Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications

, Volume 166, Issue 2, pp 558–571 | Cite as

A Polynomial Time Constraint-Reduced Algorithm for Semidefinite Optimization Problems

  • Sungwoo ParkEmail author
  • Dianne P. O’Leary


We present an infeasible primal-dual interior point method for semidefinite optimization problems, making use of constraint reduction. We show that the algorithm is globally convergent and has polynomial complexity, the first such complexity result for primal-dual constraint reduction algorithms for any class of problems. Our algorithm is a modification of one with no constraint reduction due to Potra and Sheng (1998) and can be applied whenever the data matrices are block diagonal. It thus solves as special cases any optimization problem that is a linear, convex quadratic, convex quadratically constrained, or second-order cone problem.


Semidefinite programming Interior point methods Constraint reduction Primal dual infeasible Polynomial complexity 

Mathematics Subject Classification

90C22 65K05 90C51 



We are very grateful to André Tits for careful reading of the manuscript, many suggestions, and insightful comments that helped shape the choice of active and inactive blocks, to Florian Potra for helpful discussions, and to anonymous referees for very careful reading and helpful suggestions.


  1. 1.
    Potra, F.A., Sheng, R.: A superlinearly convergent primal-dual infeasible-interior-point algorithm for semidefinite programming. SIAM J. Optim. 8(4), 1007–1028 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dantzig, G.B., Ye, Y.: A Build-Up Interior-Point Method for Linear Programming: Affine Scaling Form. Tech. Rep. Stanford University, Stanford (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tone, K.: An active-set strategy in an interior point method for linear programming. Math. Progr. 59(3), 345–360 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaliski, J.A., Ye, Y.: A decomposition variant of the potential reduction algorithm for linear programming. Manag. Sci. 39, 757–776 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hertog, D.D., Roos, C., Terlaky, T.: Adding and deleting constraints in the path-following method for LP. In: Advances in Optimization and Approximation, vol. 1, pp. 166–185. Springer, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tits, A.L., Absil, P.A., Woessner, W.P.: Constraint reduction for linear programs with many inequality constraints. SIAM J. Optim. 17(1), 119–146 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winternitz, L.B., Nicholls, S.O., Tits, A.L., O’Leary, D.P.: A constraint-reduced variant of Mehrotra’s predictor-corrector algorithm. Comput. Optim. Appl. 51(3), 1001–1036 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jung, J.H., O’Leary, D.P., Tits, A.L.: Adaptive constraint reduction for training support vector machines. Electron. Trans. Numer. Anal. 31, 156–177 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams, J.A.: The Use of Preconditioning for Training Support Vector Machines, Master’s Thesis, Applied Mathematics and Scientific Computing Program. University of Maryland, College Park (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jung, J.H., O’Leary, D.P., Tits, A.L.: Adaptive constraint reduction for convex quadratic programming. Comput. Optim. Appl. 51(1), 125–157 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Helmberg, C., Rendl, F., Vanderbei, R.J., Wolkowicz, H.: An interior-point method for semidefinite programming. SIAM J. Optim. 6(2), 342–361 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kojima, M., Shindoh, S., Hara, S.: Interior-point methods for the monotone semidefinite linear complementarity problem in symmetric matrices. SIAM J. Optim. 7(1), 86–125 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Monteiro, R.D.C.: Primal-dual path-following algorithms for semidefinite programming. SIAM J. Optim. 7(3), 663–678 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alizadeh, F., Haeberly, J.P.A., Overton, M.L.: Primal-dual interior-point methods for semidefinite programming. Tech. rep., Manuscript presented at the Math. Programming Symposium, Ann Arbor, MI (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nesterov, Y.E., Todd, M.J.: Self-scaled barriers and interior-point methods for convex programming. Math. Oper. Res. 22(1), 1–42 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nesterov, Y.E., Todd, M.J.: Primal-dual interior-point methods for self-scaled cones. SIAM J. Optim. 8(2), 324–364 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Monteiro, R.D.C., Zhang, Y.: A unified analysis for a class of long-step primal-dual path-following interior point algorithms for semidefinite programming. Math. Progr. 81(3), 281–299 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang, Y.: On extending some primal-dual interior-point algorithms from linear programming to semidefinite programming. SIAM J. Optim. 