## Abstract

Convex hulls of monomials have been widely studied in the literature, and monomial convexifications are implemented in global optimization software for relaxing polynomials. However, there has been no study of the error in the global optimum from such approaches. We give bounds on the worst-case error for convexifying a monomial over subsets of . This implies additive error bounds for relaxing a polynomial optimization problem by convexifying each monomial separately. Our main error bounds depend primarily on the degree of the monomial, making them easy to compute. Since monomial convexification studies depend on the bounds on the associated variables, in the second part, we conduct an error analysis for a multilinear monomial over two different types of box constraints. As part of this analysis, we also derive the convex hull of a multilinear monomial over .

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

## Notes

- 1.
To avoid tediousness and with a slight abuse of notation, for each monomial we write with the understanding that those \({x_{j}}\) that appear in the monomial are included.

- 2.
It does not seem that will be a polyhedron even for . Since general monomials are not vertex-extendable over , it is not clear whether the validity of over the entire box can be certified by checking at only a finite number of points.

## References

- 1.
Adams, W., Gupte, A., Xu, Y.: An RLT approach for convexifying symmetric multilinear polynomials. Working paper (2017)

- 2.
Al-Khayyal, F., Falk, J.: Jointly constrained biconvex programming. Math. Oper. Res.

**8**(2), 273–286 (1983) - 3.
Bao, X., Khajavirad, A., Sahinidis, N.V., Tawarmalani, M.: Global optimization of nonconvex problems with multilinear intermediates. Math. Program. Comput.

**7**(1), 1–37 (2015) - 4.
Belotti, P., Lee, J., Liberti, L., Margot, F., Wächter, A.: Branching and bounds tightening techniques for non-convex MINLP. Optim. Methods Softw.

**24**(4), 597–634 (2009) - 5.
Belotti, P., Miller, A.J., Namazifar, M.: Valid inequalities and convex hulls for multilinear functions. Electron. Notes Discrete Math.

**36**, 805–812 (2010) - 6.
Benson, H.P.: Concave envelopes of monomial functions over rectangles. Naval Res. Logist. (NRL)

**51**(4), 467–476 (2004) - 7.
Boland, N., Dey, S.S., Kalinowski, T., Molinaro, M., Rigterink, F.: Bounding the gap between the mccormick relaxation and the convex hull for bilinear functions. Math. Program.

**162**, 523–535 (2017) - 8.
Buchheim, C., D’Ambrosio, C.: Monomial-wise optimal separable underestimators for mixed-integer polynomial optimization. J. Glob. Optim.

**67**(4), 759–786 (2017) - 9.
Buchheim, C., Michaels, D., Weismantel, R.: Integer programming subject to monomial constraints. SIAM J. Optim.

**20**(6), 3297–3311 (2010) - 10.
Crama, Y.: Concave extensions for nonlinear 0–1 maximization problems. Math. Program.

**61**(1–3), 53–60 (1993) - 11.
Crama, Y., Rodríguez-Heck, E.: A class of valid inequalities for multilinear 0–1 optimization problems. Discrete Optim.

**25**, 28–47 (2017) - 12.
Dalkiran, E., Sherali, H.D.: RLT-POS: reformulation-linearization technique-based optimization software for solving polynomial programming problems. Math. Program. Comput.

**8**, 1–39 (2016) - 13.
De Klerk, E., Laurent, M.: Error bounds for some semidefinite programming approaches to polynomial minimization on the hypercube. SIAM J. Optim.

**20**(6), 3104–3120 (2010) - 14.
De Klerk, E., Laurent, M., Sun, Z.: An error analysis for polynomial optimization over the simplex based on the multivariate hypergeometric distribution. SIAM J. Optim.

**25**(3), 1498–1514 (2015) - 15.
De Klerk, E., Laurent, M., Sun, Z.: Convergence analysis for Lasserres measure-based hierarchy of upper bounds for polynomial optimization. Math. Program.

**162**, 1–30 (2016) - 16.
Del Pia, A., Khajavirad, A.: A polyhedral study of binary polynomial programs. Math. Oper. Res.

**42**, 389–410 (2016) - 17.
Dey, S.S., Gupte, A.: Analysis of MILP techniques for the pooling problem. Oper. Res.

**63**(2), 412–427 (2015) - 18.
Lasserre, J.B.: Global optimization with polynomials and the problem of moments. SIAM J. Optim.

**11**(3), 796–817 (2001) - 19.
Lasserre, J.B.: An Introduction to Polynomial and Semi-algebraic Optimization, vol. 52. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015)

- 20.
Laurent, M.: Sums of squares, moment matrices and optimization over polynomials. In: Emerging Applications of Algebraic Geometry, pp. 157–270. Springer (2009)

- 21.
Liberti, L., Pantelides, C.C.: Convex envelopes of monomials of odd degree. J. Glob. Optim.

**25**(2), 157–168 (2003) - 22.
Linderoth, J.: A simplicial branch-and-bound algorithm for solving quadratically constrained quadratic programs. Math. Program.

**103**(2), 251–282 (2005) - 23.
Locatelli, M.: Polyhedral subdivisions and functional forms for the convex envelopes of bilinear, fractional and other bivariate functions over general polytopes. J. Glob. Optim. Online First (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-016-0418-4

- 24.
Locatelli, M., Schoen, F.: On convex envelopes for bivariate functions over polytopes. Math. Program.

**144**(1–2), 65–91 (2014) - 25.
Luedtke, J., Namazifar, M., Linderoth, J.: Some results on the strength of relaxations of multilinear functions. Math. Program.

**136**(2), 325–351 (2012) - 26.
McCormick, G.: Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: part I. Convex underestimating problems. Math. Program.

**10**(1), 147–175 (1976) - 27.
Meyer, C., Floudas, C.: Trilinear monomials with mixed sign domains: facets of the convex and concave envelopes. J. Glob. Optim.

**29**(2), 125–155 (2004) - 28.
Meyer, C., Floudas, C.: Convex envelopes for edge-concave functions. Math. Program.

**103**(2), 207–224 (2005) - 29.
Misener, R., Floudas, C.A.: Antigone: algorithms for continuous/integer global optimization of nonlinear equations. J. Glob. Optim.

**59**(2–3), 503–526 (2014) - 30.
Misener, R., Smadbeck, J.B., Floudas, C.A.: Dynamically generated cutting planes for mixed-integer quadratically constrained quadratic programs and their incorporation into GloMIQO 2. Optim. Methods Softw.

**30**(1), 215–249 (2015) - 31.
Pang, J.S.: Error bounds in mathematical programming. Math. Program.

**79**(1–3), 299–332 (1997) - 32.
Rikun, A.: A convex envelope formula for multilinear functions. J. Glob. Optim.

**10**(4), 425–437 (1997) - 33.
Ryoo, H.S., Sahinidis, N.V.: Analysis of bounds for multilinear functions. J. Glob. Optim.

**19**(4), 403–424 (2001) - 34.
Sherali, H.: Convex envelopes of multilinear functions over a unit hypercube and over special discrete sets. Acta Math. Vietnam.

**22**(1), 245–270 (1997) - 35.
Sherali, H.D., Dalkiran, E., Liberti, L.: Reduced RLT representations for nonconvex polynomial programming problems. J. Glob. Optim.

**52**(3), 447–469 (2012) - 36.
Speakman, E., Lee, J.: Quantifying double McCormick. Math. Oper. Res.

**42**(4), 1230–1253 (2017) - 37.
Tawarmalani, M., Richard, J.P.P., Xiong, C.: Explicit convex and concave envelopes through polyhedral subdivisions. Math. Program.

**138**(1–2), 531–577 (2013) - 38.
Tawarmalani, M., Sahinidis, N.: Convex extensions and envelopes of lower semi-continuous functions. Math. Program.

**93**(2), 247–263 (2002) - 39.
Tawarmalani, M., Sahinidis, N.: A polyhedral branch-and-cut approach to global optimization. Math. Program.

**103**(2), 225–249 (2005)

## Acknowledgements

The first author was supported in part by ONR Grant N00014-16-1-2168. The second author was supported in part by ONR Grant N00014-16-1-2725. We thank two referees whose meticulous reading helped us clarify some of the technical details.

## Author information

### Affiliations

### Corresponding author

## Appendix: Missing proofs

### Appendix: Missing proofs

### Proof of Proposition 3.4

Since and make for all , we have . The lower bound of 0 comes from

If , then implies that and so by (7c), we have . For the fourth claim we have . Denote this simplex by . The assumption means that for all . Substituting this point into (7c) gives us for all . This leads to . Since , . Note that . The positivity of \({\beta }\) then makes it clear that . Hence , where . Now,

Since we have already argued , it follows that . \(\square \)

### Proof of Lemma 3.4

For nontriviality, assume .

(1) The first derivative is . If , then and for all and hence is strictly increasing over and for all .

(2 & 3) Now assume . Set and realize that and . Then we have for . Therefore is decreasing on , which implies for . Hence . The construction of also implies , and hence is increasing, for . Since , it follows that there is a unique real number in such that . Thus we have for and for . If is odd, the other root is obtained by applying Descartes’ rule of signs as in the first claim.

(4) Take and define . If , then the first claim in this lemma, with replaced by , gives us . Now assume . Applying the second claim in this lemma, after replacing with , tells us there is a unique real that is a root of in . Now because . Then the third claim in this lemma, with replaced by , gives us and consequently, the proposed fourth claim.

For the final part, note that the roots of and its complemented polynomial are in bijection under the relation . Descartes’ rule of signs tells us that has exactly one positive root besides . When , this root must be in because otherwise we would get a contradiction to not having any roots in . Descartes’ rule also tells us there is exactly one negative root when is odd. This translates to having a root in if and only if is odd. \(\square \)

### Proof of of Proposition 4.2

Note that . We first claim that is strictly increasing on \({(0,t^{*})}\). In fact, we argue the stronger claim that for all . This claim is equivalent to showing that , which is equivalent to . The function is convex and is zero-valued at and . Therefore, by convexity, for all , and hence, we have for all .

Since , is strictly increasing on \({(0,t^{*})}\), and , the condition implies that yields the maximum value in the formula for \({\mathscr {D}_{r,n}}\). Now suppose . Since is a stationary point, . Now,

where the last inequality uses and . Finally, if \({t^{*}< (n-1)/n < t^{**}}\), since can be arbitrarily close to , we can only bound and in above by and , respectively, to obtain the last proposed bound on \({\mathscr {D}_{r,n}}\). \(\square \)

## Rights and permissions

## About this article

### Cite this article

Adams, W., Gupte, A. & Xu, Y. Error bounds for monomial convexification in polynomial optimization.
*Math. Program.* **175, **355–393 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-018-1246-8

Received:

Accepted:

Published:

Issue Date:

### Keywords

- Polynomial optimization
- Monomial
- Multilinear
- Convex hull
- Error analysis
- Means inequality

### Mathematics Subject Classification

- 90C26
- 65G99
- 52A27