Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Moment-SOS hierarchies for arrow-type polynomial matrix inequalities with applications to structural optimization

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that arrow decomposition—a sparsity-based way to break large semidefinite matrices into smaller ones—works inside moment-SOS hierarchies for polynomial matrix inequalities without losing global convergence, and shows large

desk verdict Solid extension of arrow decomposition to PMIs with a correct posterior convergence theorem, but the variable-reduction step and an unproven equality need fixing before the speedup claims are reliable. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02849 v1 pith:CEWCRHPT submitted 2025-09-02 math.OC

Marouan Handa , Marek Tyburec , Giovanni Fantuzzi , Victor Magron , Michal Kočvara This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 74P0590C2390C2265F50
keywords arrowdecompositionpolynomialmatrixinequalitiesmoment-SOShierarchysemidefiniteprogrammingtopologyoptimizationframestructuresrank-deficientmatricesstructural
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper extends the Arrow Decomposition technique—originally developed for linear matrix inequalities—to polynomial matrix inequalities inside moment-SOS hierarchies. Its central claim is Theorem 5: for an arrow-type PMI satisfying the paper's assumptions, the decomposed posterior hierarchy is at least as tight as the standard relaxation (pr ≤ ppost_AD,r ≤ p*) and still converges to the true optimum as the relaxation order grows. This matters because large polynomial matrix inequalities arise naturally in structural optimization, where stiffness matrices have the required arrow structure, and standard hierarchies become computationally or numerically intractable as the number of elements grows. The paper also weakens the original AD theorem to allow positive semidefinite blocks, so degenerate and rank-deficient cases—such as zero-stiffness elements—can be handled, and it adds a projection post-processing step that shrinks the matrix inequalities and can restore strict feasibility.

What carries the argument

Arrow decomposition: a way of rewriting an arrow-type matrix G = Σ_k G_k + diag(0, Γ) as a sum of smaller PSD matrices G_k plus correcting interface variables Dk,ℓ and blocks Ck that satisfy consistency equations. The proof rests on the generalized Schur complement (Lemma 1) using the Moore-Penrose inverse, which characterizes positive semidefiniteness even when the blocks are singular. In the posterior hierarchy, the correction matrices enter through the Kronecker factor Πk ⊗ IL, so the extra variables live outside the monomial basis; Proposition 4 then projects each localizing block onto the constant range space of Ak(x), reducing matrix sizes and variable counts.

What would settle it

Take a two-element frame compliance problem at relaxation order r=2 and force one element cross-sectional area to zero at a feasible point. Solve the full localizing-matrix relaxation (mSOS) and the reduced arrow-decomposed relaxation (ADmSOS2 with the Proposition 4 projection). If the reduced problem gives a different lower bound, becomes infeasible, or fails to certify the same global optimum as the full relaxation, the constant-range/null-space assumption has been violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The manuscript's main result is that applying arrow decomposition at the level of the moment-SOS relaxation, rather than to the original polynomial problem, preserves convergence while avoiding the explosion of monomial variables. The decomposed localizing-matrix inequalities in (ADmSOS2) use matrices (Πk ⊗ IL)bD and bCk as linearized surrogates for the polynomial auxiliary variables, keeping the monomial basis anchored in the original variables x. Theorem 5 shows the resulting lower bounds lie between the classical mSOS bound and p*, with limr→∞ ppost_AD,r = p*. In the LMI case, Theorem 3 generalizes the original AD theorem by replacing A ≻ 0 and Γ ≻ 0 with A ⪰ 0 and Γ ⪰ 0, and Proposition

Load-bearing premise

The variable-reduction shortcut assumes that each sub-block Ak(x) loses rank in exactly the same directions for every feasible x; in topology optimization, elements with zero cross-sectional area change the directions in which the stiffness matrix is degenerate, so the shortcut—and with it the reported speedups—may break down on the very designs it targets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every relaxation order r, the arrow-decomposed bound is between the standard mSOS bound and the true optimum, and asymptotically it reaches p*.
  • One can replace a single large localizing-matrix inequality by smaller decomposed ones without enlarging the monomial basis, enabling higher relaxation orders on finer structural discretizations.
  • Degenerate or rank-deficient blocks no longer need to be avoided: projection onto range spaces shrinks the inequalities and can restore the interior-point condition (strict feasibility).
  • Combined with a non-mixed-term monomial basis, the method reports large practical speedups on frame topology optimization, including a 5,500× reduction in solution time on one fourth-order relaxation example.
  • The same framework covers both compliance minimization and weight minimization of frame structures, with the auxiliary variables interpreted physically as interface forces between subdomains.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's variable-reduction shortcut assumes each block Ak(x) keeps the same range and null space for all feasible x; this is a real sensitivity point, because in topology optimization an element with zero cross-section can change the null space of the stiffness matrix, and an adaptive or differently-partitioned decomposition may be needed there.
  • The physical interpretation of the auxiliary variables as interface forces suggests a natural connection to domain-decomposition solvers: one could use a coarse equilibrium solve to initialize or precondition the SDP, an idea the paper notes but does not implement.
  • The same linearization trick that derives ADmSOS2 from ADmSOS1 could be applied to other structured sparsity patterns, such as chordal or correlative sparsity, wherever localizing matrices are already block-lifted by Kronecker factors.
  • The reported speedups pair arrow decomposition with the non-mixed-term basis; the paper's own data show AD alone can be slower at high relaxation orders when the added variables outnumber the savings, so choosing when to combine the two is itself a practical question.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper extends the Arrow Decomposition (AD) method for linear matrix inequalities to polynomial optimization problems with polynomial matrix inequalities, and combines it with moment-SOS hierarchies. The main theoretical results are: (i) Theorem 3, which generalizes the AD theorem of Kocvara (2020) from positive definite to positive semidefinite blocks; (ii) a posterior-to-mSOS AD hierarchy (ADmSOS2) whose optimal values lie between the standard mSOS bound and the true optimum and converge to the true optimum as the relaxation order goes to infinity (Theorem 5); and (iii) a variable-reduction procedure (Proposition 4 and Section 4.3) for matrices with constant range and null space, which is then used in the numerical experiments on topology optimization of frame structures. The paper also discusses an AD-prior-to-mSOS formulation, physical interpretations of the additional variables, and reports substantial computational speedups on beam and frame examples, with code available online.

Significance. If the results hold as stated, this is a useful contribution to the sparse polynomial optimization literature. Theorems 3 and 5 are clean, self-contained, and appear correct; Theorem 5 provides a convergent hierarchy with smaller semidefinite blocks than the standard mSOS relaxation, and the numerical evidence of speedups is striking. The paper also ships reproducible code (GitLab), which is a strength. However, the practical central claim—that the reduced problem solved in the numerical section is equivalent to the ADmSOS2 relaxation—rests on a constant-null-space assumption that is not justified for the targeted topology-optimization problems when zero-stiffness elements are allowed. This does not invalidate the core theoretical convergence results, but it materially weakens the paper's main computational claim as currently written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3 / Appendix A.2] The variable-reduction procedure used in the numerical section assumes that each A_k(x) has constant null space on K. The justification in Appendix A.2 is not valid. From K_k(x)v=0 at a single point x one cannot conclude that K_0 v=0 and K_e^(i)v=0 for all e,i; linear independence of monomials only supports such a conclusion if the identity holds for all x. A simple counterexample is K(x)=x_1 diag(1,0)+x_2 diag(0,1), where Null(K(0,0))=R^2 but Null(K(x))={0} for x_1,x_2>0. In the frame problems, K includes x_e>=0, so zero-area elements can enlarge the null space beyond rigid-body modes. Consequently, the reduced problem solved in Section 6 is not proven equivalent to (ADmSOS2), and the reported speedups and zero-stiffness design claims rest on an unverified assumption. Theorem 5 does not depend on this assumption, but the practical central claim does. Please either prove the required con
  2. [Section 4.1, after (ADmSOS1)] The statement 'Under Assumptions 1 and 3, and according to Proposition 2 and Theorem 2, we can show that pprior_AD,r = pr for any relaxation order r' is asserted without proof. Proposition 2 gives p_AD=p*, but equality of the degree-r mSOS truncations of two equivalent POPs is not automatic: adding variables and constraints can change the relaxation bound. This claim is used to position the prior approach as merely a bridge to the posterior approach. Please supply a proof or explicitly weaken the statement to an inequality or a limiting equality.
  3. [Proposition 1, proof of reverse implication] The proof of the case u∉Span(P_k) contains an incorrect implication: from u∉Span(A_k) it does not follow that u^T A_k u=0. For example, with A=diag(1,0,0), P=[e1 e2], and u=e1+e3, we have Span(A)⊆Span(P), u∉Span(P), yet u^T A u=1. The equivalence can still be recovered by decomposing u into its projection onto Span(P_k) and the orthogonal complement, using Span(A_k), Span(B_k+D_k)⊆Span(P_k), but the proof must be rewritten. Since this proposition underpins Proposition 4, the gap should not be left as is.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] Typo: 'wwhich' should be 'which' in the first paragraph.
  2. [Corollary 1 / Eq. (24)] The identity matrix in 'Π_k ⊗ I_d' should be I_{L_d} (the L_d-dimensional identity), not the d-dimensional identity, to match the dimensions of the matrices bD and bC.
  3. [Section 5.2] In the displayed decomposed compliance relaxation, the last block appears to write 'K_p(x)' where it should write the corresponding localizing matrix term M_{r-r_K}(Z_p y) (with the correct 2x2 block structure). Please check the typesetting.
  4. [Theorem 5 proof] The proof uses 'f post_AD,r' and 'f*' for values that are elsewhere denoted p post_AD,r and p*. Please unify notation.
  5. [Appendix A.2, Example 6] There is a typo in the expression for K_3: 'K3(x(3)' should be 'K3(x3)'. Also, the null-space basis vectors for K_2 should be checked for consistency with the stated dimensions.
  6. [Section 7] The paper explicitly lists 'extend the results of Section 4.3 to cases where the range and null space of the matrices A_k(x) may depend on x' as future work. This is appropriate, but it should be acknowledged earlier in the paper that the current numerical results do not cover that case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: Theorem 5 follows from Schur complements and Putinar's Positivstellensatz; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations, plus a non-circular proof gap in Section A.2.

full rationale

The central claim (Theorem 5: pr ≤ ppost_AD,r ≤ p* with convergence) is derived rather than assumed. Theorem 3 is proven from the generalized Schur complement (Lemma 1). Theorem 4 shows the arrow-decomposed moment/localizing conditions are equivalent to the standard ones by applying Theorem 3 to the block matrix Md(Gy), after establishing the diagonal blocks are PSD from the representing measure. Theorem 5 then combines Theorem 4 with the standard convergence Theorem 2; the inequality pr ≤ ppost_AD,r is immediate because any feasible (y,bD,bC) for (ADmSOS2) yields y feasible for (mSOS), and ppost_AD,r ≤ p* uses the measure from an optimal solution plus the existence of bD,bC guaranteed by Theorem 4. No fitted parameter is later called a prediction and no equation is re-introduced by definition. The self-citations to [1] supply the original AD concept and the domain-decomposition partition intuition, and [14,19,27] supply upper bounds and the NMT basis used only in numerics; none is load-bearing for Theorem 5, which is self-contained. I assign 2 rather than 0 only because of these minor, non-load-bearing self-citations. Correctness caveat, not circularity: Section A.2 tries to justify constant null spaces of Kk(x) from 'the monomials 1, x_k, x_k^2, x_k^3 are linearly independent' at a single x; linear independence as functions does not imply the coefficient matrices vanish at one x. This leaves the variable-elimination speedups of Section 4.3 dependent on an unproven constant-nullspace assumption for zero-area elements, but this does not affect the validity of Theorem 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rely on standard convergence theorems, a domain-specific PSD assumption on the PMI blocks, and a constant-range/null-space assumption that is restrictive but explicitly stated. No new physical entities are introduced. The additional variables D and C are optimization decision variables, not free model parameters.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Archimedean condition (Assumption 1): there exist an SOS polynomial p0 and a matrix SOS polynomial R such that the set {x : p0(x) + <R(x), G(x)> >= 0} is compact.
    Needed for Putinar's Positivstellensatz and convergence of the mSOS hierarchy. In applications, it is satisfied by scaling variables and adding a redundant ball constraint.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: For all x in K, Ak(x) >= 0 and Gamma(x) >= 0 for each block of the arrow-type PMI.
    This is the core condition that makes arrow decomposition applicable. It holds for element stiffness matrices in structural optimization where each Kk(x) is PSD for x >= 0.
  • ad hoc to paper Constant range and null space of Ak(x) over x (Section 4.3).
    Required for the efficient variable-reduction procedure in Proposition 4. Not guaranteed for all topology optimization problems, e.g., when zero-area elements change the null space of the stiffness matrix. The paper states this as a special case without discussing failure modes.
  • standard math Putinar's Positivstellensatz (Theorem 1) and the generalized Schur complement (Lemma 1).
    Standard external results invoked in the proofs of Theorems 3 and 4. They are used as black boxes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Moment-SOS hierarchies for arrow-type polynomial matrix inequalities with applications to structural optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CEWCRHPT

@misc{pith2026250902849,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Moment-SOS hierarchies for arrow-type polynomial matrix inequalities with applications to structural optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CEWCRHPT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02849}
}
read the original abstract

The Arrow Decomposition (AD) technique, initially introduced in [Mathematical Programming 190(1-2) (2021), pp 105-134], demonstrated superior scalability over the classical chordal decomposition in the context of Linear Matrix Inequalities (LMIs) if the matrix in question satisfied suitable assumptions. The primary objective of this paper is to extend the AD method to address Polynomial Optimization Problems (POPs) involving large-scale Polynomial Matrix Inequalities (PMIs), with the solution framework relying on moment-sum of square (mSOS) hierarchies. As a first step, we revisit the LMI case and weaken the conditions necessary for the key AD theorem presented in [Mathematical Programming 190(1-2) (2021), pp 105-134]. This modification allows the method to be applied to a broader range of problems. Next, we propose a practical procedure that reduces the number of additional variables, drawing on physical interpretations often found in structural optimization applications. For the PMI case, we explore two distinct approaches to combine the AD technique with mSOS hierarchies. One approach involves applying AD to the original POP before implementing the mSOS relaxation. The other approach applies AD directly to the mSOS relaxations of the POP. We establish convergence guarantees for both approaches and prove that theoretical properties extend to the polynomial case. Finally, we illustrate the significant computational advantages offered by the application of AD, particularly in the context of structural optimization problems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mathematical Programming190(1–2), 105– 134 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-020-01526-w

    Koˇ cvara, M.: Decomposition of arrow type positive semidefinite matrices with application to topology optimization. Mathematical Programming190(1–2), 105– 134 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-020-01526-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s10107-020-01526-w 2020

  2. [2]

    Indiana Univer- sity Mathematics Journal 42(3), 969–984 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1512/iumj

    Putinar, M.: Positive polynomials on compact semi-algebraic sets. Indiana Univer- sity Mathematics Journal 42(3), 969–984 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1512/iumj. 1993.42.42045

    doi:10.1512/iumj 1993

  3. [3]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 11(3), 796–817 (2001) https://doi.org/ 10.1137/S1052623400366802

    Lasserre, J.-B.: Global optimization with polynomials and the problem of moments. SIAM Journal on Optimization 11(3), 796–817 (2001) https://doi.org/ 10.1137/S1052623400366802

    doi:10.1137/s1052623400366802 2001

  4. [4]

    Mathematical programming 146, 97–121 (2014)

    Nie, J.: Optimality conditions and finite convergence of lasserre’s hierarchy. Mathematical programming 146, 97–121 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 17(3), 822–843 (2006) https://doi.org/ 10.1137/05064504X

    Lasserre, J.-B.: Convergent SDP-relaxations in polynomial optimization with sparsity. SIAM Journal on Optimization 17(3), 822–843 (2006) https://doi.org/ 10.1137/05064504X

    doi:10.1137/05064504x 2006

  6. [6]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 31(1), 30–58 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1137/19m1307871

    Wang, J., Magron, V., Lasserre, J.-B.: TSSOS: A moment-SOS hierarchy that exploits term sparsity. SIAM Journal on Optimization 31(1), 30–58 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1137/19m1307871

    doi:10.1137/19m1307871 2021

  7. [7]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 46 31(1), 114–141 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1137/20M1323564

    Wang, J., Magron, V., Lasserre, J.-B.: Chordal-tssos: A moment-sos hierarchy that exploits term sparsity with chordal extension. SIAM Journal on Optimization 46 31(1), 114–141 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1137/20M1323564

    work page doi:10.1137/20m1323564 2021

  8. [8]

    ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 48(4), 1–26 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1145/3569709

    Wang, J., Magron, V., Lasserre, J.B., Mai, N.H.A.: CS-TSSOS: Correlative and term sparsity for large-scale polynomial optimization. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 48(4), 1–26 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1145/3569709

    doi:10.1145/3569709 2022

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Mathematical Programming 205(1–2), 703–744 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10107-023-01993-x

    Korda, M., Laurent, M., Magron, V., Steenkamp, A.: Exploiting ideal-sparsity in the generalized moment problem with application to matrix factorization ranks. Mathematical Programming 205(1–2), 703–744 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10107-023-01993-x

    2023

  2. [10]

    Mathematics of Operations Research 38(1), 122–141 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.1120.0558

    Riener, C., Theobald, T., Andr´ en, L.J., Lasserre, J.-B.: Exploiting symmetries in SDP-relaxations for polynomial optimization. Mathematics of Operations Research 38(1), 122–141 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.1120.0558

    2013

  3. [11]

    Series on Optimization and Its Applications, vol

    Magron, V., Wang, J.: Sparse Polynomial Optimization: Theory and Practice. Series on Optimization and Its Applications, vol. 5. World Scientific (Europe), London (2023). https://doi.org/10.1142/q0382

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Mathematical Programming 209(1–2), 435– 473 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-024-02071-6

    Korda, M., Magron, V., R ´ ıos-Zertuche, R.: Convergence rates for sums-of-squares hierarchies with correlative sparsity. Mathematical Programming 209(1–2), 435– 473 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-024-02071-6

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Con- ference on Decision and Control, pp

    Henrion, D., Lofberg, J., Kocvara, M., Stingl, M.: Solving polynomial static output feedback problems with penbmi. In: Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Con- ference on Decision and Control, pp. 7581–7586 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1109/ cdc.2005.1583385 . IEEE

    2005

  6. [14]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization64(4), 1963–1981 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-021-02957-5

    Tyburec, M., Zeman, J., Kruˇ z ´ ık, M., Henrion, D.: Global optimality in minimum compliance topology optimization of frames and shells by moment-sum-of-squares hierarchy. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization64(4), 1963–1981 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-021-02957-5

    1963 doi

  7. [15]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv

    Popovych, Z., Jacobs, K., Korpas, G., Marecek, J., Bondar, D.I.: Quantum open system identification via global optimization: Optimally accurate Markovian mod- els of open systems from time-series data (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2203.17164

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 51(2), 192–202 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2005.863494

    Henrion, D., Lasserre, J.-B.: Convergent relaxations of polynomial matrix inequal- ities and static output feedback. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 51(2), 192–202 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2005.863494

    2006

  9. [17]

    Mathematical Programming 107(1–2), 189–211 (2005) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10107-005-0684-2

    Scherer, C.W., Hol, C.W.J.: Matrix sum-of-squares relaxations for robust semi- definite programs. Mathematical Programming 107(1–2), 189–211 (2005) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10107-005-0684-2

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    arXiv 47 preprint arXiv:2411.15479 (2024)

    Miller, J., Wang, J., Guo, F.: Sparse polynomial matrix optimization. arXiv 47 preprint arXiv:2411.15479 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Optimization and Engineering, 1–44 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11081-025-10000-5

    Handa, M., Tyburec, M., Koˇ cvara, M.: Term-sparse polynomial optimization for the design of frame structures. Optimization and Engineering, 1–44 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11081-025-10000-5

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    Mathematical Programming 197(1), 71–108 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10107-021-01728-w

    Zheng, Y., Fantuzzi, G.: Sum-of-squares chordal decomposition of polynomial matrix inequalities. Mathematical Programming 197(1), 71–108 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10107-021-01728-w

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    In: 2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp

    Zheng, Y., Fantuzzi, G., Papachristodoulou, A.: Decomposition and completion of sum-of-squares matrices. In: 2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 4026–4031. IEEE, USA (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2018. 8619144

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Texts in Applied Mathematics

    Gallier, J.: Geometric Methods and Applications: For Computer Science and Engineering. Texts in Applied Mathematics. Springer, USA (2011). https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9961-0

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2015)

    Lasserre, J.-B.: An Introduction to Polynomial and Semi-Algebraic Optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2015). https://doi.org/10.1017/ cbo9781107447226

    2015

  16. [24]

    Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society 119(568), 1–52 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1090/memo/0568

    Curto, R.E., Fialkow, L.A.: Solution of the truncated complex moment problem for flat data. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society 119(568), 1–52 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1090/memo/0568

    1996 doi

  17. [25]

    Henrion, D., Lasserre, J.-B.: Detecting global optimality and extracting solutions in GloptiPoly, pp. 293–310. Springer, Berlin, Germany (2005). https://doi.org/ 10.1007/10997703 15

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    https://doi.org/ 10.1137/23M1557088

    Henrion, D., Korda, M., Kruˇ z ´ ık, M., Rios-Zertuche, R.: Occupation measure relaxations in variational problems: the role of convexity (2023). https://doi.org/ 10.1137/23M1557088

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Opti- mization 66(12), 257 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-023-03715-5

    Tyburec, M., Koˇ cvara, M., Kruˇ z ´ ık, M.: Global weight optimization of frame structures with polynomial programming. Structural and Multidisciplinary Opti- mization 66(12), 257 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-023-03715-5

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Tyburec, M., Koˇ cvara, M., Handa, M., Zeman, J.: Global weight optimization of frame structures under free-vibration eigenvalue constraints (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Linear algebra and its applications 107, 101–149 (1988) https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3795(88)90240-6

    Agler, J., Helton, W., McCullough, S., Rodman, L.: Positive semidefinite matrices with a given sparsity pattern. Linear algebra and its applications 107, 101–149 (1988) https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3795(88)90240-6

    1988 doi

  22. [30]

    48 Foundations and Trends in Optimization 1(4), 241–433 (2015) https://doi.org/ 10.1561/2400000006

    Vandenberghe, L., Andersen, M.S.: Chordal graphs and semidefinite optimization. 48 Foundations and Trends in Optimization 1(4), 241–433 (2015) https://doi.org/ 10.1561/2400000006

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    SIAM Journal on optimization 11(3), 647–674 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1137/S1052623400366218

    Fukuda, M., Kojima, M., Murota, K., Nakata, K.: Exploiting sparsity in semidefi- nite programming via matrix completion i: General framework. SIAM Journal on optimization 11(3), 647–674 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1137/S1052623400366218

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    Applied Optimization, vol

    De Klerk, E.: Aspects of Semidefinite Programming: Interior Point Algorithms and Selected Applications. Applied Optimization, vol. 65. Kluwer Academic Pub- lishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/B105286

    2006 doi

  25. [33]

    Japan Journal of Industrial and Applied Mathematics 27(1), 125– 160 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1007/s13160-010-0006-9

    Murota, K., Kanno, Y., Kojima, M., Kojima, S.: A numerical algorithm for block- diagonal decomposition of matrix ∗ -algebras with application to semidefinite programming. Japan Journal of Industrial and Applied Mathematics 27(1), 125– 160 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1007/s13160-...

    2010 doi

  26. [34]

    IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 68(2), 456–468 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/tmtt.2019.2955082

    Xue, L., Jiao, D.: Method for analytically finding the nullspace of stiffness matrix for both zeroth-order and higher order curl-conforming vector bases in unstruc- tured meshes. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 68(2), 456–468 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109...

    2020

  27. [35]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 198(37–40), 3084– 3095 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2009.05.012 49

    Shklarski, G., Toledo, S.: Computing the null space of finite element problems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 198(37–40), 3084– 3095 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2009.05.012 49

    2009 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.