8(2), 365–386 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alizadeh, F., Haeberly, J.P.A., Overton, M.L.: Primal-dual interior-point methods for semidefinite programming: convergence rates, stability and numerical results. SIAM J. Optim. 8(3), 746–768 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Monteiro, R.D.C.: Polynomial convergence of primal-dual algorithms for semidefinite programming based on Monteiro and Zhang family of directions. SIAM J. Optim. 8(3), 797–812 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kojima, M., Shida, M., Shindoh, S.: Local convergence of predictor-corrector infeasible-interior-point algorithms for SDPs and SDLCPs. Math. Progr. 80(2), 129–160 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Potra, F.A., Sheng, R.: Superlinear convergence of interior-point algorithms for semidefinite programming. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 99(1), 103–119 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kojima, M., Shida, M., Shindoh, S.: A predictor-corrector interior-point algorithm for the semidefinite linear complementarity problem using the Alizadeh–Haeberly–Overton search direction. SIAM J. Optim. 9(2), 444–465 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Potra, F.A., Sheng, R.: Superlinear convergence of a predictor-corrector method for semidefinite programming without shrinking central path neighborhood. Tech. Rep. 91, Reports on Computational Mathematics, Department of Mathematics, University of Iowa (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ji, J., Potra, F.A., Sheng, R.: On the local convergence of a predictor-corrector method for semidefinite programming. SIAM J. Optim. 10(1), 195–210 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boyd, S., Vandenberghe, L.: Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, New York (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schrijver, A.: A comparison of the Delsarte and Loviász bounds. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 25(4), 425–429 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    de Klerk, E., Pasechnik, D.V., Sotirov, R.: On semidefinite programming relaxations of the traveling salesman problem. SIAM J. Optim. 19(4), 1559–1573 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bachoc, C., Vallentin, F.: New upper bounds for kissing number from semidefinite programming. J. Am. Math. Soc. 21(3), 909–924 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhao, Q., Karisch, S.E., Rendl, F., Wolkowicz, H.: Semidefinite programming relaxations for the quadratic assignment problem. J. Comb. Optim. 2(1), 71–109 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Park, S.: Matrix Reduction in Numerical Optimization, Ph.D. Thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Maryland, College Park (2011).
  32. 32.
    Toh, K.C., Todd, M.J., Tütüncü, R.H.: On the implementation and usage of SDPT3 - a MATLAB software package for semidefinite-quadratic-linear programming, version 4.0. In: Anjos, M.F., Lasserre, J.B. (eds.) Handbook on Semidefinite, Conic and Polynomial Optimization, vol. 166, pp. 715–754. Springer, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Park, S., O’Leary, D.P.: A Polynomial Time Constraint Reduced Algorithm for Semidefinite Optimization Problems, with Convergence Proofs. Tech. rep., University of Maryland, College Park (2015).
  34. 34.
    de Klerk, E.: Aspects of Semidefinite Programming: Interior Point Algorithms and Selected Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jansen, B.: Interior Point Techniques in Optimization. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fujisawa, K., Kojima, M., Nakata, K.: Exploiting sparsity in primal-dual interior-point methods for semidefinite programming. Math. Progr. 79(1), 235–253 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hager, W.: Condition estimates. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 5(2), 311–316 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Higham, N.: A survey of condition number estimation for triangular matrices. SIAM Rev. 9(4), 575–596 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    O’Leary, D.P.: Estimating matrix condition numbers. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 1(2), 205–209 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stewart, P.G.W.: Efficient generation of random orthogonal matrices with an application to condition estimators. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 17(3), 403–409 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gill, P.E., Golub, G.H., Murray, W., Saunders, M.A.: Methods for modifying matrix factorizations. Math. Comput. 28(126), 505–535 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dongarra, J.J., Moler, C.B., Bunch, J.R., Stewart, G.W.: LINPACK Users’ Guide. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KCG holdingsJersey CityUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science Department and Institute for Advanced Computer StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations