc[i,j,m] = UseNode[j,m];

   /* exclude long matchings */
   con Cardinality {m in MATCHINGS}:
      sum {<i,j> in ARCS} UseArc[i,j,m] <= &max_length;

   /* automatically decompose using METHOD=SET */
   solve with milp / presolver=basic decomp=(method=set);

   /* save solution to a data set */
   create data Solution from
      [m i j]={m in MATCHINGS, <i,j> in ARCS: UseArc[i,j,m].sol > 0.5}
      weight[i,j];
quit;

In this case, the PRESOLVER=BASIC option ensures that the model maintains its specified symmetry, enabling the algorithm to use the aggregate formulation and Ryan-Foster branching. The solution summary is displayed in Output 18.11.1.

Output 18.11.1: Solution Summary

The OPTMODEL Procedure

Solution Summary
SolverMILP
AlgorithmDecomposition
Objective FunctionTotalWeight
Solution StatusOptimal
Objective Value24.850855395
  
Relative Gap0
Absolute Gap0
Primal Infeasibility2.507624E-14
Bound Infeasibility2.398082E-14
Integer Infeasibility2.507624E-14
  
Best Bound24.850855395
Nodes7
Solutions Found13
Iterations94
Presolve Time0.04
Solution Time58.82


The iteration log is displayed in Output 18.11.2.

Output 18.11.2: Log

NOTE: There were 208 observations read from the data set WORK.ARCDATA.                          
NOTE: Problem generation will use 4 threads.                                                    
NOTE: The problem has 15092 variables (0 free, 0 fixed).                                        
NOTE: The problem has 15092 binary and 0 integer variables.                                     
NOTE: The problem has 9751 linear constraints (49 LE, 9702 EQ, 0 GE, 0 range).                  
NOTE: The problem has 45080 linear constraint coefficients.                                     
NOTE: The problem has 0 nonlinear constraints (0 LE, 0 EQ, 0 GE, 0 range).                      
NOTE: The SOLVE statement is executing in the distributed computing environment in              
      single-machine mode.                                                                      
NOTE: The initial MILP heuristics are applied.                                                  
NOTE: The MILP presolver value BASIC is applied.                                                
NOTE: The MILP presolver removed 5081 variables and 3366 constraints.                           
NOTE: The MILP presolver removed 15175 constraint coefficients.                                 
NOTE: The MILP presolver modified 0 constraint coefficients.                                    
NOTE: The presolved problem has 10011 variables, 6385 constraints, and 29905 constraint         
      coefficients.                                                                             
NOTE: The MILP solver is called.                                                                
NOTE: The Decomposition algorithm is used.                                                      
NOTE: The Decomposition algorithm is executing in single-machine mode.                          
NOTE: The DECOMP method value SET is applied.                                                   
NOTE: All blocks are identical and the master model is set partitioning.                        
NOTE: The Decomposition algorithm is using an aggregate formulation and Ryan-Foster branching.  
NOTE: The number of block threads has been reduced to 1 threads.                                
NOTE: The problem has a decomposable structure with 49 blocks. The largest block covers 2.02%   
      of the constraints in the problem.                                                        
NOTE: The decomposition subproblems cover 9947 (99.36%) variables and 6321 (99%) constraints.   
NOTE: The deterministic parallel mode is enabled.                                               
NOTE: The Decomposition algorithm is using up to 8 threads.                                     
      Iter         Best       Master         Best       LP       IP  CPU Real                   
                  Bound    Objective      Integer      Gap      Gap Time Time                   
         .     350.7353      11.3381      11.3381   96.77%   96.77%    0    0                   
         3     321.1971      11.3381      11.3381   96.47%   96.47%    0    0                   
         6     318.4270      15.8354      15.1992   95.03%   95.23%    2    2                   
         7     301.7282      15.8354      15.1992   94.75%   94.96%    3    3                   
         8     293.9078      16.6524      16.6524   94.33%   94.33%    3    3                   
         .     293.9078      19.8965      19.8965   93.23%   93.23%    5    5                   
        10     293.9078      19.8965      19.8965   93.23%   93.23%    5    5                   
        11     286.4270      19.8965      19.8965   93.05%   93.05%    5    5                   
        12     257.6301      19.8965      19.8965   92.28%   92.28%    5    5                   
        13     234.6110      20.8225      19.8965   91.12%   91.52%    5    5                   
        14     221.0739      21.5496      19.8965   90.25%   91.00%    5    6                   
        15     174.4465      21.6649      19.8965   87.58%   88.59%    5    6                   
        17     140.4072      22.4478      19.8965   84.01%   85.83%    5    6                   
        18     121.1976      22.6383      19.8965   81.32%   83.58%    5    6                   
         .     121.1976      23.0633      19.9721   80.97%   83.52%    6    6                   
        20     104.2215      23.0633      19.9721   77.87%   80.84%    6    6                   
        22     104.2215      23.4713      21.3287   77.48%   79.54%    6    6                   
        23      96.7898      23.9023      21.3287   75.30%   77.96%    6    6                   
        25      95.9261      24.4388      21.3287   74.52%   77.77%    6    6                   
        26      93.7365      24.5849      21.3287   73.77%   77.25%    6    6                   
        27      68.6365      24.8659      21.3287   63.77%   68.93%    6    6                   
        29      60.9743      25.0056      21.3287   58.99%   65.02%    6    6                   
        30      60.9743      25.0420      21.3287   58.93%   65.02%    6    6                   
        32      53.7800      25.0737      21.3287   53.38%   60.34%    6    6                   
        33      42.9749      25.1560      21.3287   41.46%   50.37%    6    6                   
        37      42.4810      25.3325      21.3287   40.37%   49.79%    6    6                   
        38      35.2304      25.3425      21.3287   28.07%   39.46%    6    6                   
         .      35.2304      25.3550      23.5488   28.03%   33.16%    6    7                   
        40      34.9251      25.3550      23.5488   27.40%   32.57%    6    7                   
        42      33.0323      25.3581      23.5488   23.23%   28.71%    7    7                   
        43      32.1713      25.3581      23.5488   21.18%   26.80%    7    7                   
        44      31.3667      25.3601      23.5488   19.15%   24.92%    7    7                   
        46      28.9839      25.4068      23.5488   12.34%   18.75%    7    7                   
        48      27.8889      25.4110      23.5488    8.88%   15.56%    7    7                   
        50      25.4194      25.4194      23.5488    0.00%    7.36%    7    7                   
         .      25.4194      25.4194      23.6456    0.00%    6.98%    7    7                   
NOTE: Starting branch and bound.                                                                
         Node  Active   Sols         Best         Best      Gap    CPU   Real                   
                                  Integer        Bound            Time   Time                   
            0       1     12      23.6456      25.4194    6.98%      7      7                   
            1       3     13      24.8509      25.4194    2.24%     56     56                   
            6       0     13      24.8509      24.8509    0.00%     58     58                   
NOTE: The Decomposition algorithm used 8 threads.                                               
NOTE: The Decomposition algorithm time is 58.82 seconds.                                        
NOTE: Optimal.                                                                                  
NOTE: Objective = 24.850855395.                                                                 
NOTE: The data set WORK.SOLUTION has 47 observations and 4 variables.                           


The solution is a set of arcs that define a union of short directed cycles (matchings). The following call to PROC OPTNETWORK extracts the corresponding cycles from the list of arcs and outputs them to the data table mycas.Cycles. The DATA step assumes that your CAS engine libref is named mycas, but you can substitute any appropriately defined CAS engine libref.

data mycas.Solution;
   set Solution;
run;
proc optnetwork
   direction = directed
   links     = mycas.Solution;
   linksVar
      from   = i
      to     = j;
   cycle
      maxCycles = all
      out       = mycas.Cycles;
run;

For more information about PROC OPTNETWORK, see SAS Optimization 8.3: Network Optimization Procedures. Alternatively, you can extract the cycles by using the SOLVE WITH NETWORK statement in PROC OPTMODEL (see Chapter 15: The Network Solver). The optimal donor exchanges from the output data table mycas.Cycles are displayed in Figure 18.10.

Figure 18.10: Optimal Donor Exchanges

ordernode
10
299
333
429
520
624
797
831
946
100

ordernode
12
218
390
426
584
653
762
82

ordernode
13
256
35
483
545
663
714
864
969
1092
113

ordernode
16
296
327
493
523
651
787
878
943
1041
116

ordernode
121
285
382
473
521

ordernode
138
279
371
438

ordernode
177
237
339
489
577


Last updated: June 14, 2018