An appealing feature of interior methods for linear programming is that the number of iterations required to solve a problem tends to be relatively insensitive to the choice of initial point. This feature has the drawback that it is difficult to design interior methods that efficiently utilize information from an optimal solution to a “nearby” problem. We discuss this feature in the context of general nonlinear programming and specialize to linear programming. We demonstrate that warm start for a particular nonlinear programming problem, given a near-optimal solution for a “nearby” problem, is closely related to an SQP method applied to an equality-constrained problem. These results are further refined for the case of linear programming.


nonlinear programming linear programming interior method warm start 


  1. [1]
    A. Ben-Tal and M. Teboulle. A geometric property of the least squares solution of linear equations. Linear Algebra Appl, 139:165–170, 1990.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    I. I. Dikin. On the speed of an iterative process. Upravlyaemye Sistemi, 12:54–60, 1974.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Forsgren. On linear least-squares problems with diagonally dominant weight matrices. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 17:763–788, 1996.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Forsgren. Inertia-controlling factorizations for optimization algorithms. Appl. Num. Math., 43:91–107, 2002.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Forsgren, P. E. Gill, and J. D. Griffin. Iterative solution of augmented systems arising in interior methods. Report TRITA-MAT-2005-OS3, Department of Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2005.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. Forsgren, P. E. Gill, and M. H. Wright. Interior methods for nonlinear optimization. SIAM Rev., 44(4):525–597 (electronic) (2003), 2002.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. Forsgren and G. Sporre. On weighted linear least-squares problems related to interior methods for convex quadratic programming. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 23:42–56, 2001.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    A. Forsgren and G. Sporre. Relations between divergence of multipliers and convergence to infeasible points in primal-dual interior methods for nonconvex nonlinear programming. Report TRITA-MAT-2002-OS7, Department of Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. Gondzio and A. Grothey. Reoptimization with the primal-dual interior point method. SIAM J. Optim., 13(3):842–864 (electronic) (2003), 2002.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Gonzalez-Lima, H. Wei, and H. Wolkowicz. A stable iterative method for linear programming. Report CORR 2004-26, Department of Combinatorics and Optimization, University of Waterloo, 2004.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    B. Jansen, J. J. de Jong, C. Roos, and T. Terlaky. Sensitivity analysis in linear programming:just be careful! European J. Oper. Res., 101:15–28, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    W.-J. Kim, C.-K. Park, and S. Park. An ∈-sensitivity analysis in the primal-dual interior point method. European J. Oper Res., 116:629–639, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright. Numerical Optimization. Springer, New York, 1999. ISBN 0-387-98793-2.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    A. Wächter and L. T. Biegler. Failure of global convergence for a class of interior point methods for nonlinear programming. Math. Program., 88:565–574, 2000.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    M. H. Wright. The interior-point revolution in optimization: history, recent developments, and lasting consequences. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.), 42(1):39–56 (electronic), 2005.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    S. J. Wright. Primal-Dual Interior-Point Methods. SIAM, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 1997. ISBN 0-89871-382-X.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    E. A. Yildirim. An interior-point perspective on sensitivity analysis in semidefinite programming. Math. Oper. Res., 28(4):649–676, 2003.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    E. A. Yildirim and M. J. Todd. Sensitivity analysis in linear programming and semidefinite programming using interior-point methods. Math. Program., 90(2, Ser. A):229–261, 2001.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    E. A. Yildirim and M. J. Todd. An interior-point approach to sensitivity analysis in degenerate linear programs. SIAM J. Optim., 12(3):692–714 (electronic), 2002.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    E. A. Yildirim and S. J. Wright. Warm-start strategies in interior-point methods for linear programming. SIAM J. Optim., 12(3):782–810 (electronic), 2002.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Forsgren
    • 1
  1. 1.Optimization and Systems Theory, Department of MathematicsRoyal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations