Journal of Global Optimization

, Volume 70, Issue 4, pp 719–735 | Cite as

Quadratic convex reformulation for nonconvex binary quadratically constrained quadratic programming via surrogate constraint

  • Xiaojin Zheng
  • Yutong Pan
  • Xueting Cui


We investigate in this paper nonconvex binary quadratically constrained quadratic programming (QCQP) which arises in various real-life fields. We propose a novel approach of getting quadratic convex reformulation (QCR) for this class of optimization problem. Our approach employs quadratic surrogate functions and convexifies all the quadratic inequality constraints to construct QCR. The price of this approach is the introduction of an extra quadratic inequality. The “best” QCR among the proposed family, in terms that the bound of the corresponding continuous relaxation is best, can be found via solving a semidefinite programming problem. Furthermore, we prove that the bound obtained by continuous relaxation of our best QCR is as tight as Lagrangian bound of binary QCQP. Computational experiment is also conducted to illustrate the solution efficiency improvement of our best QCR when applied in off-the-shell software.


Binary QCQP Semidefinite programming Quadratic convex reformulation Global optimization 



The authors would like to thank three anonymous referees for their constructive suggestions and insightful comments, which helped improve the paper substantially.


  1. 1.
    Al-Khayyal, F.A., Larsen, C., Van Voorhis, T.: A relaxation method for nonconvex quadratically constrained quadratic programs. J. Global Optim. 6, 215–230 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anstreicher, K.M.: Semidefinite programming versus the reformulation-linearization technique for nonconvex quadratically constrained quadratic programming. J. Global Optim. 43, 471–484 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Audet, C., Hansen, P., Jaumard, B., Savard, G.: A branch and cut algorithm for nonconvex quadratically constrained quadratic programming. Math. Program. 87, 131–152 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beck, A., Eldar, Y.C.: Strong duality in nonconvex quadratic optimization with two quadratic constraints. SIAM J. Optim. 17, 844–860 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Billionnet, A., Elloumi, S.: Using a mixed integer quadratic programming solver for the unconstrained quadratic 0–1 problem. Math. Program. 109, 55–68 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Billionnet, A., Elloumi, S., Lambert, A.: Extending the QCR method to general mixed-integer programs. Math. Program. 131, 381–401 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Billionnet, A., Elloumi, S., Lambert, A.: Exact quadratic convex reformulations of mixed-integer quadratically constrained problems. Math. Program. (2015). zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Billionnet, A., Elloumi, S., Plateau, M.: Improving the performance of standard solvers for quadratic 0–1 programs by a tight convex reformulation: the QCR method. Discrete Appl. Math. 157, 1185–1197 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burer, S., Saxena, A.: Old wine in new bottle: the milp road to miqcp. Technical Report, Department of Management Sciences University of Iowa (2009).
  10. 10.
    Cui, X.T., Zheng, X.J., Zhu, S.S., Sun, X.L.: Convex relaxations and miqcqp reformulations for a class of cardinality-constrained portfolio selection problems. J. Global Optim. 56, 1409–1423 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galli, L., Letchford, A.: A compact variant of the QCR method for quadratically constrained quadratic 0–1 programs. Optim. Lett. 8, 1213–1224 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garey, M., Johnson, D.: Computers and Intractability: An Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gower, J.: Euclidean distance geometry. Math. Sci. 7(1), 1–14 (1982)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grant, M., Boyd, S.: CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.1, (2014).
  15. 15.
    Hammer, P., Rubin, A.: Some remarks on quadratic programming with 0–1 variables. RIRO 3, 67–79 (1970)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim, S., Kojima, M.: Exact solutions of some nonconvex quadratic optimization problems via SDP and SOCP relaxations. Comput. Optim. Appl. 26, 143–154 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klose, A., Drexl, A.: Facility location models for distribution system design. Europ. J. Oper. Res. 162, 4–29 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kolbert, F., Wormald, L.: Robust portfolio optimization using second-order cone programming. In: Satchell, S. (ed.) Optimizing Optimization: The Next Generation of Optimization Applications & Theory, pp. 3–22. Academic Press and Elsevier, Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Linderoth, J.: A simplicial branch-and-bound algorithm for solving quadratically constrained quadratic programs. Math. Program. 103, 251–282 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCormick, G.: Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: part Iconvex underestimating problems. Math. program. 10, 147–175 (1976)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nesterov, Y., Nemirovsky, A.: Interior-Point Polynomial Methods in Convex Programming. SIAM, Philadelphia (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pardalos, P.M., Rodgers, G.P.: Computational aspects of a branch and bound algorithm for quadratic zero–one programming. Computing 45, 131–144 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Raber, U.: A simplicial branch-and-bound method for solving nonconvex all-quadratic programs. J. Global Optim. 13, 417–432 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saxena, A., Bonami, P., Lee, J.: Convex relaxations of non-convex mixed integer quadratically constrained programs: projected formulations. Math. Program. 130, 359–413 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sherali, H.D., Adams, W.P.: A Reformulation–Linearization Technique for Solving Discrete and Continuous Nonconvex Problems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vandenberghe, L., Boyd, S.: Semidefinite programming. SIAM Rev. 38, 49–95 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ye, Y., Zhang, S.: New results on quadratic minimization. SIAM J. Optim. 14, 245–267 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang, S.: Quadratic maximization and semidefinite relaxation. Math. Program. 87, 453–465 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zheng, X.J., Sun, X.L., Li, D.: Convex relaxations for nonconvex quadratically constrained quadratic programming: matrix cone decomposition and polyhedral approximation. Math. program. 129, 301–329 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zheng, X.J., Sun, X.L., Li, D.: Nonconvex quadratically constrained quadratic programming: best DC decompositions and their SDP representations. J. Global Optim. 50, 695–712 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementTongji UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.School of MathematicsShanghai University of Finance and EconomicsShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations