Can the following be expressed as an LP with (an) additional constraint(s)?

Using Gurobi, I am trying to solve the following LP

$$\text{minimize} \sum_{i=1}^d r_i \\ \text{subject to } x^TV - r = 0 \\ -1 \le x_j \le 1 \text{ for all } 1 \le j \le n$$

Here, $$V$$ is a set of vectors with $$V_i \in \mathbb{R}^d$$ for all $$1 \le i \le n$$, $$x$$ is the vector of decision variables and $$r \in \mathbb{R}^d$$ is a slack variable. In the solver, the bounds of the free variable $$x_j$$ can be specified directly. Normally, I would first split $$x_j$$ into $$x_j^{+}, x_j^{-}$$ and subsequently substitute $$x_j$$ by $$x_j^{+} - x_j^{-}$$ to get the LP into standard form.

While the above LP gives the expected solution to the trivial input $$V = \{(1,1), (1,1)\}$$ (sorry for the notation, not sure how to describe $$2$$ vectors $$V_1, V_2$$ in MathJax)

namely $$x_1 = -1, x_2 = 1, r = (0,0,0)$$

I wonder whether it is at all possible to constrain the solution such that it will try to find a (possibly large) $$\sum_{i=1}^d r_i$$ when the number of vectors $$n$$ and dimensionality of the vectors $$d$$ are large?

In the above formulation, a valid solution can of course just be $$x_j = 0$$ for all $$1 \le j \le n$$ whenever it is not possible to give a solution with nonzero $$x_j$$. This since there is no constraint preventing this from happening. Moreover, another valid solution would be $$x_j = 1$$, $$x_1,..,x_{j-1} = x_{j+1},..,x_n = 0$$ and $$r = S_j$$. Can these be prevented? It does not seem possible to add a constraint on $$\sum_{j=1}^n x_j$$ for example, given that $$x_j$$ is a free variable.

Can it be shown that it is not possible to formulate this problem as an LP? Or am I missing some constraint that prevents the solver from coming up with the aforementioned non-desired solutions?

Edit for clarification: So, essentially what I’m trying to do is find the weights (ie. decision variables $$x_j$$ with $$1 \le j \le n$$) that, multiplied by the vectors $$V_j$$, will be such that  $$x_1V_1 + .. + x_nV_n = 0$$ (this is part of the constraint I wrote in the question earlier). For every $$x_j$$, it holds that $$-1 \le x_j \le 1$$. Since the equilength vectors $$V_j \in V$$ are of length $$d$$, this will translate into $$d$$ constraints of this form, one for each dimension.

Now, since satisfying this constraint is not (always) possible, I add an “error”/residual term $$r$$, which is also a vector of length $$d$$. Then, the objective is to minimize the sum of $$r$$’s values, ie. to minimize the error vector. Another example input would be $$V = \{(1,1,1), (2,1,1)\}$$, here it could give $$x_1 = 1, x_2 = -1$$ with $$r = (1, 0, 0)$$ for example.

However, while for the trivial input I gave this seems to work just fine, for larger $$n$$ and $$d$$ (for example, taking a set of vectors from a real dataset) it no longer works. There, the model will give objective 0.0 and $$x_j = 0$$ for all $$1 \le j \le n$$ or it will just set $$x_j = 1$$ for one of the vectors $$V_j$$ and give $$r = V_j$$. This is expected, since there is no constraint preventing these solutions from being valid solutions.

Thus, I wonder if it’s possible to add a constraint that will give me the desired solution (ie. a set of weights $$x_j$$ and a small “error” vector $$r$$)? Or if it's not possible to model this as an LP and if so, if/how this can be shown?

For a constraint, I thought of constraining the sum of the weights/decision variables $$x_j$$ to be nonzero, but this doesn't really work.

• What exactly is the problem you want to formulate? If you want the sum of the ri to be large, why are minimizing? – Lorenzo Najt Dec 2 at 16:26
• Sorry, I was unclear, with "(possibly large)" I meant to indicate that $\sum_{i=1}^d r_i$ can be large if no better solution exists, instead of giving the (non-desired) solutions I mentioned after that (which it currently gives given the current constraints). – Was Beer Dec 2 at 17:41
• As it is it is still unclear to me what exactly is the optimization problem that you want to solve. Can you write it down explicitly, whether it is an LP or no? – Lorenzo Najt Dec 2 at 17:52
• I am confused what you want. But perhaps you want a hierarchical (a.k.a. lexicographic) objective function , as per gurobi.com/documentation/8.1/refman/multiple_objectives.html . This amounts to first optimizing with your first priority objective. Then performing a second optimization in which the second priority objective is now the objective function,. and an inequality constraint is added that the first priority objective value must be as good as the optimal objective value for the first optimization. – Mark L. Stone Dec 2 at 20:14
• Do you maybe want to minimize $\sum_i |r_i|$ instead? If so, then yes, you can reformulate that problem as an LP. – Rob Pratt Dec 3 at 3:26