MISPRINTS AND MISTAKES

"Handbook of Test Problems in Local and Global
Optimization", C.A. Floudas, P.M. Pardalos et al.,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.

This is the list of inaccuracies compiled by Oleg Shcherbina on June 29, 2002.
Below are 2 tables: 1st - with open questions and 2nd with confirmed corrections.  The corrections in the second table are confirmed by C.Floudas. The others are still under investigation.
 Problem In the book Our result Comment Correction by the authors Comment2 Test Problem 8 from Section 2.9, Chapter 2 p.15 Objective function: 15639 ##ERROR! ## #X[1,1]=6, X[1,2]=2, X[2,2]=3, X[2,4]=21, X[3,1]=20, # X[4,1]=24, X[5,1]=3, X[5,3]=13, X[6,2]=12,  # This solution is infeasible because  # sum X[*,1]=6+20+24+3=53,but b[1]=29. objective 16831 # X [*,*] # 1 2 3 4 := #1 4 4 0 0 #2 0 3 0 21 #3 20 0 0 0 #4 2 22 0 0 #5 3 0 13 0 #6 0 12 0 0 The solution in the book is infeasible. The bound constraints in the book may be incorrect. The bound constraint in the book are incorrect. Running the GAMS model ex2.1.8.gms from site [1] gives us result with objective function value  15990. Test problem 2 from Section 6.3, Chapter 6 p.p.66-68 Objective function: -0.03247  x[1] = 0.00421; x[2] = 0.99579; Objective function for above x's is equal to 0.54729 There are misprints in the definition of C^U(x). The definition should be: This formula for C^U(x) is on p.71, not here. Correction is not clear. Test problem 6 from Section 6.4, Chapter 6 p.p.72-73 Objective function: 0.0 # x.[1] = 0.51802; # x.[2] = 0.0511; # x.[3] = 0.43088; Note.Objective function for above x's = 0.280976. Objective 0.2138712304 x =(0.676406,0.150677, 0.172917) There is a misprint in the book, in the transformation constraints should be modified. Then solution is correct. There is no transformation on p.72-73. It is not clear. Test Problem 10 from the Chapter 7, p.96-97 # Objective Function: 1.1406; (ERROR: 1/7.112=0.1406) # t[1] = 7.004; # t[2] = 7.646; # t[3] = 7.112; # t[4] = 0.0125; # t[5] = 0.8120; # t[6] = 0.9558; # t[7] = 0.3820; # t[8] = 0.3580; # t[9] = 0.3530; # t[10] = 2.0770; # t[11] = 0.4530; Objective 0.1; # t[1]= 0.01 # t[2]= 0.01 # t[3]=10 # t[4]= 0.019732 # t[5]= 0.018799 # t[6]= 0.0102814 # t[7]= 0.47248 # t[8]= 0.0491182 # t[9]= 0.962626 # t[10]= 1.06924 # t[11]= 1.06263 Our solution is better The solution in the book is correct. Note the constraint t3*t4*(1+t9^2)/t2<=1 is not sutisfied in the suggested correction. Solution is incorrect.  Given constraint is absent in the book, but  there is the following: t3*t6*(1+t9^2)/t2 <=1. Replacement of this constraint with t3*t4*(1+t9^2)/t2<=1 in the GAMS model gives us the following result: objective 0.1 t[1] = 0.010084 t[2]=0.017138 t[3]=10 ... Test problem 1 from Section 13.5, Chapter 13, p.310-311 An optimal permutation  (9 1 8 3 6 7 2 5 4 10). objective is 2227.  # Note. For above x's function=2364. We found permutation (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) and  # objective function =0 - minimal. If diagonal solution is not feasible, then adding costraint x[i,i]=0, we get solution # (8,4,1,9,7,10,5,3,2,6) with objective function=1445 The following constraint is missing from the formulation: x[i,i]=0 for all i=1,...,n. With this constraint the solution to the problem is correct. The objective function value for  the suggested correction is 2710 not 2364 But permutation (9 1 8 3 6 7 2 5 4 10) is not feasible, because x[10,10]=1 for it.
 Problem Correction by the authors Comment Test Problem 2 from Section 2.3, Chapter 2 p.6 Misprint: in the book Q=100I, it should read Q=I OK Test Problem 3 from Section 2.4, Chapter 2 p.7 The problem and solution in the book are correct.  y9 must be eliminated from the solution. Ok. Objective function value in the book is missing and has the value -194. Test Problem 4 from Section 2.5, Chapter 2 p.8 Misprint: the  constraint 0<=x<=1 in the book should read 0<=z OK Test Problem 9 from Section 2.10, Chapter 2 p.16 There is a misprint in the book, "min" should read "max" OK Test Problem 1 from Section 4.2, Chapter 4 p.27 There is a misprint in the book, the objective function should be: 1/6*x^6-... OK Test Problem 5 from the Chapter 7 # Colville's Test Problem. p.p.92-93 The optimal objective function is given as f=1.1436. In the paper of Rijckaert and Martens (1978) it is given as 10127.13 for the same values of t. The correction suggested has an objective value of 10122.49. Solution is correct but correct objective function value is 10122.49 Test problem 3 from Section 9.2, Chapter 9, p.211-212 Misprint in the book; the outer objective function should read -29.2. OK Test problem 2 from Section 12.1, Chapter 12, p.265 Misprint in the book; sign on the right hand side of a constraint, the correct constraint is: x2 + 1.1*y <=-1 OK Test problem 5 from Section 12.2, Chapter 12, p.267-268 Misprints in the book; signs on the right hand sides of the constraints, the misprinted constraints should read: -y1 - 2*y2 <= -5, y1^1.2*y2^1.7 - 7*y1-9*y2 <= -24 OK