Mathematical Programming

, Volume 109, Issue 2–3, pp 445–475 | Cite as

Behavioral measures and their correlation with IPM iteration counts on semi-definite programming problems

  • Robert M. Freund
  • Fernando Ordóñez
  • Kim-Chuan Toh


We study four measures of problem instance behavior that might account for the observed differences in interior-point method (IPM) iterations when these methods are used to solve semidefinite programming (SDP) problem instances: (i) an aggregate geometry measure related to the primal and dual feasible regions (aspect ratios) and norms of the optimal solutions, (ii) the (Renegar-) condition measure C(d) of the data instance, (iii) a measure of the near-absence of strict complementarity of the optimal solution, and (iv) the level of degeneracy of the optimal solution. We compute these measures for the SDPLIB suite problem instances and measure the sample correlation (CORR) between these measures and IPM iteration counts (solved using the software SDPT3) when these measures have finite values. Our conclusions are roughly as follows: the aggregate geometry measure is highly correlated with IPM iterations (CORR = 0.901), and provides a very good explanation of IPM iterations, particularly for problem instances with solutions of small norm and aspect ratio. The condition measure C(d) is also correlated with IPM iterations, but less so than the aggregate geometry measure (CORR = 0.630). The near-absence of strict complementarity is weakly correlated with IPM iterations (CORR = 0.423). The level of degeneracy of the optimal solution is essentially uncorrelated with IPM iterations.


Behavioral measure Condition number Degeneracy Complementarity Interior-point method Semi-definite programming 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

90-04 90C22 90C60 90C51 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alizadeh F., Haeberly J.P.A., Overton M.L. (1997): Complementarity and nondegeneracy in semidefinite programming. Math. Program. 77, 111–128CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alizadeh F., Haeberly J.P.A., Overton M.L. (1998): Primal-dual interior-point methods for semidefinite programming: convergence rates, stability and numerical results. SIAM J. Optim. 8(3): 746–768CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhatia R. (1997): Matrix Analysis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cai, Z., Freund, R.M.: On two measures of problem complexity and their explanatory value for the performance of SeDuMi on second-order cone problems. Comput Optim Appl (in press)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chai J., Toh K. (2006): Computation of condition numbers for linear programming problems using Peña’s method. Optim. Methods. Softw. 21, 419–443CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freund, R.M.: On the primal–dual geometry of level sets in linear and conic optimization. SIAM J. Optim. 13(4) (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freund R.M. (2004): Complexity of convex optimization using geometry-based measures and a reference point. Math. Program. 99, 197–221CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freund R.M., Vera J.R. (1999): Some characterizations and properties of the “distance to ill-posedness" and the condition measure of a conic linear system. Math. Program. 86(2): 225–260CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freund R.M., Vera J.R. (2003): On the complexity of computing estimates of condition measures of a conic linear system. Math. Oper. Rese. 28(4): 625–648CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ji J., Potra F., Sheng R. (1999): On the local convergence of a predictor-corrector method for semidefinite programming. SIAM J. Optim 10(1): 195–210CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kojima M., Shida M., Shindoh S. (1998): Local convergence of predictor–corrector infeasible-interior-point algorithms for sdps and sdlcps. Math. Program. 80(2): 129–160CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lu Z., Monteiro R. (2005): Error bounds and limiting behavior of weighted paths associated with the sdp map X 1/2 SX 1/2. SIAM J. Optim. 15(2): 348–374CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luo Z.Q., Sturm J., Zhang S. (1998): Superlinear convergence of a symmetric primal-dual path following algorithm for semidefinite programming. SIAM J. Optim. 8(1): 59–81CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ordóñez F., Freund R.M. (2003): Computational experience and the explanatory value of condition measures for linear optimization. SIAM J. Optim. 14(2): 307–333CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peña J. (2002): Two properties of condition numbers for convex programs via implicitly defined barrier functions. Math. Program. 93(1): 55–57CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Potra F., Sheng R. (1998): Superlinear convergence of interior-point algorithms for semidefinite programming. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 99(1): 103–119CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Potra F., Wright S. (2000): Interior-point methods. J. Comput Appl. Math. 124, 281–302CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Renegar J. (1994): Some perturbation theory for linear programming. Math. Program. 65(1): 73–91CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Renegar J. (1995): Linear programming, complexity theory, and elementary functional analysis. Math. Program. 70(3): 279–351CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robinson S.M. (1977): A characterization of stability in linear programming. Oper. Res. 25(3): 435–447CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Toh K.C. (2004): Solving large scale semidefinite programs via an iterative solver on the augmented systems. SIAM J. Optim. 14, 670–698CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tütüncü R.H., Toh K.C., Todd M.J. (2003): Solving semidefinite-quadratic-linear programs using sdpt3. Math. Program. 95(2): 189–217CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wolkowicz, H., Saigal, R., Vandenberghe, L.: Handbook of semidefinite programming. Kluwer (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert M. Freund
    • 1
  • Fernando Ordóñez
    • 2
  • Kim-Chuan Toh
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.MIT Sloan School of ManagementCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  4. 4.Singapore-MIT AllianceSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations