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 9. More generally, an n-way swap can be performed involving n donors and n recipients (CNN 2012).
Figure 9: Kidney Donor Exchange Two-Way Swap

Figure 10: 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 10. 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
| Solution Summary | |
|---|---|
| Solver | MILP |
| Algorithm | Decomposition |
| Objective Function | TotalWeight |
| Solution Status | Optimal |
| Objective Value | 24.850855395 |
| Relative Gap | 0 |
| Absolute Gap | 0 |
| Primal Infeasibility | 2.220446E-16 |
| Bound Infeasibility | 2.220446E-16 |
| Integer Infeasibility | 2.220446E-16 |
| Best Bound | 24.850855395 |
| Nodes | 7 |
| Solutions Found | 11 |
| Iterations | 86 |
| Presolve Time | 0.02 |
| Solution Time | 36.69 |
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% 1 1 |
| 2 335.0060 11.3381 11.3381 96.62% 96.62% 1 1 |
| 3 324.0204 11.3381 11.3381 96.50% 96.50% 1 1 |
| 5 324.0204 17.8747 17.8747 94.48% 94.48% 4 4 |
| 7 314.2717 21.7355 21.7355 93.08% 93.08% 4 4 |
| 8 293.3068 22.6457 22.6457 92.28% 92.28% 4 4 |
| 9 286.6817 22.6457 22.6457 92.10% 92.10% 4 4 |
| . 286.6817 22.6457 22.6457 92.10% 92.10% 4 4 |
| 10 246.2513 22.6457 22.6457 90.80% 90.80% 4 4 |
| 11 206.8924 22.6457 22.6457 89.05% 89.05% 4 4 |
| 12 171.7668 22.6457 22.6457 86.82% 86.82% 4 4 |
| 15 171.7668 23.0599 23.0599 86.57% 86.57% 6 6 |
| 16 150.4071 23.0778 23.0599 84.66% 84.67% 6 6 |
| 17 134.0295 23.3868 23.0599 82.55% 82.79% 6 6 |
| 18 130.1122 23.9123 23.0599 81.62% 82.28% 6 6 |
| . 130.1122 24.2346 23.0599 81.37% 82.28% 6 6 |
| 20 130.1122 24.2346 23.0599 81.37% 82.28% 6 6 |
| 22 74.1476 24.8833 23.0599 66.44% 68.90% 6 6 |
| 23 68.0328 25.1346 23.0599 63.06% 66.10% 6 6 |
| 25 61.9003 25.1635 23.0599 59.35% 62.75% 6 6 |
| 26 60.1713 25.2572 23.0599 58.02% 61.68% 6 6 |
| 29 57.0833 25.3507 24.8509 55.59% 56.47% 20 20 |
| 30 37.5601 25.3652 24.8509 32.47% 33.84% 20 20 |
| 31 36.1506 25.3754 24.8509 29.81% 31.26% 20 20 |
| 32 35.8660 25.4101 24.8509 29.15% 30.71% 20 21 |
| 33 31.4331 25.4101 24.8509 19.16% 20.94% 20 21 |
| 34 27.6622 25.4101 24.8509 8.14% 10.16% 21 21 |
| 37 26.7220 25.4161 24.8509 4.89% 7.00% 22 22 |
| 38 26.2638 25.4194 24.8509 3.21% 5.38% 22 22 |
| 39 25.4194 25.4194 24.8509 0.00% 2.24% 22 23 |
| NOTE: Starting branch and bound. |
| Node Active Sols Best Best Gap CPU Real |
| Integer Bound Time Time |
| 0 1 11 24.8509 25.4194 2.24% 22 23 |
| 4 2 11 24.8509 25.0247 0.69% 32 33 |
| 6 0 11 24.8509 24.8509 0.00% 36 36 |
| NOTE: The Decomposition algorithm used 8 threads. |
| NOTE: The Decomposition algorithm time is 36.69 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: The OPTNETWORK Procedure. 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 11.
Figure 11: Optimal Donor Exchanges
| order | node |
|---|---|
| 1 | 0 |
| 2 | 99 |
| 3 | 33 |
| 4 | 29 |
| 5 | 20 |
| 6 | 24 |
| 7 | 97 |
| 8 | 31 |
| 9 | 46 |
| 10 | 0 |
| order | node |
|---|---|
| 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 18 |
| 3 | 90 |
| 4 | 26 |
| 5 | 84 |
| 6 | 53 |
| 7 | 62 |
| 8 | 2 |
| order | node |
|---|---|
| 1 | 3 |
| 2 | 56 |
| 3 | 5 |
| 4 | 83 |
| 5 | 45 |
| 6 | 63 |
| 7 | 14 |
| 8 | 64 |
| 9 | 69 |
| 10 | 92 |
| 11 | 3 |
| order | node |
|---|---|
| 1 | 6 |
| 2 | 96 |
| 3 | 27 |
| 4 | 93 |
| 5 | 23 |
| 6 | 51 |
| 7 | 87 |
| 8 | 78 |
| 9 | 43 |
| 10 | 41 |
| 11 | 6 |
| order | node |
|---|---|
| 1 | 21 |
| 2 | 85 |
| 3 | 82 |
| 4 | 73 |
| 5 | 21 |
| order | node |
|---|---|
| 1 | 38 |
| 2 | 79 |
| 3 | 71 |
| 4 | 38 |
| order | node |
|---|---|
| 1 | 77 |
| 2 | 37 |
| 3 | 39 |
| 4 | 89 |
| 5 | 77 |