Journal of Global Optimization

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 299–312 | Cite as

D.C. Versus Copositive Bounds for Standard QP

Article

Abstract

The standard quadratic program (QPS) is minxεΔxTQx, where \(\Delta\subset\Re^n\) is the simplex Δ = {x ⩽ 0 ∣ ∑i=1n xi = 1}. QPS can be used to formulate combinatorial problems such as the maximum stable set problem, and also arises in global optimization algorithms for general quadratic programming when the search space is partitioned using simplices. One class of ‘d.c.’ (for ‘difference between convex’) bounds for QPS is based on writing Q=ST, where S and T are both positive semidefinite, and bounding xT Sx (convex on Δ) and −xTx (concave on Δ) separately. We show that the maximum possible such bound can be obtained by solving a semidefinite programming (SDP) problem. The dual of this SDP problem corresponds to adding a simple constraint to the well-known Shor relaxation of QPS. We show that the max d.c. bound is dominated by another known bound based on a copositive relaxation of QPS, also obtainable via SDP at comparable computational expense. We also discuss extensions of the d.c. bound to more general quadratic programming problems. For the application of QPS to bounding the stability number of a graph, we use a novel formulation of the Lovasz ϑ number to compare ϑ, Schrijver’s ϑ′, and the max d.c. bound.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bomze, I.M. 2002Branch-and-bound approaches to standard quadratic optimization problemsJournal of Global Optimization222737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bomze, I.M., Klerk, E. 2002Solving standard quadratic optimization problems via linear, semidefinite, and copositive programmingJournal of Global Optimization24163185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bomze, I.M., Dür, M., Klerk, E., Roos, C., Quist, A., Terlaky, T. 2000On copositive programming and standard quadratic optimization problemsJournal of Global Optimization18301320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klerk, E., Pasechnik, D.V. 2002Approximation of the stability number of a graph via copositve programmingSIAM Journal of Optimization12875892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knuth, D.E. 1994The sandwich theoremElectronic J. Combin.1148Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Motzkin, T.S., Straus, E.G. 1965Maxima for graphs and a new proof of a theorem of TúranCanadian Journal of Mathematics17533540Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nesterov, Y.E. (1999), Global quadratic optimization on the sets with simplex structure. Discussion Paper 9915, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE), Catholic University of Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nesterov, Y., Nemirovskii, A. 1994Interior-Point Polynomial Algorithms in Convex ProgrammingSIAMPhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parrilo, P.A. 2000Structured semidefinite programs and semi-algebraic geometry methods in robustness and optimizationCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadena, CAPh.D. thesisGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schrijver, A. 1979A comparison of the Delsarte and Lovasz boundsIEEE Transactions of Information Theory25425429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sturm, J.F. 1999Using SeDuMi 1.02, a MATLAB toolbox for optimization over symmetric conesOptimization Methods and Software11–12625653Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management SciencesUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations