Solving Euclidean Distance Matrix Completion Problems Via Semidefinite Programming

  • Abdo Y. Alfakih
  • Amir Khandani
  • Henry Wolkowicz


Given a partial symmetric matrix A with only certain elements specified, the Euclidean distance matrix completion problem (EDMCP) is to find the unspecified elements of A that make A a Euclidean distance matrix (EDM). In this paper, we follow the successful approach in [20] and solve the EDMCP by generalizing the completion problem to allow for approximate completions. In particular, we introduce a primal-dual interior-point algorithm that solves an equivalent (quadratic objective function) semidefinite programming problem (SDP). Numerical results are included which illustrate the efficiency and robustness of our approach. Our randomly generated problems consistently resulted in low dimensional solutions when no completion existed.

Euclidean distance matrices semidefinite programming completion problems primal-dual interior-point method 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Alfakih and H. Wolkowicz, “On the embeddability of weighted graphs in Euclidean spaces,” Technical Report CORR Report 98–12, University of Waterloo, 1998. Submitted-URL: Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Al-Homidan, “Hybrid methods for optimization problems with positive semidefinite matrix constraints,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Dundee, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Al-Homidan and R. Fletcher, “Hybrid methods for finding the nearest Euclidean distance matrix,” in Recent Advances in Nonsmooth Optimization, World Sci. Publishing River Edge, NJ, 1995, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Alizadeh, “Combinatorial optimization with interior point methods and semidefinite matrices,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Alizadeh, “Interior point methods in semidefinite programming with applications to combinatorial optimization,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 5, pp. 13–51, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Alizadeh, J.-P. Haeberly, M.V. Nayakkankuppam, and M.L. Overton, “Sdppack user's guide—version 0.8 beta,” Technical Report TR1997–734, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, NYU, New York, March 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Bakonyi and C.R. Johnson, “The Euclidean distance matrix completion problem,” SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., vol. 16,no. 2, pp. 646–654, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.A. Brualdi and H.J. Ryser, Combinatorial Matrix Theory, Cambridge University Press: New York, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G.M. Crippen and T.F. Havel, Distance Geometry and Molecular Conformation, Wiley: New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Critchley, “On certain linear mappings between inner-product and squared distance matrices.” Linear Algebra Appl., vol. 105, pp. 91–107, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.W. Farebrother, “Three theorems with applications to Euclidean distance matrices,” Linear Algebra Appl., vol. 95, pp. 11–16, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. Glunt, T.L. Hayden, S. Hong, and J. Wells, “An alternating projection algorithm for computing the nearest Euclidean distance matrix.” SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., vol. 11,no. 4, pp. 589–600, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M.X. Goemans, “Semidefinite programming in combinatorial optimization,” Mathematical Programmings, vol. 79, pp. 143–162, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E.G. Gol'stein, Theory of Convex Programming, American Mathematical Society: Providence, RI, 1972.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J.C. Gower, “Properties of Euclidean and non-Euclidean distance matrices,” Linear Algebra Appl., vol. 67, pp. 81–97, 1985.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T.L. Hayden, J. Wells, W-M. Liu, and P. Tarazaga, “The cone of distance matrices,” Linear Algebra Appl., vol. 144, pp. 153–169, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Helmberg, “An interior point method for semidefinite programming and max-cut bounds,” Ph.D. Thesis, Graz University of Technology, Austria, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Helmberg, F. Rendl, R.J. Vanderbei, and H. Wolkowicz, “An interior point method for semidefinite programming,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, pp. 342–361, 1996. URL: Scholar
  19. 19.
    R.A. Horn and C.R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis, Cambridge University Press: New York, 1985.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Johnson, B. Kroschel, and H. Wolkowicz, “An interior-point method for approximate positive semidefinite completions,” Computational Optimization and Applications, vol. 9,no. 2, pp. 175–190, 1998.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C.R. Johnson and P. Tarazaga, “Connections between the real positive semidefinite and distance matrix completion problems,” Linear Algebra Appl., vol. 223/224, pp. 375–391, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    E. De Klerk, “Interior point methods for semidefinite programming,” Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. Kruk, M. Muramatsu, F. Rendl, R.J. Vanderbei, and H. Wolkowicz, “The Gauss-Newton direction in linear and semidefinite programming,” Technical Report CORR 98–16, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, 1998. Detailed Web Version at URL: Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Laurent, “A tour d'horizon on positive semidefinite and Euclidean distance matrix completion problems,” in Topics in Semidefinite and Interior-Point Methods, The Fields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences, Communications Series, vol. 18, American Mathematical Society: Providence, RI, 1998.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. De Leeuw and W. Heiser, “Theory of multidimensional scaling,” in Handbook of Statistics, P.R. Krishnaiah and L.N. Kanal (Eds.), North-Holland, 1982, vol. 2, pp. 285–316.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Lele, “Euclidean distance matrix analysis (EDMA): Estimation of mean form and mean form difference,” Math. Geol., vol. 25,no. 5, pp. 573–602, 1993.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    F. Lempio and H. Maurer, “Differential stability in infinite-dimensional nonlinear programming,” Appl. Math. Optim., vol. 6, pp. 139–152, 1980.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J.J. Moré and Z. Wu, “Global continuation for distance geometry problems,” Technical Report MCS-P505–0395, Applied Mathematics Division, Argonne National Labs, Chicago, IL, 1996.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J.J. Moré and Z. Wu, “Distance geometry optimization for protein structures,” Technical Report MCS-P628–1296, Applied Mathematics Division, Argonne National Labs, Chicago, IL, 1997.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Y.E. Nesterov and A.S. Nemirovski, Interior Point Polynomial Algorithms in Convex Programming, SIAM Publications, SIAM: Philadelphia, USA, 1994.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    P.M. Pardalos, D. Shalloway, and G. Xue (Eds.), “Global minimization of nonconvex energy functions: Molecular conformation and protein folding,” DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 23, American Mathematical Society: Providence, RI, 1996. Papers from the DIMACS Workshop held as part of the DIMACS Special Year on Mathematical Support for Molecular Biology at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, March 1995.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    G. Pataki, “Cone programming and eigenvalue optimization: Geometry and algorithms,” Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1996.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    M.V. Ramana, “An algorithmic analysis of multiquadratic and semidefinite programming problems,” Ph.D. Thesis, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 1993.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    I.J. Schoenberg, “Remarks to Maurice Frechet's article: Sur la definition axiomatique d'une classe d'espaces vectoriels distancies applicables vectoriellement sur l'espace de Hilbert,” Ann. Math., vol. 36, pp. 724–732, 1935.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    J. Sturm, “Primal-dual interior point approach to semidefinite programming,” Ph.D. Thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 1997.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    P. Tarazaga, T.L. Hayden, and J. Wells, “Circum-Euclidean distance matrices and faces,” Linear Algebra Appl., vol. 232, pp. 77–96, 1996.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    M. Todd, “On search directions in interior-point methods for semidefinite programming,” Technical Report TR1205, School of OR and IE, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1997.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    W.S. Torgerson, “Multidimensional scaling. I. Theory and method,” Psychometrika, vol. 17, pp. 401–419, 1952.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    M.W. Trosset, “Applications of multidimensional scaling to molecular conformation,” Technical Report, Rice University, Houston, Texas, 1997.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    M.W. Trosset, “Computing distances between convex sets and subsets of the positive semidefinite matrices,” Technical Report, Rice University, Houston, Texas, 1997.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    M.W. Trosset, “Distance matrix completion by numerical optimization,” Technical Report, Rice University, Houston, Texas, 1997.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    L. Vandenberghe and S. Boyd, “Positive definite programming,” in Mathematical Programming: State of the Art, 1994, The University of Michigan, 1994, pp. 276–308.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    L. Vandenberghe and S. Boyd, “Semidefinite programming,” SIAM Review, vol. 38, pp. 49–95, 1996.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    H. Wolkowicz, “Some applications of optimization in matrix theory,” Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 40, pp. 101–118, 1981.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    S. Wright, Primal-Dual Interior-Point Methods, SIAM: Philadelphia, PA, 1996.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Y. Ye, Interior Point Algorithms: Theory and Analysis, Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1997.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    F.Z. Zhang, “On the best Euclidean fit to a distance matrix,” Beijing Shifan Daxue Xuebao, vol. 4, pp. 21–24, 1987.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Z. Zou, R.H. Byrd, and R.B. Schnabel, “A stochastic/perturbation global optimization algorithm for distance geometry problems,” Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdo Y. Alfakih
    • 1
  • Amir Khandani
    • 2
  • Henry Wolkowicz
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Combinatorics and OptimizationUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of Electrical & Computer EngineeringUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.Department of Combinatorics and OptimizationUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations