Mathematical Programming

, Volume 110, Issue 1, pp 93–110 | Cite as

On approximating complex quadratic optimization problems via semidefinite programming relaxations

FULL LENGTH PAPER

Abstract

In this paper we study semidefinite programming (SDP) models for a class of discrete and continuous quadratic optimization problems in the complex Hermitian form. These problems capture a class of well-known combinatorial optimization problems, as well as problems in control theory. For instance, they include the MAX-3-CUT problem where the Laplacian matrix is positive semidefinite (in particular, some of the edge weights can be negative). We present a generic algorithm and a unified analysis of the SDP relaxations which allow us to obtain good approximation guarantees for our models. Specifically, we give an \({(k\,sin(\frac{\pi}{k}))^2/(4\pi)}\) -approximation algorithm for the discrete problem where the decision variables are k-ary and the objective matrix is positive semidefinite. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first known approximation result for this family of problems. For the continuous problem where the objective matrix is positive semidefinite, we obtain the well-known π /4 result due to Ben-Tal et al. [Math Oper Res 28(3):497–523, 2003], and independently, Zhang and Huang [SIAM J Optim 16(3):871–890, 2006]. However, our techniques simplify their analyses and provide a unified framework for treating those problems. In addition, we show for the first time that the gap between the optimal value of the original problem and that of the SDP relaxation can be arbitrarily close to π /4. We also show that the unified analysis can be used to obtain an Ω(1/ log n)-approximation algorithm for the continuous problem in which the objective matrix is not positive semidefinite.

Keywords

Hermitian quadratic functions Complex semidefinite programming Grothendieck’s inequality 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

90C20 90C22 90C27 90C90 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alon, N., Makarychev, K., Makarychev, Y., Naor, A.: Quadratic forms on graphs. In: Proceedings of the 37th annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, pp. 486–493 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alon, N., Naor, A.: Approximating the Cut–Norm via Grothendieck’s inequality. In: Proceedings of the 36th annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, pp. 72–80 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ben-Tal A., Nemirovski A. and Roos C. (2003). Extended matrix cube theorems with applications to μ–theory in control. Math. Oper. Res. 28(3): 497–523 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charikar, M., Wirth, A.: Maximizing quadratic programs: extending Grothendieck’s inequality. In: Proceedings of the 45th annual IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science, pp. 54–60 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frieze A. and Jerrum M. (1997). Improved approximation algorithms for Max k–Cut and Max bisection. Algorithmica 18: 67–81 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goemans M.X. and Rendl F. (2000). Combinatorial optimization. In: Wolkowicz, H., Saigal, R. and Vandenberghe, L. (eds) Handbook of semidefinite programming: theory, algorithms and applications, pp 343–360. Kluwer, Dordrecht Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goemans M.X. and Williamson D.P. (1995). Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming. J. ACM 42(6): 1115–1145 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goemans M.X. and Williamson D.P. (2004). Approximation algorithms for Max–3–Cut and other problems via complex semidefinite programming. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 68(2): 442–470 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hochbaum, D.S. (ed): Approximation Algorithms for NP-hard problems. PWS Publishing Company, (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nemirovski A., Roos C. and Terlaky T. (1999). On maximization of quadratic form over intersection of ellipsoids with common center. Math. Prog. Ser. A 86: 463–473 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nesterov, Y.: Global quadratic optimization via conic relaxation, CORE Discussion Paper 9860. Université Catholique de Louvain (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rietz R.E. (1974). A proof of the Grothendieck inequality. Israel J. Math. 19: 271–276 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Toker O. and Özbay H. (1998). On the complexity of purely complex μ computation and related problems in multidimensional systems. IEEE Trans Automat Control 43(3): 409–414 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vandenberghe L. and Boyd S. (1996). Semidefinite programming. SIAM Rev 38(1): 49–95 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ye Y. (1999). Approximating quadratic programming with bound and quadratic constraints. Math. Prog. 84: 219–226 MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang, S., Huang, Y.: Complex quadratic optimization and semidefinite programming. Technical Report SEEM 2004–03, Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2004. SIAM J. Optim. 16(3), 871–890 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of Information, Operations, and Management Sciences, Stern School of BusinessNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Management Science and Engineering, and, by courtesy, Electrical EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations