Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Note from the editor

  • Published:
Mathematical Programming Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. I. Adler, “The expected number of pivots needed to solve parametric linear programs and the efficiency of the Self-Dual simplex method”, Technical Report, Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., June 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  2. I. Adler, R.M. Karp and R. Shamir, “A simplex variant solvingm × D linear programs in O(min{m2, d2}) expected number of pivot steps”, Report UCB CSD 83/158, Computer Science Division, University of California, Berkeley, December 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  3. I. Adler and N. Megiddo, “A simplex algorithm whose average number of steps is bounded between two quadratic functions of the smaller dimension“,Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 32 (1985) 871–895.

    Google Scholar 

  4. K.H. Borgwardt, “The average number of steps required by the simplex method is polynomial“,Mathematics of Operations Research 7 (1982) 441–462.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R.C. Buck, “Partition of space“,American Mathematical Monthly 50 (1943) 541–544.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. Haimovich, “The simplex algorithm is very good!—On the expected number of pivot steps and related properties of random linear programs”, Technical Report, Columbia University, New York, April 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. Howe, R. Saigal, and P.M. White, “Average properties of the linear complementarity problem”, submitted toMathematical Programming.

  8. V. Klee and G.J. Minty, “How good is the simplex algorithm?“, in: O. Shisha, ed.,Inequalities III (Academic Press, New York, 1972) pp. 159–175.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. Renegar, “On the cost of approximating all roots of a polynomial“,Mathematical Programming 32 (1985) 319–336.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. Saigal, “A variant that solves convex quadratic programs in average steps bounded by a quadratic function of size”, submitted toMathematical Programming.

  11. R. Shamir, “The efficiency of the simplex method: A survey”, Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, University of California, Berkeley, May 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  12. S. Smale, “On the average number of steps of the simplex method of linear programming“,Mathematical Programming 27 (1983) 241–262.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Note from the editor. Mathematical Programming 35, 127–128 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01580642

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01580642

Search

Navigation